Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/03/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder. Jespinos (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work - small/middle size witout EXIFs - + prior catches with google Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright by WWE - Techarrow (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:PD-RU-exempt does not apply to this television series poster Hekerui (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in public domain. Dereckson (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work, it's a formal portrait and a version in higher resolution exists at http://paroquiadesolanea.blogspot.com/2012/08/posse-do-novo-bispo-de-campina-grande.html Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Dereckson (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This coat of arms is not "own work". Hekerui (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work. Dereckson (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The uncropped source image on flickr looks clearly like a capture from TV; thereby likely a copyvio. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear flickrwashing copyvio. Sandstein (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
non-free media file.copy from [1]. Ks aka 98 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- speedy delete copyvio --58.188user (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free media grabbed from the web whym (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Similar to File:Karachi district map.png and not in use. Wikivoyager (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The maps are not duplicates, and are the "same" but are different. We let editors choose which map they wish to use; not being in use is not a reason for deletion russavia (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- This looks good. Nice example of a Caucasian woman. Penyulap ☏ 15:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
File:I cant believe how lucky I am to be able to shoot with people as lovely as Allycia - and Im not complaining! (8376547361).jpg
[edit]out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks ok for anthropology / race studies, nice model, but the attitude of the photographer is not professional from that spiel, and the sort of thing that is a problem for a clearly identifiable person. May not be what the model had in mind, especially captioned the way it is. Picture is ok, Picture + name + caption = not so good. Penyulap ☏ 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I just created and uploaded a file, only to see it was based on misinformation. I'd like to speedy delete this before others are confused. Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Info – Added {{Speedydelete}} to file. 12:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Taken from a rather obvious Flickrwashing license. Unlikely that this is the Flickr user's original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – Duplicate file uploaded. Senator2029 11:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate High Contrast (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Dubious licensing; image is visible here: http://www.katu.com/sports/80859742.html Zagalejo (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete – Reupload of previously deleted copyvio. Photo is by Steve Benham/KATU.com. Senator2029 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This original creation is out of scope, unless there are sources showing that Pope Francis' coat of arms will follow his prior design with just the hat changing. Without any sources this speculative design may actually be misleading and as a result mis-educate, the opposite of the aim of this project. Apart from that, the copyright side looks fine. Fæ (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Original research. Speedy deletion --Johnson Lau (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do know that Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a "No Original Research" policy? AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- AnonMoos, I certainly do. I also know that Commons has an "official policy" of Commons:Project scope which states that hosted media files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". My nomination is underpinned by this central policy as this file is the opposite of educational, it is already being used on Wikipedia projects to falsely educate the public into an apparent unsupportable fiction rather than a fact.
- To help avoid further Wikimedia project contributors mistakenly using this file as a real coat of arms for the Pope, it has been moved to "File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg". --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do know that Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a "No Original Research" policy? AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep -- Right now it's a reasonable extrapolation (though not official, of course). If there are changes when the official announcement occurs, then the image can be adjusted at that time. No need to delete now, though a warning that it's not official can be added... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep -- This is harmless. Just clarify in the description that this is a personal work not related to the real coat of arms. Hektor (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Of course, unless there are legal arguments. Just put it in the right context, maybe move filename. --Itu (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete The work itself is not illegal, but it cannot be presented as the arms of Pope Francis. No papal arms of Francis have—as far as I know—been proclaimed and/or presented in public. Also, Popes do not use Spanish noble coronets. These arms are obviously original research. Ergo: The file should either have its name changed or be deleted. 129.177.138.114 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Just an extrapolation of someones mind. There are no official sources yet and there is no reason to keep a funny drawing as the pope's coat of arms. --Heraklitcnl (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep per User:Itu--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Has now been renamed to File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg which should resolve all reasonable concerns, so I propose "speedy keep" now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- And speedy delete the redirect. --Itu (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kept. I'm keeping this file under the name File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg; both misleading redirects have already been deleted. I'm closing this DR upon agreement from the nominator, Fæ. odder (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 19:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted Pokémon figure Narayan (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Non-free AFP photo according by Fethi Belaid accoring to the metadata. It seems unlikely that Magharebia would be authorised to sublicense AFP content. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: actually AFP and Getty in Metadata Denniss (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Picture does not contribute to illustrating articles. Possible copyvio, since all graphic creations once laced on a material base acquire automatic copyright protection under international treaties. Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- yeah, because memorials tell nothing about history. Maybe we should wait another 45 years to confirm that this is permanently on display and thus under FOP - Vera (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think that this is in scope. The poster is dated 1978 but the photo was taken in 2012. Has the poster been hanging there since 1978? If so, then I would say that this is permanently installed, as required by COM:FOP#Netherlands. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, as this is obviously a revenge nomination[2],[3]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone point out the educational value of this photo? that is, after all, the reason for nomination for deletion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It shows a bit of history of nl:HBS-Craeyenhout. If you extend that article with more information about the history about the club, then you could easily find some use for the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope), no apparent educational use. Copyvio? Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Copyvio?" - ever read Commons:FOP#Netherlands? --Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- So I could put a book on a bench, photograph its pages, publish them and claim FOP? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The image is covered by COM:FOP#Netherlands. The question is whether it is in scope, but logos are often shown in Wikipedia articles, so I would assume that photos of logos are in scope. See also ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/画像:立川国際中等教育学校校章.JPG where a similar kind of image was kept. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, as this is obviously a revenge nomination[4],[5]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The real question is the legitimacy of the Out of Scope claim and the possible copyvio. This is a graphic creation protected under international treaties, this image obviously is about the graphic creation and is not inserted into a wider context, making a a reproduction usable for any purpose contrary to Copyright Law and Common´s policy. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 09:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
no licence Svajcr (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sie wird im Artikel über Heinz Bienefeld nicht verwendet. Norbertheinze (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted per missing permission, see ticket:2013030210006282 --Krd 07:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture in France by w:Igor Mitoraj who is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France. Sculptor alive. Dereckson (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright by WWE - Techarrow (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright by WWE - Techarrow (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
я так хочу! SuslayK (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal image. Request of the uploader. Bad quality. Sinnamon (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry of =N–. File:Murexide.svg is correct. Leyo 19:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that the geometry was incorrect, but since the file is widely used, I uploaded a replacement which is a corrected version. Ed (Edgar181) 16:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Leyo 16:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. - Correcta-informacion (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Senator2029 12:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This file has been replaced on en.wikipedia by en:File:Hamilton-Wentworth CDSB logo.jpg (uploaded under fair use). The file on Commons can now be deleted. Senator2029 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Thanks for transferring it --moogsi (blah) 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. The subject of this photo is a statue made in 1994. Vantey (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This photo is from here, and the page is marked ©Hitssports.com 2013. The terms and conditions do not license this under GFDL or CC-BY-3.0. But is the copyright actually still held by the team that uploaded the file to the site? Senator2029 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
logo with Copyright by WWE - Techarrow (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Logo with copyright by WWE - Techarrow (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Its usefulness deemed unlikely. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a album cover, likely copyright violation. It is from a new user who may have chosen the same screenname as the file name in an attempt to fool us. Senator2029 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Taken from a rather obvious Flickrwashing license. Unlikely that this is the Flickr user's original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- edited to add This is the originating Flickr account - the entire account is a mix of Getty and AP photos with a couple of newspaper/independent photog images. --Ytoyoda (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – After viewing image and source, I agree with Ytoyoda. Senator2029 11:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not-useful image of an identifiable person which labels them a binge drinker Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – The photo doesn't show effects of binge drinking... it shows a guy burping after drinking his beer too quickly. Haha! But seriously, I agree with Nick-D's reason for requesting the deletion. Senator2029 11:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This is just a little bit on the dark side mr.choppers (talk)-en- 07:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – Too dark to be useful. Can't make out the details of the vehicle; looks like a generic van. Senator2029 11:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyvio, author is zh:钟春琛 shizhao (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Minecraft videogame according to user kismalac (Deletion requests/File:Minecraft cube.svg) 89.249.2.53 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It clear shows minecraft on phone, a videogame which are copyrigthed 89.249.2.53 09:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copied from http://www.papuakids.dk/index.php?id=2 80.161.143.239 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This advertisment is not the uploader's "own work", and the description lacks a date. File license under Creative Commons is bogus, and therefore it is a copyright violation. Senator2029 10:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No EXIF tags, low resolution, others file uploaded as copyvio from several websites by the user. Dereckson (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan.
- File:Баку, Flame Towers.JPG
- File:Баку, Flame Towers утром.JPG
- File:Баку, вид на башни.JPG
- File:Баку, Отель Апшерон.JPG
- File:Баку, Центр Алиева.JPG
- File:Баку, Центральный род дом.JPG
- File:Баку, Верховный суд.JPG
- File:Баку, Морской вокзал.JPG
- File:Баку, Площадь фонтанов.JPG
- File:Баку, Площадь фонтанов.....JPG
- File:Баку, фонтан..JPG
- File:Баку, Площадь фонтанов..JPG
- File:Баку. Площадь фонтанов.JPG
- File:БакуБаку, Центр Г. Алиева.JPG
- File:Баку, Центр Г.Алиева.JPG
- File:Баку, Центр Г. Алиева.JPG
- File:Баку, Центр Алиева.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
low res copy of File:П. Соколов. Портрет П. М. Виардо-Гарсиа. Ок. 1844.png Shakko (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
low res copy of File:П.Соколов.Портрет княгини М.Н.Волконской с сыном Николаем.1826.png Shakko (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
low res copy of File:Sokolov Sophia Alexandrovna Bobrinsky .jpg Shakko (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Per conclusion of this deletion request, photographies with {{PD-Denmark50}} must clearly state (and prove beyond a significant doubt), that the photo has been published before 1 March 1989. In this case it is not clear. heb [T C E] 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Per conclusion of this deletion request, photographies with {{PD-Denmark50}} must clearly state (and prove beyond a significant doubt), that the photo has been published before 1 March 1989. In this case it is not clear. heb [T C E] 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Better file without mistakes about the subject : File:Anthony Van Dick - Ritratto equestre dell'imperatore Carlo V - Google Art Project.jpg Sammyday (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now the file is almost properly tagged, except the MS IE elements. Wpedzich (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this copyright violation? Narayan (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - not educationally usefull Narayan (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation Narayan (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private image Narayan (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Narayan (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - pirvate picture Narayan (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation - Wilfrid Moser died in 1997! Narayan (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation - Wilfrid Moser died in 1997! Narayan (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation - Wilfrid Moser died in 1997! Narayan (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation- author is still living! Narayan (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - collage of private pictures Narayan (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - test image Narayan (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Although 20minutos offers its contents under a CC-BY-SA license, third party pictures are specifically excluded. The ones included in this newspaper front page, although blurred, do belong to third parties. In fact, although blurred they are recognizable and therefore they are derivative works indeed Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Horrible quality photo in which the subject is practically unrecognizable. No practical use. Balph Eubank (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope- private picture Narayan (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for sure. Oh what has become of chain mail armour over the years, terrible, terrible. :D silver jewellery, scarves, plenty in this. Penyulap ☏ 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep On this one -- it's in the scope of chain mail armour and also the Texas Renaissance Festival. russavia (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
private picture - out of scope! Narayan (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unsued trivial logo of company with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment zh:卡姆勒 was deleted per zh:WP:CSD#G11. Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is that {{Copyvio}}？--广雅 范★ 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- G11 on Chinese Wikipedia seems to be more or less the same as G11 on English Wikipedia, meaning advertisement and similar things. The logo may or may not be a copyvio. This depends on the threshold of originality in China. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- But I found it posted on the other website first and then upload to the commons--广雅 范★ 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- G11 on Chinese Wikipedia seems to be more or less the same as G11 on English Wikipedia, meaning advertisement and similar things. The logo may or may not be a copyvio. This depends on the threshold of originality in China. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is that {{Copyvio}}？--广雅 范★ 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, painter Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, painter Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, painter Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, painter Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation, painter Francesc Fornells-Pla died in 1999 Narayan (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope-private picture Narayan (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation- painter Alexei Chvostenko died in 2004 Narayan (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Image of unremarkable person, used on promotional article in es.wiki Morning ☼ (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. --Ginés90 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of Common's scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) was fooled into accepting this image from Flickr. This image is from The Dark Knight Rises movie poster. All artwork related to that is ™ & © 2012 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc and DC Comics. Senator2029 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Didym (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
unused user image, out of scope Didym (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope -private picture Narayan (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope, too vague to be of any practical use. Wizardman 16:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, no valid EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-promotion image. Jespinos (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: obvious textbook scan. Wizardman 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio or out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
uploader request (see [6])Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio or out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. (A file with the same name has been deleted before BTW.) E4024 (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by using templates and software protected by copyright Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by using templates and software protected by copyright Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by using templates and software protected by copyright Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by using templates and software protected by copyright Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Created by using templates and software protected by copyright Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution and blurry. Alan Lorenzo (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Same photograph is used at this site. While there is not a copyright notice on the other site, there is no indication that the uploader is connected with that site or has permission to use the photo. Michitaro (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Same photograph is used on this page. While there is no copyright notice on the page, there is no indication the uploader is associated with this site or has permission to use the photo. Michitaro (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Promotional image of a television programme. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
no sources 189.232.97.227 13:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, look like still from movie/TV Imedeiros (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-promotion image. Jespinos (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Image is used in collage on title page of official web: collage. --Adam Hauner (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jespinos (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, only text contribution. Jespinos (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio. --Miha (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that it was published (or even taken) in the US before 1923. Uploaded to the English Wikipedia first as ca. 1920s ([7]), when challenged there swiftly uploaded here with the new date of "ca. 1900s", without any evidence to support this sudden change of 20 years. The claimed date may be correct, but without any means to verify this, we shouldn't just assume it to be correct. Fram (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- i didn't see any evidence for the 1920's. appears to be same date as
, but these are all guesses. are you seriously arguing that it was taken in 1924 or 1925? tell you what, there are several biographies. if i go to the library of congress and sort through their photo credits, will you accept a report, or do you need a notarized statement from the photographer? btw check out the provenance of 
which has the exact same problem. by your actions on the latter item, we will judge whether you are fair dealing or just hounding. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do you, the uploader, have any indication whatsoever that this image was published in the US (or even elsewhere) before 1923? You, the one claiming that it is public domain, has to provide evidence to support your claim; I can't prove that it isn't public domain, having no reliable indication of when the image was taken or when it was first published. Your comment is nothing but distraction, the Library of Congress has nothing to do with this file, and I am discussing this file, not any of the probably thousands of others on Commons that may have similar problems (although the one you link to is at least considerably older, and any claim that that one was not taken prior to 1923 would be dubious: publication date is not clear though): and how you will judge me is the least of my concerns. Fram (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- you, would you, care to address the question: what standard of proof will you accept? will you accept a search of the written photo credits in printed sources? is that acceptable to you? without a confirmation from you i won't bother with such a search. stop wasting my time. the very same date of publication problem exists among two photos on the same page; you choose to selectively enforce the rules, based upon your hounding of an uploader. such conduct on your part is instructive. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course the photo credits in reliable printed sources would be sufficient. It is not our job to second guess them. Find a source from pre-1923, or a more recent source that indicates where and when it was first published, or who the photographer was (so that we can verify his date of death), or that indicates that the picture is released in the PD: any form of verifiable evidence. As for why this image: let's see, I started an ArbCom case to stop a serial copyright violator, one of the files presented as evidence was this one, no one disputed the evidence, after the case was closed I challenged the PD license on Wikipedia (because it is rather useless to try to stop a copyright violator, and to identify some violations, but then to let them remain unchallenged obviously); and then you decided suddenly that it needed to be transferred here, with a new date (making it twenty years older) without any evidence to support this change; yes, it seems obvious that my conduct is the problem here. You are the one that uploaded a probable and already challenged copyright violation, and it was you who fabricated a new date for the file out of thin air to defend it; so feel free to raise my conduct at any location you see fit, but beware the boomerang... Fram (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- excellent, time for a trip. thanks for the regurgitation, but i don't need to raise anything, about your incompetent "malignant assiduity." i will enjoy your crash and burn just like Betacommand. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- No idea what I have done to you to get such an extremely aggressive attitude and personal attacks. Can we stick to this image now and drop the rest? It doesn't help to resolve this one bit. So, back to the topic at hand: if you don't have the evidence that this disputed file really is PD, why did you upload it at Commons? I note from Commons:Blocking policy that "Insertion of deliberately false information" is a blockable offense here: your invented date for the picture, and PD claims based on (so far) thin air seem to apply here.Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- excellent, time for a trip. thanks for the regurgitation, but i don't need to raise anything, about your incompetent "malignant assiduity." i will enjoy your crash and burn just like Betacommand. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course the photo credits in reliable printed sources would be sufficient. It is not our job to second guess them. Find a source from pre-1923, or a more recent source that indicates where and when it was first published, or who the photographer was (so that we can verify his date of death), or that indicates that the picture is released in the PD: any form of verifiable evidence. As for why this image: let's see, I started an ArbCom case to stop a serial copyright violator, one of the files presented as evidence was this one, no one disputed the evidence, after the case was closed I challenged the PD license on Wikipedia (because it is rather useless to try to stop a copyright violator, and to identify some violations, but then to let them remain unchallenged obviously); and then you decided suddenly that it needed to be transferred here, with a new date (making it twenty years older) without any evidence to support this change; yes, it seems obvious that my conduct is the problem here. You are the one that uploaded a probable and already challenged copyright violation, and it was you who fabricated a new date for the file out of thin air to defend it; so feel free to raise my conduct at any location you see fit, but beware the boomerang... Fram (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- you, would you, care to address the question: what standard of proof will you accept? will you accept a search of the written photo credits in printed sources? is that acceptable to you? without a confirmation from you i won't bother with such a search. stop wasting my time. the very same date of publication problem exists among two photos on the same page; you choose to selectively enforce the rules, based upon your hounding of an uploader. such conduct on your part is instructive. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do you, the uploader, have any indication whatsoever that this image was published in the US (or even elsewhere) before 1923? You, the one claiming that it is public domain, has to provide evidence to support your claim; I can't prove that it isn't public domain, having no reliable indication of when the image was taken or when it was first published. Your comment is nothing but distraction, the Library of Congress has nothing to do with this file, and I am discussing this file, not any of the probably thousands of others on Commons that may have similar problems (although the one you link to is at least considerably older, and any claim that that one was not taken prior to 1923 would be dubious: publication date is not clear though): and how you will judge me is the least of my concerns. Fram (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- i had the opportunity to go to the Library of Congress today. none of the photographs here, are in the printed sources.
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![142 File:Carla Díaz en el cortometraje "Luna".JPG](#File:Carla_Díaz_en_el_cortometraje_"Luna".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_moored_at_Hakata_Chūō_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg){kind=link}
_poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_poster.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![17:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/14#c-Jespinos-2013-03-14T17:41:00.000Z-File:Carla_Díaz_en_el_cortometraje_"Luna".JPG){kind=link}
![00:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/03/14#c-INeverCry-2013-03-21T00:25:00.000Z-File:Carla_Díaz_en_el_cortometraje_"Luna".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§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Henry_Rider_Haggard.png){kind=link}
- [8] headshot - Bain LOC PD
- [9] 3/4 seated Haggard LOC PD
- [10] standing CDV Stereoscopic NYPL unknown status
- [11] head shot gray beard Bain LOC PD
- 3/4 standing Barraud NPG? unknown status; web image not available
- [12] head shot brown beard, this is a reverse of the NPG x6513, Beresford, 1902
- this image - head shot gray beard, could be NPG x9076, Claude Harris, bromide print, circa 1920 web image not available, unknown status
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Rider_Haggard_03.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H._Rider_%28Henry_Rider%29_Haggard.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Rider_Haggard_-_Schriftsteller.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henry_Rider_Haggard_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HRiderHaggard.jpg){kind=link}
- there are however photos in the printed sources not here Ellis 5 photos; Pocock 2 Photos; Higgins 3 Photos.
- his papers are in the Norfolk Records Office; personnal papers with grandson Commander Mark Cheyne, maybe contact is in order.
- i uploaded it because you challenged it. you hound RAN; i hound you. i have reason to believe that this photo is NPG x9076 in the public domain. documentation of photo dates are notoriously thin, none of the Bain photos have dates, many circa notations. you could spend years cleaning up the metadata on photographs. in this light your accusation of "deliberately false information" is farcical. take your block threats and shove them up your ass. i am not alone in my disdain and contempt for your disruptive hounding of productive editors. they are sharpening their knives, and you had better change your behavior, before they ban you as they banned betacommand. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If no definitive evidence to the contrary is available, I would say the photograph itself is evidence it was taken prior to '23, as at that time, Sir Henry was gettin' busy dying of Syphilis. In the photo he doesn't look the least bit concerned over his impending death, he looks rather healthy to me. (Then again he could be dead already and have had a really really good mortician.) Penyulap ☏ 08:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Even if it was taken prior to 1923, that's not what counts; it's when it was published that counts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close. The file doesn't appear to have been uploaded in good faith, see [13]. Dubious/unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we unfortunately cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 06:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW of non-free screen art / icons 99of9 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment – The screen looks like the standard "out of the box" view for the iPad. Its the way to show the physical iPad device as it would be used, but without intentionally putting copyrighted graphics the screen.. However, something doesn't seem right about the quality of the image. It looks pixelated or low-res despite the overall size. Does anyone else notice this? Senator2029 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that does not mean it's not copyrighted. You're right the quality is low too. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – This file has copyright problems as well as image quality problems, and other images exist in Category:iPad 2 that can be used instead. Senator2029 14:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, blurred out screen - quality problems are not a reason for deletion. Please delete the previous revision. Mono 16:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: first version deleted, now edited to address raised concerns — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
doesnt the pixellation of the label make this essentially useless, esp. as an example of this brand? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete – Yes, it is useless. Without the label, it could be a jug of used motor oil. Senator2029 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - It still shows what a gallon of Cider looks like in a plastic jug, which was its use in an article before pixelating the label. The brand was irrelevant. Hohum (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: That it is used by enWP makes opinions about uselessness here irrelevant. Use on project defeats opinion, — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
dublicat of File:9 - fhr zs.GIF Flor!an (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep – Technically, it isn't a duplicate because the files are different file types (PNG & GIF). Senator2029 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Well true, but there is no need to keep two files, that shows the same rank. --Flor!an (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: two versions of same file are okay, some prefer gif, some png, allowing choice — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 121.215.176.244 as no permission (no permission since) Stefan4 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- This has OTRS permission. Is the OTRS permission fraudulent? I see that the uploader also changed the author from a blocked English Wikipedia sockpuppet to Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a genuine OTRS ticket referring to the image - otherwise I wouldn't have moved it ;-) - OTRS ticket was added (22:02, 21 July 2012) when the image was on en-wiki by en:User:Sphilbrick. See also en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_June_29#File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png Ronhjones (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is that the uploader has been blocked for uploading lots of copyright violations (check the accounts listed at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashton 29/Archive), so I just want to be extra certain. It says: "Author: School photographer (taken 17 years ago in early 1995). Belongs to her parents." Do we have permission from someone who would likely be the copyright holder to a school photo? Her parents have a photo on the wall (see [14]), but they are obviously not the copyright holders to a school photo. Also, if the uploader is the photographer as he claimed, then why did he grab a photo of the badge from the Internet? I would assume that the photographer has a badge himself and that it would be easier for him to take his own photo of the badge instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a genuine OTRS ticket referring to the image - otherwise I wouldn't have moved it ;-) - OTRS ticket was added (22:02, 21 July 2012) when the image was on en-wiki by en:User:Sphilbrick. See also en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_June_29#File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png Ronhjones (Talk) 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The initial permission was granted with a dose of AGF, but subsequent events have called that into question. It is unclear now whether the uploader took a picture of a button, or found an image of the button online. However, in either case, it is derivative of the underlying photo, and we have no evidence that the original photo is properly licensed. Absent that, I think it should be deleted.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Following up on the question of whether the initial OTRS permissions was fraudulent, I'll note that many people are under the impression that if they take a picture of something, they own the copyright to it. They are not wrong. However, they are unaware of the concept of derivative rights so they are unaware that they also need the permission of the item being photographed, in some cases. I still don't know all the facts, but I would avoid the term "fradudulent" without knowing all the fact, It may turn out to be simple ignorance of copyright law. In view of the history, that may be less likely, but I don't believe we need to answer the question to determine whether the image should be deleted. If the person cannot provide proof that the underlying photo is free, it must be deleted. If the underlying photo is free, then we have other questions to answer, but I doubt we will get that far.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it is a transfer to Commons from enWP, I am transferring the file back to enWP
{{Fair use delete}}as it could be argued there as a case of fair use. Here there are sufficient doubts about the file and derivative rights to delete the file here. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- As it is a transfer to Commons from enWP, I am transferring the file back to enWP
- Following up on the question of whether the initial OTRS permissions was fraudulent, I'll note that many people are under the impression that if they take a picture of something, they own the copyright to it. They are not wrong. However, they are unaware of the concept of derivative rights so they are unaware that they also need the permission of the item being photographed, in some cases. I still don't know all the facts, but I would avoid the term "fradudulent" without knowing all the fact, It may turn out to be simple ignorance of copyright law. In view of the history, that may be less likely, but I don't believe we need to answer the question to determine whether the image should be deleted. If the person cannot provide proof that the underlying photo is free, it must be deleted. If the underlying photo is free, then we have other questions to answer, but I doubt we will get that far.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: was transfered to en and then speedied. JuTa 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope --- there is no encyclopedic value for this image. Please note that it is not used on any site 178.10.110.255 11:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's a good thing then that Commons doesn't care about something being of encyclopedic value whatsoever, rather, it cares about educational value, which this document (not image) most definitely has. And is there a reason the IP has targeted this document and not the other one in the same category? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: within scope — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Per conclusion of this deletion request, photographies with {{PD-Denmark50}} must clearly state (and prove beyond a significant doubt), that the photo has been published before 1 March 1989. In this case it is not clear. heb [T C E] 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Som jeg har forstået publicering, er det når den er blevet gjort tilgængelig på nettet. Filen er blevet publiceret i 2013 af undertegnede, og er derfor ikke publicereret før 1. marts 1989. Formålet med publiceringen har været at uploade den til wikipedia. --Jonas Søby 13:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- På grund av amerikanska lagar betyder det att bilden inte får laddas upp här före 2058. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, No additional information presented and thus this file doesn't seem to be substantially different from this. heb [T C E] 13:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Remove unused low-quality image, by author request. Urbanoc (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It's low quality, but I don't think it's bad enough to be removed. It's also an interesting picture of an unusual car in an unusual place. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you just want to remove the previous version where the plate is visible, this can easily be done. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 06:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I asked an admin to remove the original upload. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think all the problems are solved now. Urbanoc (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I asked an admin to remove the original upload. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: License plate problem is solved now. Badseed talk 08:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio - characters protected under copyright Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan. It seems that WMF legal dept. weighed in at this DR and we can host images of costumes of copyrighted characters on commmons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Canoe's (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan) Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Painting by H.C. Christy (d. 1952). moogsi (blah) 12:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is that an official Congressional portrait? --Dereckson (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm not sure that means that the government necessarily owns the copyright (the artist was commissioned so the "federal employee" exemption for US works doesn't apply).
- In any case I'm not touching anything else American from the 20th century unless I can get my head round {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I'd be quite happy to slap the former on this and leave it at that (as the House of Representatives has owned it the whole time). But I'm out of my depth, here :) --moogsi (blah) 17:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If we had a better image, we might be able to see whether there is a copyright notice or not. As a general rule, official portraits in the USA do have copyrights. THe artists are contractors, not employees. We have had to delete several official Presidential portraits because the artist formally claimed copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The permission given unfortunately does not satisfy the current requirements of OTRS. moogsi (blah) 12:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks OK to me -- explicitly accepts GNU license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright expired in India in 2000, so this was extended by the URAA in 1996. Not public domain in the US. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Current India copyright law (PD-60) was in effect from Jan 1958. Before that, it was PD-50 per British Copyright Act, 1911. [15] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There are some errors in the comments above. The 50-year term applies to works which entered the public domain before 1992 based on the old term. This entered the public domain in India on 1 January 1991 based on the old 50-year term. It was thus already in the public domain in India on the URAA date. See w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights says 50 years after publication for photographs. This is clearly not a photograph, and thus would be public domain 50 years after author's death.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, photographs and anonymous works. And I see that the file information page claims that the poster artist is called Mehboob Khan, so it isn't anonymous. w:Mehboob Khan claims that he died in 1964, so this is unfree in India until 1 January 2025 and in the United States until 1 January 2036. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- M(a/e)hboob was the film's director, it seems. Or do you have a higher resolution version which has an artist's name?Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader wrote "Author = Mehboob Khan" on the file information page, so I assumed that this was correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- M(a/e)hboob was the film's director, it seems. Or do you have a higher resolution version which has an artist's name?Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, photographs and anonymous works. And I see that the file information page claims that the poster artist is called Mehboob Khan, so it isn't anonymous. w:Mehboob Khan claims that he died in 1964, so this is unfree in India until 1 January 2025 and in the United States until 1 January 2036. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- As film poster, it is copyrighted by producer Mehboob Productions owned by Mehboob Khan. Artist's name is unknown. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- And non-US copyrights does not speak of Indian corporations. Just foreign ones.Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights says 50 years after publication for photographs. This is clearly not a photograph, and thus would be public domain 50 years after author's death.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Per conclusion of this deletion request, photographies with {{PD-Denmark50}} must clearly state (and prove beyond a significant doubt), that the photo has been published before 1 March 1989. In this case it is not clear. heb [T C E] 13:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Som jeg har forstået publicering, er det når den er blevet gjort tilgængelig på nettet. Filen er blevet publiceret i 2013 af undertegnede, og er derfor ikke publicereret før 1. marts 1989. Formålet med publiceringen har været at uploade den til wikipedia. --Jonas Søby 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- På grund av amerikanska lagar betyder det att bilden inte får laddas upp här före 2083. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jonas, at this point of time the file would seem to be under copyright. The author is listed and we would need the work released into the public domain by the photographer or a lawful heir who inherited the copyright; or to demonstrate that the work was published (in the broad sense) prior to 1989. If we cannot do that, then the work is protected by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- The photographer is not listed. Hadsten Lokalarkiv is the name of the archive where the image is located and not the name of the photographer. Jonas Søby, credited in the EXIF, is the uploader (User:Jonassoeby) who presumably at the most scanned the photo. If the photographer is anonymous, then it means that there is no way to tell whom to ask for permission and that we have to wait until the photo is 120 years old due to stupid US laws. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Jonas, at this point of time the file would seem to be under copyright. The author is listed and we would need the work released into the public domain by the photographer or a lawful heir who inherited the copyright; or to demonstrate that the work was published (in the broad sense) prior to 1989. If we cannot do that, then the work is protected by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- På grund av amerikanska lagar betyder det att bilden inte får laddas upp här före 2083. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
L'auteur ne saurait être Sarah Carlier. Même si la photo est extraite de Facebook, cela ne signifie pas que l'auteur réel aie donné son accord our l'utilisation de son oeuvre manifestement prise dans un endroit privé. Omondi (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour, je confirme que Sarah Carlier m'a autorisée à mettre sa photo sur Wikipédia après demande via Facebook. Je ne vois pas comment prouver la véracité de ma discussion avec elle. Le plus simple, me semble-t-il, serait que vous lui demandiez si "Vanrechem" a bien reçu son autorisation via sa page https://www.facebook.com/sarahcarlierofficiel?fref=ts.
- Elle vous répondra par l'affirmative. Vanrechem (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Voici la procédure à suivre :
- Envoyez un courriel à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org avec la preuve que Sarah Carlier vous a bien autorisé à publié cette photo sous licence Creative Commons (échange de courriels entre elle et vous, par exemple, sinon une déclaration de consentement).
- Pour plus de détails, voir Commons:OTRS/fr.
- --Omondi (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please note that Sarah Carleir is the subject of this image and probably not the copyright holder. If this image is to be restored, we must have OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder, not the subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's a different version of File:Iida Megumi.jpg, which is in use in an article on Japanese Wikipedia. The other image is marked "©Kazumi Hosono". Two different uploaders (one called User:Iida Megumi and the other one called User:Aaaandou). Is either of them Kazumi Hosono, or is it a copyright violation? The image is also in use on Twitter. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- edit conflict -- Stefan beat me to it:
Delete The reason given is apparently not valid, as the person appears on WP:JA at メタスタジオ. However, there are three are files that are virtually identical:
- File:Iida_Megumi.jpg - in use in the WP:JA article. Claimed to be "Own Work" of User:Aaaandou. This is his or her only contribution. The background has been removed from this one, so that it is a better portrait.
- File:飯田めぐみ.jpg - not in use. Claimed to be "Own Work" of User:Iida megumi. Almost the same size as the file above and, except for the background, identical.
- File:Iida megumi.png - not in use. Claimed to be "Own Work" of User:Iida megumi. Half the pixel dimensions of files above; otherwise the same as the second.
I don't think that Iida megumi took her own portrait and obviously two different people didn't take it, so we need clarification as to who the photographer is and whether he or she has consented to the license here. That will probably have to come using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that is done, I think we should keep only the first file. If that is not done, then we must delete all three. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
need to add current 1sfoerster (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- If something is incorrect you can overwrite it ("Upload a new version of this file" under the File History section). Have you uploaded the corrected version under a different name? --moogsi (blah) 16:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Author request and is no longer accepted as being educational NuclearVacuum (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Further details: I am continually being complained that this flag is not accurate. Thereby, as the author of this flag, I request it be removed as part of "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", and for personal reasons I would like this file to be removed. I request that you respect my wishes. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- appears to be the only available vector corresponding to raster images File:Флаг Российско-Американской торговой компании (1806 год).JPG, File:Flag of the Russian-American Company 1835.jpg, and File:The Flags of the World Plate 7.png. If there's some dispute over which depiction of the eagle to use, then it would be better to resolve that dispute and/or fix the SVG than delete... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no version of the eagle avaliable to use, and none that seem to have any support. And allow me to stress once again, this is as much a request by the author as it not being favored anymore. Please respect my wishes. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you can't bring the SVG to full acceptability by your own unaided efforts, then maybe it's time to step back and let others build on your work to attempt to do so. The "deleted by uploader request" thing is mainly for images uploaded by mistake, or very recently uploaded images which are somewhat marginal in scope in the first place. It doesn't necessarily apply to images uploaded over two years ago which are currently the only images available for their potentially useful function (i.e. vector SVG of the Russian-American Company flag)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you are not going to delete my work, than may I request that all previous versions be removed from the upload lineup, so as to start out with a fresh slate. I have reuploaded an inferior version used a while back, and I will allow those who want to work on it to do so. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you can't bring the SVG to full acceptability by your own unaided efforts, then maybe it's time to step back and let others build on your work to attempt to do so. The "deleted by uploader request" thing is mainly for images uploaded by mistake, or very recently uploaded images which are somewhat marginal in scope in the first place. It doesn't necessarily apply to images uploaded over two years ago which are currently the only images available for their potentially useful function (i.e. vector SVG of the Russian-American Company flag)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no version of the eagle avaliable to use, and none that seem to have any support. And allow me to stress once again, this is as much a request by the author as it not being favored anymore. Please respect my wishes. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep, no deleting previous revisions, leave it as it is. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As is, per Fry. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Photo taken by Tsuyoshi Maita. License given by a third party. See this Twitter conversation. Dereckson (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify the situation a little bit: the next logic step would be to ask a permission from the right author. --Dereckson (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, go ahead and delete it. --Computron (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader is here incoherent: he first takes the care to ask permissions (sometimes clumsily, but we have to acknowledge his effort to get more photos under a free license and thank him to that), and then, wants to delete a media, were such a permission seems easy. --Dereckson (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nikhiltwis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The images have low resolution (except one) and missing EXIF. These are likely not own work.
- File:Ravi Ashwin.jpg
- File:Unmukt Chand.jpg
- File:Ambati Rayudu.jpg
- File:Murali Vijay.jpg
- File:Ishant Sharma 4.jpg
- File:Ravindra Jadeja.jpg
- File:Rohit Sharma in 2012.jpg
- File:Pragyan Ojha.jpg
- File:Ishant Sharma.jpg
- File:Varun Aaron.jpg
- File:Umesh Yadav.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Info I've restored these per uploader request. He states that he took these and works with these players. The images do look like they have one author, so I've decided to AGF. INeverCry 18:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused self-promotional images.
- File:Un Vistazo Al Pasado.jpg
- File:Un sitio trankilo.jpg
- File:Entropia 2011.jpg
- File:Conexion La Cabrera y Sanse.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by M venkimca (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Venkatesan1.JPG
- File:Venkatesan4.JPG
- File:Venkatesan3.JPG
- File:Venkatesan2.JPG
- File:Venkatesan6.JPG
- File:Venkatesan5.JPG
- File:Venkatesan7.jpg
- File:Venkatesan.JPG
Jespinos (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Guilherme Hastings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios and an unused personal image.
- File:Guilherme.jpg
- File:Julian01.png
- File:Alyssa.png
- File:Rose01.png
- File:Holy01.png
- File:Shannen.png
- File:Madaleine01.png
- File:Rob..png
Jespinos (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Uploader's request. This picture was taken by my Mom. I uploaded by mistake. Please help to delete it. 螺钉 (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete –螺钉 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This image appears to fail COM:DW. The copyrighted user interface and software screen are the main focus of the work, so irrespective of the copyright status of the photo, we can't use it. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
delete The copyrighted UI and software are the focus of the image.--Terrillja (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear copyright violation, not suitable for Commons Little Professor (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"'Keep"' WHAT! You two are absolutely crazy. If you are going to delete this image, why not deleate the other photos on the pages for
| iPhones | ||
|---|---|---|
|
||
and Template:IPod touch, or Template:Mac OS X, or Template:IMac, and etc. Even though the image of OS is copyright violation, there is absolutley no way, and I MEAN absolutley no way, the iPad can be explained without the picture of the operating system. If you proceed with the deletion, I will proceed with nomination to delete all the OS images related to iPhone. Then how will people know what the iPad or iPhone or iPod touch's OS going to look like? Think about it before nominating for delation, GOT IT? Bentoman (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well images like this are allowed on the wikis that allow for fair use. That is where the images for the iPhone and iPod Touch are kept. Calm down.--Terrillja (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete does not belong on the commons. Andyzweb (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per de minimis. Quoting from Commons:de minimis:
| “ | Note that the mere fact that an image allowable under de minimis may be cropped to create one which is not, does not suggest that the original work is not de minimis after all. Even very high resolution images, in which incidental details can be reliably recovered and magnified, should be viewed as a whole from a normal viewing distance when considering whether de minimis applies. | ” |
- The user interface software is not the "subject" of this image, but the iPad. The main subject of the original this was cropped from is the huge enthusiasm generated by the iPad. This enthusiasm is present also in the cropped version in the way the hands are holding the device and presenting it to the (now invisible) photographer.
- If this crop cannot be maintained for copyright reasons, the image should be restored to the original or to a less cropped version. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. - I now see that the image has been photoshopped to remove the protruding camera lens from the cropped frame. The photoshoping should be undone and the camera restored. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- then your vote is not keep but alter or rollback? Andyzweb (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- My vote is to keep, but I will not object to alter or rollback if it makes you happy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- then your vote is not keep but alter or rollback? Andyzweb (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment/ Delete -- if this passes deletion I would rather see it reverted to the non cropped version rather than totally deleted. I know its silly but to me it makes sense Andyzweb (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If the OS (which is not dead on so focus of the picture seems a bit much) is such a problem, just obscure it with a blur filter or something. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per arguments presented at other iPad deletions. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: Which arguments? could you be more specific? Andyzweb (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty much all of the arguments presented at COM:DRs for images in the category iPad. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Jonjesbuzz (talk) You can't replace the picture.
- Keep per de minimis. The device is the subject of the image, not the interface. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per de minimis. Blurpeace 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the previous DR, I am thoroughly unconvinced that this is COM:DM. The wallpaper is a massive fraction of this image, and even the icons are a clearly visible feature of the photograph. This is clearly a COM:DW IMO. We don't have to worry that we will have to resort to fair use, because there are free alternatives like File:IPad-showing-OpenStreetMap1.jpg. 99of9 (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The previous closure was improper. Jonjesbuzz and NerdyScienceDude did not qualify their positions; Benotoman presented an OTHERSTUFF rant; and Nesnad did not opine on on the issue, but suggested blurring if an issue exists. These opinions thus should have been give little, if any, weight. Reach Out to the Truth's position regarding the subject seems incorrect. The interface is the central focus and, indeed, what is a tablet but a large interface? The bezel is largely technical necessity. Further, even other proponents of retaining this image contradicted that position in this very discussion ("and I MEAN absolutley [sic] no way, the iPad can be explained without the picture of the operating system"). Finally, the passage cited by Petri Krohn as a keep rationale is true, but applies to the original, uncropped image, not to the crop. What reusers of the full original do is up to them, but Commons cannot host crops whose subject is unambiguously copyrighted. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per 99of9's. de minimis clearly does not apply. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
After today identifying around 13 uploads as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that this remaining file would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
Gunnex (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Logos claimed to be the uploader's "own work", but are actually downloaded/copied from various internet sources.
- File:Logo of VVMT.png
- File:Logo of VVMC Mayors Marathon.jpg
- File:Logo of Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation.jpg
Senator2029 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
As the company's watermark suggests, most likely the images are not own work.
- File:何依霈.jpg
- File:邱晧洲.jpg
- File:TANG002.jpg
- File:豬哥亮.jpg
- File:苗可麗.jpg
- File:林鴻翔.jpg
- File:邱逸峰.jpg
- File:張書偉.jpg
- File:何姵蓓.JPG
- File:陳霆.jpg
- File:連靜雯002.jpg
- File:顏嘉樂.jpg
- File:歡歡02.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gajendra04 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal image, out of scope
- File:Gajendra chauhan3.jpg
- File:Rensoft team.JPG
- File:Gajendra chauhan2.jpg
- File:Gajendra chauhan1.jpg
- File:Gajendra Chauhan.jpg
- File:Gajendra chauhan.jpg
- File:Gajendra04.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gajendra04 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, self-promotion images.
- File:Gajendrach.jpg
- File:Gajendrachauhan1.jpg
- File:Gajendrakapil.jpg
- File:Gajendra04.jpg
- File:Gajendraji.jpg
- File:Gahendra chauhan1.jpg
- File:Gajendra chauhan.jpg
- File:Gajendra1.jpg
- File:Gajendra.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Key information (date of death) about the author has not been provided. It seems that the works cannot be in the public domain under almost any circumstance
- File:Juan Rodriguez 12.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 11.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 10.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 9.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 8.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 6.jpg
- File:Juan Rodriguez 7.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 5, Venezuala, Switzerland, 2012.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 4, Venezuala, Switzerland, 2012.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 3, Venezuala, Switzerland, 2012.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 2, Venezuala, Switzerland, 2012.JPG
- File:Juan Rodriguez 1, Venezuala, Switzerland, 2012.jpg
Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Dont understand I give some picture from a friend, and ecemaml who is he ??? to delete mine ??? User talk:Gind2005.
Files uploaded by Tharakaromesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the uploader's history, the low resolution of the photos and the lack of metadata.
- File:Auditorium upper view.jpg
- File:Mahanama ground.jpg
- File:Mahanama college oldest hall.jpg
- File:Mahanama college auditorium side view.jpg
- File:Mahanama Theater.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tharakaromesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Dilscoop vs India in 2009.jpg
- File:Dilscoop vs Westindies.jpg
- File:Dilscoop vs Australia in 2011.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AngelicaPro (talk · contribs)
[edit]obvious flickr washing
- File:Jaume-10.jpg
- File:Jaume-9.jpg
- File:Jaume- 8.jpg
- File:Jaume-7.jpg
- File:Jaume-6.jpg
- File:Jaume-4.jpg
- File:Jaume - 4.jpg
- File:Jaume- 3.jpg
- File:Jaume-2 .jpg
- File:Jaume -1.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I forgot to turn to Copyvio mode in VisualFileChange.js. Speedy delete Morning ☼ (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AngelicaPro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional photoshot, all of them are stated to be taken yesterday, which suggests that the Flickr account may not be the author
- File:Paola vintimilla -3.jpg
- File:Paola vintimilla- 5.jpg
- File:Paola Vintimilla-2.jpg
- File:Paola vintimilla.jpg
Morning ☼ (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete them all unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rumenlishkov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional images, out of scope
Morning ☼ (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – promotional images. No educational value.—Bill william comptonTalk 16:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ronnielegg's (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:Ronnieclassy.jpg
- File:Ronniehimself.jpg
- File:Ronnielegg's.JPG
- File:Ronnielegg's2.jpg
- File:Purplehaze4.jpg
- File:Purplehazelogo.jpg
Didym (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by АлексейТОС (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of scope
Didym (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Htoo Wunna Ko Ko
[edit]Out of scope, private image collection. Htoo Wunna Ko Ko (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Jespinos (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: All but 1 file deleted - that 1 was in use - usp image. INeverCry 00:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leonardmonster (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muskan bhai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:-up4L90z1aIKVue-TLBEpw.jpg
- File:TDp2GZ5 1351576398.jpg
- File:Photofacefun com fbKIbdEsu 1329030967.jpg
- File:OV6vVjBpvUJ7A DOUj7fmA.jpg
- File:Muskan bhai g.JPG
- File:Muskan bhai.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
All files declared as own work and were digitalized in 2012. Per userbox at es:Usuario:Hazaña17, the uploader was born in 1981, so images like File:Vuelta olímpica Paraguay campeón '79.JPG from 1979 are most unlikely "own work". Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Manuel Francisco dos Santos (Garrincha).JPG
- File:Vuelta olímpica Paraguay campeón '79.JPG
- File:Raúl Vicente Amarilla.JPG
- File:Plantel Paraguay campeón 1953.JPG
- File:Equipo de Olimpia campeón nacional en 1938.JPG
- File:Equipo paraguayo campeón Preolímpico Sub-23 1992.JPG
- File:Delfín Benítez Cáceres.JPG
- File:Paraguay 0 Argentina 2 en 1922.JPG
- File:Equipo paraguayo campeón Copa América 1979.JPG
- File:Adolfo Riquelme.JPG
- File:Ramón Bareiro y William Paats.JPG
- File:Julio César Romero.JPG
- File:Fleitas Solich.JPG
- File:William Paats.jpg
- File:Gerardo Rivas y Fleitas Solich.JPG
- File:Aurelio González (el Gran Capitán).JPG
- File:Arsenio Erico junto a Leônidas da Silva.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Disneyguay (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, GIF format. The images are likely not own work.
- File:Tori Vega cantando y luciendo un bonito vestido.gif
- File:Tori Vega en Hollywood Arts.gif
- File:Victoria ``Tori´´ Vega.gif
- File:Tori Vega Antes y después.gif
- File:Tori Vega (x2).gif
- File:Tori Vega.gif
- File:Carly Shay.gif
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Same image than Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esfinge da Rainha Beatriz de Portugal que se encontra no Mosteiro de Sancti Spiritus , em Toro, Espanha.jpg, same upholder, same source, same licence. The image Esfinge da Rainha Beatriz... was deleted in commons previously and accordingly this image, Sepulcro_de_D._Beatriz... have to be deleted also. Trasamundo (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
And, perhaps, also go Toro to destroy even the tumulus. This photo is a proper work of a good Wikipedia voluntary photographer. So, I'm against this proposal of deletion. To say that this is not a proper individual work are necessary proofs. Where are they? Jorge alo (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The source says «own work», so, José Luís Ávila da Siveira has alienated his rights on favour of Commons. Jorge alo (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is my own work, made during a trip to Spain. Saying, that is not my work, is questioning my work. José Luís Ávila Silveira (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- 1. The metadata of the image does not indicate that the photo was taken with a digital camera. If the original image was taken by a digital camera, the upholder should upload the original image.
- 2 But if the image is originated from a analogic camera, then he has taken the photo at exactly the same position, without moving a degree or an millimetre with respecting to the photo that appears in this book. Very curious. Trasamundo (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- On 12 April 2012 I asked the deletion of this image. The next day Jorge alo asked in wikipedia in Portuguese [16] to José Luís Ávila Silveira to use as a base the image that I requested its deletion, to put it as a mirror shape without the sepulchre, and on 28 April 2012 Luis Silveira uploaded the new image. Therefore the history that the new image is a personal photo is simply a falsehood. Trasamundo (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I sugest you don't speak about falsehoods with a no real name of your own. On Wikipedia, by rule, the names are, like your's name, almost always falsehoods. The exceptions are guys as José Luís, that gave their real names, and more, that put their real soul here, on Wikipedia. Here, what real matters is if the photo is or is not a proper work of José Luís Silveira. That is the question: to be or not to be a proper work of his own. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old statues are not subject to FOP. FASTILY (TALK) 02:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if the statue is old or not, but if the photo comes from a Spanish book, then you need to verify that the photographer either has been dead for at least 80 years or that the photographer has approved the indicated licence. Since the photo comes from a book, OTRS permission is needed from the photographer. Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. This image is a derivative work of a photograph of a three dimensional object. The artist who created the sepulchre died more than 100 years ago, so the statue/sepulchre is in the public domain, and therefore Freedom of panorama is not applicable (if Freedom of panorama were applicable then according to the Spanish law, Freedom of panorama only is applicable in public thoroughfares not to indoors as this case, since the sepulchre is located inside the Monastery of Sancti Spiritus of Toro). Moreover, the photographer is the copyright holder of the original photography located in the book, and since this image has been uploaded without consent of copyright holder, usurping its real authorship, then at least it has to be deleted according to COM:PRP. Trasamundo (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, for the third time. From the above-cited book. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ArtistUrban (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused self-promotion images.
Jespinos (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kpop starhunt (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images. I'm not sure if the logo meets the threshold of originality.
Jespinos (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MatthewSmith89 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, missing EXIF. The images are likely not own work.
- File:Irene San Román sesión interior.jpg
- File:Irene habla con la prensa.jpg
- File:Primeras escenas de Rubí.jpg
- File:Irene wins.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Armenian Boyfriend.png
- File:Boyfriend (Torosyan).jpg
- File:Boyfriend (Karen).jpg
- File:ARMBoyfriend.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images. Uploader has history of copyvios.
- File:Dani Souza.jpg
- File:Theobecker 02 03082009.jpg
- File:Joana-machado-faz-ensaio-fotografico-para-a-revista-cosmetic-hair-no-bairro-da-aclimacao-em-sao-paulo-1232012-a-vencedora-do-reality-a-fazenda-exibiu-a-boa-forma-vestindo-1331581717186 300x500.jpg
- File:Monique-evans.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
COM:PEOPLE requires evidence of consent. Flickr account no longer exists. Thus COM:PRP 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't have strong feelings about keeping or deleting the file, but vote to keep it for the following reasons: (1) At the time I uploaded it it was available from Flickr under the CC-BY-SA-2.0 licence, and this was verified by the FlickreviewR bot. The licence is not revocable, so the subsequent deletion of the file or the account from Flickr doesn't change this. (2) Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Consent says: "At the most basic level, a subject looking at the camera and smiling might normally be assumed to have given their consent to have their photograph taken." — Regards, Truth's Out There (speak the truth) 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The licence my be OK, but this is an image taken in a private place and accordingly needs the consent of the subjects. The fact that they may be looking at the camera and smiling does not mean that they necessarily consent to having their image published online MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request
wikipedia及びwikimedia外で自由に利用される事を想定してパブリックドメインで提供しました。しかし、位置情報を付加して私のユーザー名と共に示される事は想定していませんでした。
日本では写真の情報に位置情報が付加される事はプライバシー保護の観点で問題になっております。（NHKの番組で複数回取り上げられています）
しかし、私の意向に反して位置情報を付加するユーザーが存在するため、パブリックドメインでの画像提供を撤回いたします。
なお、既に他のメディアで拡散したものについては今後異議を唱える積りは有りません。--Kk8998982 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Automatic translation by the translation Google
I have provided in the public domain on the assumption that it is free to use and outside wikimedia wikipedia. However, it was not intended to be shown with my user name by adding a location information. In Japan, that the location information is added to the information of the photo has become a problem in terms of privacy protection. (Has been featured more than once in a program of NHK) However, for users to add location information contrary to my intention is present, I will withdraw the offer of the image in the public domain. Incidentally, that was spreading in other media already intend to dispute there is no future.--Kk8998982 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)（106.147.116.62は私です。ログアウトして書いてしまいました。--Kk8998982 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)）
Please reference also Commons:Deletion requests/File:JS Asayuki (DD-132) moored at Hakata Chūō Wharf, -28 May 2005 b.jpg.--Kk8998982 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
_moored_at_Hakata_Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg){kind=link}
- （削除）依頼者アップによるファイルでかつ、依頼者による依頼として。--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:PS#Censorship and COM:L. The public domain licence is irrevocable.
- The photograph was taken from a ship moored at the Hakata Chuo Wharf, and it does not depict any individual nor a privately owned property. The nominator's insistance that adding the location information of the wharf violates his privacy sounds bizarre, since he willingly released the image into the public domain. If revoking the licence of a commons file on the basis of "an NHK program I saw some time ago" is possible, all of the efforts involved to enrich this project will be denied, which is simply unacceptable. --トトト (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- （依頼者コメント）インターネットにアップする写真に位置情報を付加するか否かは、投稿者が判断すべきことで、他人が無断に付加するべきでは有りません。第三者に位置を特定されることは、「かなり気味が悪い」事です。世界で最も治安の良い日本でさえ、警官がストーカーを逮捕する際に、被害者の住所を読み上げてしまい、殺人事件につながっています。
- （依頼者コメント）インターネットにアップする写真に位置情報を付加するか否かは、投稿者が判断すべきことで、他人が無断に付加するべきでは有りません。第三者に位置を特定されることは、「かなり気味が悪い」事です。世界で最も治安の良い日本でさえ、警官がストーカーを逮捕する際に、被害者の住所を読み上げてしまい、殺人事件につながっています。
- もし、位置情報つきの画像データを欲するなら、自分で撮影した写真か、同意を得た人の写真に付加すべきです。--Kk8998982 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)--
- The contributor should be determined whether or not to add location information to photos up to the Internet, should be added to others without permission does not have. Be to identify the location to a third party, is that "pretty gruesome." Even in Japan, the world's most well-maintained, when the cops arrested the stalker, they read the address of the victim, I'm led to murder.
- If you want the image data with location information, or photos taken by yourself, you will be added to the photo of the person who obtained the consent.--Kk8998982 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)--
- Keep Not seeing any valid arguments for deletion, and Commons:Licensing explains how the license is irrevocable. While the uploader's privacy concerns do seem to be bordering on the bizarre, if it is such a concern, maybe he/she could upload a new version of the image stripped of the original location data and request for the original version to be deleted from the file history. The location of the photo will still be no secret, though, although how that would enable someone to identify and track down User:Kk8998982 is a complete mystery to me. --DAJF (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- (依頼者コメント）パブリックドメンの性質も理解しています。私の主張を理解不能なユーザが多いのかもしれません（もしかしたら世界で私以外に理解できるユーザーは一人も居ないのかもしれません）。それを承知の上で、申し上げますが、元著作権者の私が、未来において、この場でこれ以上パブリックドメインとして提供され続けることは苦痛です。どうか除去してください。お願いいたします。また、今後は不用意にパブリックドメインで提供してご迷惑をかけるようなことは致しません。お願いいたします。--Kk8998982 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the nature of the public Domen. (Except for me who can understand the world might not have even one maybe) Maybe many users claim my unintelligible. With the knowledge, but I would like it, a pain that I of the copyright holder yuan, in the future, continue to be provided as a public domain any more at this place. Please remove. Also, things like the future I will not bother to provide carelessly in the public domain. Please.--Kk8998982 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete 画像の著作者でもあった依頼者の意思は尊重すべきだと思います。--Kh2K 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per DAJF: It has been suggested in the other nomination that the uploader could perhaps have their username hidden if it is somehow linked to their real identity. However, even if one did know who the uploader is, this image contains no personal information about them other than where they happened to be standing ~8 years ago. Very strange request --moogsi (blah) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As discussed above, irrevocable license. Argument of personal threat because of location information is not convincing. --Nightingale (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment
- ウィキペディア（日本語版）では、場合によっては本人の意思による画像の削除が方針で認められています。[17]
- 著作者本人の意思に反し画像の維持を強行したところで、著作者はコモンズに悪い印象を持たれ、今後コモンズへの投稿意欲を低下させ、著作者本人側、コモンズのコミュニティー側双方にきっと不幸をもたらすのではないかと私は危惧しています。
- 目先の利益ばかり考えるのではなく、中長期的な事も考慮しなくては、今後のプロジェクトの発展にはならないと思います。
- 今回は画像を一旦削除し、著作者の再投稿を期待するか（再投稿がなければ削除の撤回依頼をすればいい）、どうしても維持するのであれば、問題のある投稿履歴（位置情報）を削除したほうがよろしいのではないかと思います。
- Google Machine Translation
- In Wikipedia (Japanese), in some cases, removal of the image by the intentions of the principal has been recognized in the policy.[18]
- Where was forced to maintain the image contrary to the intentions of the principal author, the author will have a bad impression of Commons, to reduce the motivation to post to Commons future, the unhappy surely both the community the principal author, the Commons I'm concerned about whether it is not bring.
- I think instead of thinking about short-term profits, it can also be considered a medium-to long-term, and should not be in the development of future projects.
- We will remove once the image (I do request withdrawal of deleted without repost), if you maintain absolutely what to expect a repost of the author, posting history that has a problem (position information) I think better to remove and do not want the.
- --Kh2K 16:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This request is no match with the Deletion policy.
- This photo was taken in public place that is well known, with no one has appearing. It does not infringe anyone's privacy including uploader. By the location information is shown, danger does not extend to anyone. The bibliographic information of image to enhance rather pleased. --Vantey (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
_moored_at_Hakata_Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg){kind=link}
_moored_at_Hakata_Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Reasons for deletion request
ReferenceCommons:Deletion requests/File:Asayuki JMSDF DD132 bow.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk8998982 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
_moored_at_Hakata_Chūō_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per COM:PS#Censorship and COM:L. The public domain licence is irrevocable.
- The photograph was taken from a ship moored at the Hakata Chuo Wharf, and it does not depict any individual nor a privately owned property. The nominator's insistance that adding the location information of the wharf violates his privacy sounds bizarre, since he willingly released the image into the public domain. If revoking the licence of a commons file on the basis of "an NHK program I saw some time ago" is possible, all of the efforts involved to enrich this project will be denied, which is simply unacceptable. --トトト (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It may be possible to delete the user name if the uploader doesn't want his name to appear on the file information page or in the history. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- CommentInstead of the secondary processing of my photos, I hope that he will post his own photo taken. Anymore, I do not want to use my pictures are taken by me to him.--Kk8998982 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not seeing any valid arguments for deletion, and Commons:Licensing explains how the license is irrevocable. While the uploader's privacy concerns do seem to be somewhat bizarre, if it is such a concern, maybe he/she could upload a new version of the image stripped of the original location data and request for the original version to be deleted from the file history. The location of the photo will still be no secret, though, although how that would enable someone to identify and track down User:Kk8998982 is a complete mystery to me. --DAJF (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- (依頼者コメント）パブリックドメンの性質も理解しています。私の主張を理解不能なユーザが多いのかもしれません（もしかしたら世界で私以外に理解できるユーザーは一人も居ないのかもしれません）。それを承知の上で申し上げますが、元著作権者の私が、未来において、この場でこれ以上パブリックドメインとして提供され続けることは苦痛です。どうか除去してください。お願いいたします。また、今後は不用意にパブリックドメインで提供してご迷惑をかけるようなことは致しません。お願いいたします。--Kk8998982 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the nature of the public Domen. (Except for me who can understand the world might not have even one maybe) Maybe many users claim my unintelligible. With the knowledge, but I would like it, a pain that I of the copyright holder yuan, in the future, continue to be provided as a public domain any more at this place. Please remove. Also, things like the future I will not bother to provide carelessly in the public domain. Please.--Kk8998982 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete 画像の著作者でもあった依頼者の意思は尊重すべきだと思います。--Kh2K 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As discussed above, irrevocable license. Argument of personal threat because of location information is not convincing. --Nightingale (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment
- ウィキペディア（日本語版）では、場合によっては本人の意思による画像の削除が方針で認められています。[19]
- 著作者本人の意思に反し画像の維持を強行したところで、著作者はコモンズに悪い印象を持たれ、今後コモンズへの投稿意欲を低下させ、著作者本人側、コモンズのコミュニティー側双方にきっと不幸をもたらすのではないかと私は危惧しています。
- 目先の利益ばかり考えるのではなく、中長期的な事も考慮しなくては、今後のプロジェクトの発展にはならないと思います。
- 今回は画像を一旦削除し、著作者の再投稿を期待するか（再投稿がなければ削除の撤回依頼をすればいい）、どうしても維持するのであれば、問題のある投稿履歴（位置情報）を削除したほうがよろしいのではないかと思います。
- Google Machine Translation
- In Wikipedia (Japanese), in some cases, removal of the image by the intentions of the principal has been recognized in the policy.[20]
- Where was forced to maintain the image contrary to the intentions of the principal author, the author will have a bad impression of Commons, to reduce the motivation to post to Commons future, the unhappy surely both the community the principal author, the Commons I'm concerned about whether it is not bring.
- I think instead of thinking about short-term profits, it can also be considered a medium-to long-term, and should not be in the development of future projects.
- We will remove once the image (I do request withdrawal of deleted without repost), if you maintain absolutely what to expect a repost of the author, posting history that has a problem (position information) I think better to remove and do not want the.
- --Kh2K 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This request is no match with the Deletion policy.
- This photo was taken in public place that is well known, with no one has appearing. It does not infringe anyone's privacy including uploader. By the location information is shown, danger does not extend to anyone. The bibliographic information of image to enhance rather pleased. --Vantey (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
_moored_at_Hakata_Chūō_Wharf,_-28_May_2005_b.jpg){kind=link}