Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Obsolete; console shows 32X shielding inserted which detracts from the image Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep In use, so automatically in scope per COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project. Additionally, the file is used on a lot of external websites, and some of those might depend on Commons for attribution, so it may mean problems for those reusers to delete it. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Denniss (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
misnamed redirect, please delete Neitram (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of an unremarkable individual, and therefore out of scope. The image's only use (possibly without the subject's consent) was as part of a massive spam campaign on the English Wikipedia; see en:WP:ANI#Sainath_Dukkipati and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiassociate/Archive. Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: portrait uploaded by self-promoter blocked on enwp but still trying via IPs to hijack an article about a namesake. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides being out of scope, it's also a copyright violation since it's a derivative work of a YouTube screenshot. — TintoMeches, 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality, only used on one page where it can be easily substituted for a much higher quality image Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep. This image is in use on five pages (not one as stated above) and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, poor usage of what looks like a Photoshop filter, only used on one page where it can be easily substituted for a much higher quality image Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep. This image is in use, albeit only on one page, and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Console depicted appears to be missing a part and the image can be easily substituted for a higher quality version of the subject (which is not broken) Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep. This image is widely used and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Console depicted appears to be missing a part, image can be easily substituted for a higher quality image (which does not show the subject with missing parts) Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep. This image is widely used and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality, numerous images of far higher quality can be found of the subject Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- KeepIn use in W:it:Atari 7800 and W:nl:Atari 7800. Tm (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep. Files that are in use cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete, can be easily substituted for higher quality versions on the Commons Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy Keep --- This image is widely used on WMF projects and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Likely an invalid copyright claim by uploader. A web search reveals several similar images, some of them not containing the attribution mark (illegible here anyway, but does not seem to refer to the uploader). Keφr (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's blurred. Less blurred picture of the same people with different face expression is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No concieveable use of this file. Rschen7754 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Converted from speedy: Reason was "copyvio". PaterMcFly (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Utility object, the cadridge layout is not really copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per PaterMcFly. If there is a problem in the drawing of a shield, it could be pixelated. Trycatch (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd rather not pixelate the shield; it's hard, but given the angle of the picture, which clearly shows off the cartridge, not the label, I think we can call the shield de minimis here. --Prosfilaes (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete or remove logo. Image usage is definitely not Commons:De minimis and not about cartridge. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say it's not about the cartridge; it's the only official non-gray cartridge made for the system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Me neither, all usages point out that being golden is so special about the cadridge, not the logo on it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say it's not about the cartridge; it's the only official non-gray cartridge made for the system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. A close call, but I think we can say de minimus given the angle of the image and the importance of the rest of it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality, easily substituted Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep How is this image of "poor quality"? This image is of very good quality and is also the only image of this game catridge, so this image is not "easily substituted". Also in use in w:sv:The Legend of Zelda. Tm (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, speedy: that's not a reason to delete a file that's in use, especially one that doesn't have a replacement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep This file is in use and therefore cannot be deleted for any reason other than copyright status. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:SA Metal Recyclers
[edit]
Each file is the same image, but all are listed with different dates. The uploader claims that they are "Own work." The image seems to come from [1] (the SA Metal Group site) but there is no indication that the image was released under the copyright tag used here. ALH (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coriinthehouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvios or out of scope images.
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk hand heart sunset water.png
- File:Cornelia kowalczyk hand-heart-2.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk flower headband.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk hair flip.png
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk walk on beach sunset.jpg
- File:Cornelia kowalczyk hand-heart.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 15.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 14.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 13.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 12.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 11.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 10.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 9.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 8.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 7.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 6.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 4.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 5.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 2.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk 1.jpg
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk.JPG
- File:Cornelia Kowalczyk.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope (personal photo) — Yerpo Eh? 19:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not used personal image.It is doubtful whether educational. Vantey (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral A very good attempt at "photographing the photographer", but the camera jerked. Is there a better alternative? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Damian Malczewski (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion given. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted illustration artworks. Vantey (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright uncertain. [1] − AtomicGagou (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](/w/index.php?title=File_talk:King_Willem-Alexander,_Queen_Maxima_and_their_daughters_2013.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The discussion can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Early-closed as an obviously abusive nomination without any valid evidence for the alleged "copyright uncertain". -- Túrelio (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright uncertain. This file is very similar to the press-pics found on the internet : [1] (see page 13), [2] and [3]. Aspects of different images (angle, colors, etc.) are identical. A doubt is allowed on the originality and freedom of rights of this photo. − AtomicGagou (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](http://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/willem-alexander-family2.jpg){kind=link}
- There were thousands of people standing before the balcony on that moment with little space to manoeuvre. Many of the people there took photos of this scene. The angle of the other photos you refer to differ in angle. Sonty (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the Flickr photostream that this image comes from? I think it fits in fine with the rest of the photos there. The photographer was apparently standing in front of the balcony under that angle (see [2]), and color, lighting and sharpness of the pictures do not seem comparable to the high-resolution professional press images that you're linking to. It is inevitable that photographs of the same event look alike. Your doubts are allowed, but I do not yet see a reason to share those doubts. Unless clearer evidence surfaces, I would say Keep. By the way, shouldn't the template be added to the file page itself instead of the talk page? Pbech (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly! I actually took that picture to show all the people taking pictures :) Floris2132 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The photo above is not at all taken from the same place as the picture to be deleted. There are no reports. I stand by my request for deletion. Delete − AtomicGagou (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the Flickr-set(s) of the photographer? Here you can see his set of that day[3] Took a look as well of his next picture in the set[4]. It shows the crowd be4 the balcony moments later. Quite some ordinairy ppl can be seen taking pictures in that photo or checking their camera. Nothing to worry about that his pictures are not legitimate. Sonty (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It can also clearly be seen that various elements in the photograph (parts of the balcony, the building, the interior and the people on the balcony) line up in almost exactly the same way in both pictures. I wonder how you can be so sure that they were not taken from (almost) the same place. Pbech (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly not the same photo as is suggested, photo can be seen at Flickr complete with rights (that are the same as on Wikimedia). And as Sonty said, there where thousands of people on the Dam, meaning thousands of people who might contribute to Wikimedia. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The photographs presented show camera angles very different views. In addition, Flickr does not verify the authorship of pictures uploaded to the site. Finally, if the brightness can actually change the color intensity, applied to images settings ... do not change. It is impossible to establish the paternity of this photographer. The resemblance press photos currently circulating is too disturbing. Doubt can not stand. DELETION − AtomicGagou (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you offer any proof at all for your statement that the camera angles are 'very different' with respect to the other photographs in that Flickr photostream? Do you have any reasonable worries that those other photos (such as [5] and [6]) are indeed also professional press photographs? Indeed, we cannot with certainty establish the 'paternity' of the photographer. However, that goes for almost all pictures on Wikimedia Commons, and in this case, there is nothing, that suggests that this is anything else than what is claimed. By the way, one 'vote' icon per user is enough, I think. Pbech (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- This image [1]is clearly not taken from the same place that the offending picture. It is taken away. As for this one [2], it is taken back to the palace. These photos are not related to the photo asking question. So how do you establish any link ? This is pointless. More reason to avoid this dubious picture. I remain in favor of the DELETION. − AtomicGagou (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The only real differences between this and this photo is 3 minutes and zoom/non-zoom (check EXIF-data). Anyway I end my part in this discussion since all seems to be said. Sonty (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly those three minutes are not realistic. It takes more than 200mm to cover the distance between the position of this photo and the palace balcony. There is no need to be a photographer to see it. So in fact, all is said. When in doubt, this photo should be deleted. − AtomicGagou (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can of course just repeat what you've been saying without proof, adding 'clearly' to make it seem self-evident, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger. I conclude that you have no proof whatsoever that the pictures were taken from different positions. But please, go ahead, and do the math that shows that going from 18 mm to 200 mm cannot bring about the magnification between those photographs (taking into account, of course, that the 'wide' image has the full 6000x4000 size while the 'zoomed-in' picture was cropped from 6000x4000 to 4042x3047. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe that this is an elaborate hoax including a cunning manipulation of the EXIF data. Anyway, I'm done here. But I might just take my puny little camera to Dam square this weekend to try out what it can do with its 50 mm. Pbech (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The only real differences between this and this photo is 3 minutes and zoom/non-zoom (check EXIF-data). Anyway I end my part in this discussion since all seems to be said. Sonty (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- This image [1]is clearly not taken from the same place that the offending picture. It is taken away. As for this one [2], it is taken back to the palace. These photos are not related to the photo asking question. So how do you establish any link ? This is pointless. More reason to avoid this dubious picture. I remain in favor of the DELETION. − AtomicGagou (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you offer any proof at all for your statement that the camera angles are 'very different' with respect to the other photographs in that Flickr photostream? Do you have any reasonable worries that those other photos (such as [5] and [6]) are indeed also professional press photographs? Indeed, we cannot with certainty establish the 'paternity' of the photographer. However, that goes for almost all pictures on Wikimedia Commons, and in this case, there is nothing, that suggests that this is anything else than what is claimed. By the way, one 'vote' icon per user is enough, I think. Pbech (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Sonty. Different angels? The photograps in the photostream are shot at the same location - confirmed by the photographs of other parts of the square. The photograph has the same angle as this one. The photographer is standing left of the balcony. The official press stage was right of the balcony. The photographer was definetely standing in the crowd - left of the balcony. And the official press in front of the palace was standing really right in front of the balcony; so they couldn't shot this one. I90Christian (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just do a search on Google to find that many press photos are taken at the same angle as the offending picture. Reread the first messages, the issue has already been raised. − AtomicGagou (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also. It is impossible to cover the distance between the location of the photographer and the balcony with 200mm zoom. Think about it, try "for real". You'll see. It's impossible. − AtomicGagou (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The official press stand was in front of the Bijenkorf, this photo was taken from near Madame tussauds... that's a distance of about 50 meters, at least. I guess you've never been to Amsterdam, otherwise you might notice the different angles. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving me your guide services but I know Amsterdam well. Friendly. :) – AtomicGagou (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The official press stand was in front of the Bijenkorf, this photo was taken from near Madame tussauds... that's a distance of about 50 meters, at least. I guess you've never been to Amsterdam, otherwise you might notice the different angles. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the photographer of this picture, so I can assure you this is my own work. I was on the Dam square at 7am to make sure I would be close enough to make good pictures. The image is not edited, just cropped. Not sure what you mean with the different angles, I was on the same spot all the time. I did not upload it to Wikimedia, just noticed someone did because of the referals in Flickr stats. Usage in Wikimedia is one of the reasons I photograph. I actually take the remarks here as a compliment my photo's apparently look professional :) Floris2132 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is indeed very clean. I know what I'm talking about angles, since I am myself photographer and I know well the Dam Square. I wish I could believe you. It would therefore be interesting for you to make more guarantees when your paternity in this picture. Thanks. – AtomicGagou (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment. I'm not sure if I can convince you. Here's the original image so you can do your angle analysis: thumb|Original to prove copyright claim BTW GPS is probably off a lot, I noticed that on my phone, probably due to all the signals in the air. I believe the pictures are also off by 1 hour because I was in the UK recently and time/data setting is really strange on A65 Floris2132 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Times were indeed off by 1 hour, I corrected them in Flickr. But the GPS is actually really accurate on the pictures. If you click on the map you can see exactly where I was standing. Floris2132 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment. I'm not sure if I can convince you. Here's the original image so you can do your angle analysis: thumb|Original to prove copyright claim BTW GPS is probably off a lot, I noticed that on my phone, probably due to all the signals in the air. I believe the pictures are also off by 1 hour because I was in the UK recently and time/data setting is really strange on A65 Floris2132 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is indeed very clean. I know what I'm talking about angles, since I am myself photographer and I know well the Dam Square. I wish I could believe you. It would therefore be interesting for you to make more guarantees when your paternity in this picture. Thanks. – AtomicGagou (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I cannot see why AtomicGagou insists on deletion (and keeps writing that word in bold letters over and over again). The photograph obviously does not violate any copyright, as the Flickr user himself took it and uploaded it. I would like to assume good faith here, but it is a bit hard given how obviously wrong the nominator is. Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Sonty, Pbech, Dqfn13, Floris2132 and Surtsicna. By the way, thus Floris2132 is the photographer, the copyright isn't uncertain any longer. LeoDavid (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- We must stop telling cracks. Floris himself admits not being able to prove his paternity on this shooting. In the present state, I remain convinced that this file must be removed. But I looking for an alternative solution. There is necessarily one that you like it or not. In the meantime, thanks to no longer undo the changes I made on the relevant pages. These actions do not plead in favor of keeping this file, or the adoption of any intermediary. Find yourself an other occupation. I know for my part to restore these changes, whether they should be. Thanks. — AtomicGagou (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are being very unreasonable. I only admit I am probably not able to convince you this is my picture. We can't go back in time. I have hundreds of shots (my camera does 8fps) of these scenes and chose this one because Maxima was looking in my direction. I even uploaded the original uncropped version especially for you. If that does not convince you I don't know how to do it. I'm guessing this has something to do with the deletion of this image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prinses_Catharina-Amalia.jpg Floris2132 (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- @AtomicGagou - after all these proofs and statements the ownership should be cleared. If you still have doubt, please give an evidence that this shot is not done by Floris2132 and published elsewhere stating a different ownership. --Maxxl2 - talk 09:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Following the threats received and blocking abusive to my account, demonstrating the contentious nature of this file, I definitely vote for deleting the file and its derivatives. Cordially. — AtomicGagou (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're confusing threats with warnings following abusive behaviour on a cross-wiki scale. Also, your opinion is clear now, believe me, there's no need to vote multiple times. Mathonius (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You confuse authority and authoritarianism. Unlock my access to Wikipedia NL, be reasonable in your opinion, and then we can continue this discussion. — AtomicGagou (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're confusing threats with warnings following abusive behaviour on a cross-wiki scale. Also, your opinion is clear now, believe me, there's no need to vote multiple times. Mathonius (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep its all said and proven. --Maxxl2 - talk 09:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The act of publishing a large file format does not at all prove paternity. Anyone can publish a file and say he is the author. — AtomicGagou (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are still unreasonable, AtomicGagou. What's Your intention with this recalcitrance? After all these proofs and statements the ownership should be cleared. Yes, indeed, it's all said and proven. Thus I still vote to keep. LeoDavid (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is not unreasonable to raise doubts about the paternity of a photograph like this. There were thousands of press photographers on the Dam Square and all certainly were not placed in the official rank. Floris can not prove that he is the author of this photograph. Post an original file does not make him the author. I can totally, and if you really want, publish a random file and you will see that it will be impossible to determine with certainty whether this is my work or that of another, and this even though I swear my gods that I am the author. So, when in doubt, it is appropriate to dismiss this file. Or, alternatively, find a file with no doubt paternity and replace it, or alternatively, ask Floris produce the raw file of this photo. With a RAW file, it may be possible to identify the author of the file, without any controversy. This is also after I heard offer when Mathionus blocked my access to sites Wikipedia NL, EN, FR, NO and DE. — AtomicGagou (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If Floris' arguments is unsufficient to prove that he is the author of this photograph, no one else can prove that he/she is the photographer either. Then the author must be considered as unknown. That would not apply to this image only, but to most of the content on Wikimedia Commons... – 4ing (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is not unreasonable to raise doubts about the paternity of a photograph like this. There were thousands of press photographers on the Dam Square and all certainly were not placed in the official rank. Floris can not prove that he is the author of this photograph. Post an original file does not make him the author. I can totally, and if you really want, publish a random file and you will see that it will be impossible to determine with certainty whether this is my work or that of another, and this even though I swear my gods that I am the author. So, when in doubt, it is appropriate to dismiss this file. Or, alternatively, find a file with no doubt paternity and replace it, or alternatively, ask Floris produce the raw file of this photo. With a RAW file, it may be possible to identify the author of the file, without any controversy. This is also after I heard offer when Mathionus blocked my access to sites Wikipedia NL, EN, FR, NO and DE. — AtomicGagou (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Using OSM, Google street images, Floris2132 pictures, his Test shot (taken before the event to evaluate the best spot), the sequence and data of his uploads on Flickr enabled me to draw a map of the square (platttegrond van de plein) referencing the flood light posts as the closest items to the camera. (in Floris2132 photos you'll find all these items) If you then draw a line between the centre of the balcony and the TV camera stand facing the palace centered, another line between the 2 light posts next to the corners of the palace, it is easy to locate the spot of Floris2132 camera while the photos were taken. Now I have no doubt at all that Floris2132 report of the event is true. --Maxxl2 - talk 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- What OSM and Google Maps / Images are evidence ? These tools only see the configuration of the Dam Square. It shows also that there is more than 50m from the position of the author of the photo and the balcony. This is the only evidence provided by these tools. For the rest, there was certainly press photographers in the crowd. This is a classic photojournalist to mingle with the audience. It is clear that you are not pro photographer ! — AtomicGagou (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Most press was in the press spot in front of the audience or in the stage in front of Bijenkorf. Of course there were press photographers in the audience. I even shot a picture of some of them [7] but you will undoubtedly claim than can never be my picture. Floris2132 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I maintain that nothing can prove who is the author of these photos. Can you establish your paternity by a raw file ? — AtomicGagou (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Most press was in the press spot in front of the audience or in the stage in front of Bijenkorf. Of course there were press photographers in the audience. I even shot a picture of some of them [7] but you will undoubtedly claim than can never be my picture. Floris2132 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- What OSM and Google Maps / Images are evidence ? These tools only see the configuration of the Dam Square. It shows also that there is more than 50m from the position of the author of the photo and the balcony. This is the only evidence provided by these tools. For the rest, there was certainly press photographers in the crowd. This is a classic photojournalist to mingle with the audience. It is clear that you are not pro photographer ! — AtomicGagou (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are still unreasonable, AtomicGagou. What's Your intention with this recalcitrance? After all these proofs and statements the ownership should be cleared. Yes, indeed, it's all said and proven. Thus I still vote to keep. LeoDavid (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The act of publishing a large file format does not at all prove paternity. Anyone can publish a file and say he is the author. — AtomicGagou (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This is an easy case, just take a look at some of the other pictures in his flickr stream. Then take a look at the information that exif gives, and compare. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve this user. Haros (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- EXIF information is managed by the current websites. Go to the sites current release, you will find that the images are "complete" in the sense that they have all the information on the shooting. Moreover, EXIF are easily modifiable through OS computers or freeware. The EXIF argument does not stand up, anyone can get a "full" photo, tweak and then say he is the author. — AtomicGagou (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is assuming someone is actually planning such theft in detail. Much more effort than going to the place and take the picture. It is not possible to prove completely that it is his picture, only beyond any reasonable doubt. Haros (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The notion of reasonable doubt is not a legal concept. In the Netherlands, in France and elsewhere in Europe, the lingering doubt led to legally avoid any questionable items. This rule should apply here too. — AtomicGagou (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lingering doubt? There's only Your restiveness, nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoDavid (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3. Mai 2013 (UTC)
- The injury is the weapon of the weak , my dear. Next time take the time to sign. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry! My bad! -The lingering doubt? There's only Your restiveness, nothing else. That's better: Yours faithfully, LeoDavid (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The injury is the weapon of the weak , my dear. — AtomicGagou (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry! My bad! -The lingering doubt? There's only Your restiveness, nothing else. That's better: Yours faithfully, LeoDavid (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The injury is the weapon of the weak , my dear. Next time take the time to sign. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lingering doubt? There's only Your restiveness, nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoDavid (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3. Mai 2013 (UTC)
- The notion of reasonable doubt is not a legal concept. In the Netherlands, in France and elsewhere in Europe, the lingering doubt led to legally avoid any questionable items. This rule should apply here too. — AtomicGagou (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is assuming someone is actually planning such theft in detail. Much more effort than going to the place and take the picture. It is not possible to prove completely that it is his picture, only beyond any reasonable doubt. Haros (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- After confronting the Dutch legislation on copyright and rules of Wiki project, I propose the following : keep this picture and its derivatives and consider that it is of unknown authorship ; this until other non-controversial images can be proposed or that Floris provide proof of paternity by the production of a raw file. I am still open to discussion. However I pray a neutral administrator to resolve and close this debate. — AtomicGagou (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not a professional photographer so I do not shoot RAW. Especially not at these important moments when I want the cameras buffer empty as soon as possible. Floris2132 (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- By "neutral administrator", I suppose you mean "the one who will delete the file". The authorship is not unknown. Floris Looijesteijn is the author of this photograph and I pray that he will not be discouraged by this horrendous failure to assume good faith. Surtsicna (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Surtsicna > By "neutral administrator," I mean administrator has not taken part in this debate. I could specify « having no personal interest in it », but you take the bad. Whoever claims to paternity can not formally demonstrated. The author is unknown. You know, it's like with the children if you can not prove that you are the father, you do not appear on the birth certificate. There is the same. It is simple. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Floris2132 > Fortunately it is not necessary to be a professional to shoot in RAW. You should put because you see, if you had shot in RAW, you could easily prove that you are the author and the debate would be close. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no doubt on my mind that if I would have given you the RAW file you would have said that can be faked as well. Just admit you are wrong here and let's get back to something productive. Floris2132 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- A RAW is not falsifiable. The interest is here. I agree. Let doubt on this file, adopt an intermediate position and actually move to more constructive things. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are the only one with a doubt about the origin of this image. So far I haven't seen any clear proof from your side which proves the image was not taken by Floris2132. So instead of continuously repeating yourself I propose you start providing some real proof yourself. Please stop this nonsense if you are not able to deliver real proof that, beyond any doubt, will proof Floris2132 is not the author of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.212 (talk • contribs)
- A RAW is not falsifiable. The interest is here. I agree. Let doubt on this file, adopt an intermediate position and actually move to more constructive things. — AtomicGagou (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no doubt on my mind that if I would have given you the RAW file you would have said that can be faked as well. Just admit you are wrong here and let's get back to something productive. Floris2132 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Early-closed as an obviously abusive nomination without any valid evidence for the alleged "copyright uncertain". -- Túrelio (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded in error Sanshu (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have converted the RfD to speedy deletion because of general reason #1 on Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright uncertain. [1] − AtomicGagou (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Willem-Alexander,_Queen_Maxima_and_their_daughters_2013.jpg){kind=link}
- The discussion can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Early-closed as an obviously abusive nomination without any valid evidence for the alleged "copyright uncertain". -- Túrelio (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright uncertain. [1] − AtomicGagou (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Early-closed as an obviously abusive nomination without any valid evidence for the alleged "copyright uncertain". -- Túrelio (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Posed photos of a celebrity with no metadata and by a contributor with no other uploads. Possible copyvio?
-mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, uploader seems genuine. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a photograph or scan of a copyrighted image Ytoyoda (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No clear evidence given that this is the work of a governmental employee. The provided source link is a direct link to the image and cannot help to find this out High Contrast (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Try backing up a level. You couldn't ask before DR? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- In case you are not familiar with the TLA, "PAO" refers to the US Army "Public Affairs Office". All of these were formerly posted at redstone.army.mil, but that site was taken down some time ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Before rabbling around, add a valid source. And yes, of course I'm gonna help you. Where did you found it? Can you give a clear source which brings evidence for PD-USGov? You should think of that many of such images were not created by a US military/governmental employee but by the manufacturer of that missile. --High Contrast (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: http://www.designation-systems.net is oftenly considered a solid source. There is some kind of verification that it is a US governmental image High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The image has been around the web (Twitter, Facebook etc.) since at least march [8]. It's one of those "memes" where it's probably next to impossibru impossible to determine the original author. However, it's probably not "own work" by the uploader. El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are some more, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files Uploades by User TuFlorezhita97 --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The flickr source mentions the date to be June 2010 while the actual image found here was uploaded in April 2008 —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot from a video whose copyright status is unknown. Jespinos (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Files Uploades by User TuFlorezhita97
[edit]A bunch of pictures grabbed from the web and put in randomly choosen categories
- File:4ff8ba3b91f7230545001805-original.jpg: professional promotion picture, see eg. [9]
- File:Italia.jpg: this one might in fact be own work (didn't find any matches in Google image search), but that fact that it has been added to Category:6"/30 caliber naval gun makes me suspicious.
- File:Mi novioo.jpg: here is a watermarked version of it, also: out of scope.
- File:Gvml.jpg: higher resolution appeared here as early as 2006, watermark has been removed …
- File:Angela 176.jpg: watermark leads to [10]
- File:Gloogle.jpg: might be something like PD-simple, but doesn't seem to be useful (at least as long as it is only categorized in Category:6"/30 caliber naval gun)
- File:Tu botellla.jpg: eg. [11]
- File:Perrito.jpg : typical "meme"-picture, has been around the web since at least 2009 [12]
- File:Bu el amor.jpg … and so on …
- File:Cuartel2013.jpg
see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUy TRIzte.jpg --El Grafo (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal images.
- File:Angely desire mayorga.jpg
- File:Anlli mayorga.jpg
- File:Anlli.jpg
- File:Angely mayorga cantante.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Generationsconlaw45 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
SVG at File:New England blank flag.svg. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. SVG available. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination russavia (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted software Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio russavia (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Photo actually shows a 2600 modified as a small PC Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep That may be a reason for a new file name and description, but it seems to me it makes the image more interesting, not less. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree; the description and filename should be corrected- or the discrepancy at least noted- but that does not warrant deletion of the whole image. Ubcule (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Additional; The image has now been correctly titled (as File:RAID array inside Atari 2600 case.jpg) and the description updated. This negates the rationale for the original request. The info was found at the image's original Flickr source, and it turns out it was a RAID (HDD) array in an old defunct 2600 case. Ubcule (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete, not used on any pages Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep That is not a reason to delete. Files can be in use both within and outside WMF. The fact that the image is obsolete is a particular reason to keep it for historical reasons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Taivo (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Usefull image. Tm (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete, higher quality versions are available on the Commons Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- So why are some wikis still using this "obsolete" image if there are better quality replacements (Where?)? --Denniss (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Image is in use so it's not obsolete (yet). // Liftarn (talk)
- Should be speedy kept as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:5200controller.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atari 5200.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:5200controller.jpg. (The same blanket rationale was used for a large number of deletion requests including those ones, and all were rejected for the same reason). Ubcule (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep Taivo (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. It is property of NatureServe as noted in the caption. NatureServe copyright info can be seen at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. The map is also used at http://eol.org/data_objects/14902021, which displays its copyright info. Tortie tude (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Outdated map of featured articles for a project on the English Wikipedia. As this pertains only to the administration of the English Wikipedia, it has no conceivable use at any other project, nor by the general public. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Support not useful anywhere, not even on the English Wikipedia anymore. --Rschen7754 08:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
looks to professional for "own work", imho Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Who is this? Is it more than an unused personal picture? Delete based on available information. -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
looks to professional for "own work". Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
we do not need that miscolored GIF anymore Antemister (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree The colors on the Vector version looks much better. I see the pages where it links to has been updated to the new version. Agree to delete old version --Ossewa (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from http://www.cnue.eu/. Cannot be released into public domain by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from http://www.cnue.eu/. Cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Better quality picture of same subject is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bronisław Radziszewski died in 1914. Hence, it is unsure, if the author died more than 70 years ago. Leyo 13:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The license was corrected for PD-Polish.
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Extremely poor quality. Not useful. Leyo 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, the file is not useful in quality. I created File:Dihydrozeatin.svg and replaced the one use of Dihydrozeatin.JPG. Ed (Edgar181) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Scan of more or less modern map most probably copyvio. тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Surely Boeing owns copyright for this photograph High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. They also own the copyright on the plane itself. Since it is a full size mockup, not a working plane, it is legally a model, not utilitarian, and therefore may have a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete PD tag gives no indication of where it might have been published without a copyright notice. Merely existing as a print is not the same thing as being published. -Pete F (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
File:The work of Meiji University which won the victory in Best Illusin of the Year Contest 2010.jpg
[edit]
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Very similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Less blurred picture of the same building is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Less blurred picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the file description, derivative work (screenshot) of a video whose authorship has not been mentioned. Presently unused and, therefore, should be deleted as per COM:PRP. We have a lot of other media related to the concerned event. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the file description, derivative work (screenshot) of a video whose authorship has not been mentioned. Presently unused and, therefore, should be deleted as per COM:PRP. We have a lot of other media related to the concerned event. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the file description, derivative work (screenshot) of a video whose authorship has not been mentioned. Presently unused and, therefore, should be deleted as per COM:PRP. We have a lot of other media related to the concerned event. Rahul Bott (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyright protected artwork High Contrast (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: as per {{FoP-Belgium}}. Yann (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Marcel Gimond died 1961; no COM:FOP in France. Lupo 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
copyvio as photography work and literary work. Vantey (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete: despite there originally being an Attribution tag on this image it is unlikely the uploader had the right to that copyright as the author was named as L&T Properties, whose source website domain is now for sale so the source cannot be verified. A Wayback machine archived page shows an All Rights Reserved copyright notice. Ww2censor (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Only upload by user, no metadata. I smell copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Also per COM:DW. Jespinos (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted illustration artworks. Vantey (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears out of COM:SCOPE (possibly attack image as well) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work, copyvio as photography work. Vantey (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted illustration artwork. Vantey (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted coins and (presumably) copyrighted booklets. Stefan4 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Jespinos (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
F Card
[edit]
Derivative work of copyrighted illustration artwork. --Vantey (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Console and controller depicted are mirrored (!) and therefore do not reflect what they actually look like Jupiter-4 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seems this picture is just a very low resolution copy of this one (or this one). For me, it should be deleted for copyright. --SamuelFreli (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Speak about coincidence! I spotted *exactly* the same thing and when I tried submitting my comment below I ran into an edit conflict where you spotted exactly the same thing. Here it is anyway...)
- I've confirmed that the image is reversed. However, IMHO, this is questionable grounds for deletion, as the fix is obvious and straightforward; either flip it in an image editor (which takes virtually no time) or request that someone do that for you.
- I've flipped it myself. (You may have to refresh your browser cache to see the new version, and even then Commons has some weird caching images too, so see the image history at the bottom of the page to confirm the change).
- In theory that negates the original justification for deletion above. However...
- One thing I noticed is that the description claims that it's a "drawing" when it looked more like a heavily processed photo to me. This made me suspicious; I flipped the image, then did a Google image search for "Atari 7800".
- Lo, and behold, I came across this image (which can also be found [here). When scaled appropriately, the "drawing" fits *exactly* over the photographs.
- Bearing in mind the photo-like quality of the "drawing", I think there is sufficient evidence that this is a copyvio and should be deleted on that basis instead.
- (I should make clear that I still disagree with the original reason for the nomination though). Ubcule (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per SamuelFreli and Ubcule. –moogsi (blah) 14:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like a photo of a book/magazine. Needs a source. –moogsi (blah) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - collage of unsourced images INeverCry 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: possible copyvio, distorted and not useful George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Copy with deleted watermark available at File:Egyptian geese-4837 3 no-watermark.jpg. IMO there has been negligible loss in image quality. Rahul Bott (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is the original image, but maybe it can be speedily deleted because it's a duplicate. Also, I have removed all the file links to the original image. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, though I think in general it's better to upload a retouched picture like this over the original instead of as a separate file. That way, if the end user is not satisfied with the watermark and wants to redo that work him or herself, access to the original is preserved (without cluttering up the namespace). -Pete F (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As long as we have a derivative work that cites this as the original, it can't be deleted. A history merge is possible if you think the retouched version should have been uploaded over this one. –moogsi (blah) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspect, that when user chooses user name in japanese (?) hieroglyphs, then he is not copyright holder of Philippines organization logo. Taivo (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The user is from the Philippines, however this logo is previously published and assumed copyrighted in the absence of evidence of a free license. –moogsi (blah) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Low quality photo that doesn't ID the subject; better photo at File:John Carlson of Minnesota Vikings, 2012-12-30.jpg Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also nominate File:RhettEllison.PNG for the same reason (because of file:Rhett Ellison 2012-12-30.jpg) Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also nominate File:JeromeSimpson.PNG for the same reason because of file:Jerome Simpson on the bench 2012-12-30.jpg. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep The photos suggested for replacement are not at all similar to photos suggested for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The nomination does not suggest direct replacements for the photos, but proposes that they do not illustrate anything significant about the subject (they are all cropped from a distant photo which doesn't show their faces) –moogsi (blah) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agamitsudo as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Bad quality Didym (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad quality, not useful for education George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- The person is described as world champion in some sport. Probably notable for Wikipedia, so I do not understand the "no private image host" argument. Is there some reason to doubt the description or do you think the merits are insufficient? --LPfi (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's a fake. I'd expect to find something on that person if the description were true, but Google comes up empty. Several other Salas on sherdog, but not this boy. Someone's been having fun. Lupo 15:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure, Google news archive search does come up with some things. [13] -Pete F (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Your Google-link gives no results (on my devices). Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, bad colours, not faithful reproduction of the original, while other versions are much better Smnt (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - La autopsia - 1890.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In use, according to the last DR. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Still in use. –moogsi (blah) 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - La autopsia - 1890.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Small, dark image that loses a lot of detail. –moogsi (blah) 16:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad quality testicle photo, not used Taivo (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Its filename has a similar meaning as "orchitis caused by mumps". Jespinos (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Badly framed enough that it's not useful for illustrating inflammation (subject is partly cropped out, there's nothign for scale, etc.) –moogsi (blah) 14:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Anshul chauhan
[edit]User Anshul chauhan has uploaded some images, which are listed for deletion. Now I list for deletion all his other uploaded files:
- File:Baby palte.jpg (unused drawing about plate)
- File:Tea Pot.jpg (unused drawing about tea pot)
- File:A4ljq3CCYAAw6sL.jpg (unused personal photo)
Taivo (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Kryksa4384
[edit]User Kryksa4384 has uploaded File:Ментоловые носки KROP & KRYX.jpg, which is requested to delete with reason: "Part of spam activity. Brand labels without real need. Not in use." But he has uploaded other images too:
- File:Ментоловые носки КРОП и КРЫКС Menthol socks KROP & KRYX.jpg (unused photo about the same product)
- File:Логотип KROP & KRYX.png (product logo, unused)
- File:Kryksa.jpg (uploader himself, unused personal photo)
Taivo (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdelilah94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
These photos are so blurry that they must be considered useless.
- File:20 cents italien.jpg
- File:20 cents Pays-Bas.jpg
- File:Piéce 1 euro.jpg
- File:Piéce 20 cents.jpg
- File:Piéce 10 cents.jpg
- File:Piéce 5 cents.jpg
- File:Piece 10 cents belge.jpg
- File:20 cents allemand.jpg
- File:1 euros allemand.jpg
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
possibly out of scope text files/PDF presentations. Also see com:DW and com:scope.
- File:Uso adecuado de los recursos.pdf
- File:Estilos de vida y consumo.pdf
- File:Impacto de las acciones.pdf
- File:Acciones de mayor y menor impacto.pdf
McZusatz (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coverblame (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvios/out of scope - taken from http://pi-online.ru/ - these are characters and icons from an online game - not sure about copyright status or what educational value these would have - none are currently used
- File:9703e6adc7f127b698481a8fa98ced07 8part icon.jpg
- File:C5052330ab239de19ee3ab29847027b2 news icons 2.png
- File:Icon map forest.png
- File:Bench icon.png
- File:Woronok.jpg
- File:Doggys.jpg
- File:Cccat.jpg
- File:Woman ava 04.png
- File:Man ava 01.png
- File:Woman ava 03.png
- File:Woman ava 01.png
- File:Man ava 04.png
- File:Man ava 03.png
- File:Polnyj-pi.jpg
INeverCry 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
big collection of images centered around what looks to be a possibly notable official of some kind - several copyright and scope problems - many of these are family/vacation/personal images - others are old BnW images of unknown authorship - and others are modern photos of unknown authorship - I looked at 30 or so of these and didn't find one that was in use anywhere
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Mexica.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Warsovia.Polonia.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris.Restaurant ,,Doina"..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Helsinki.Finlanda.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Mexica.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Valetta.Malta.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.CEDO.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris.2002.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Kirghizia.2005.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Chisinau.07.04.2009.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Intilnire cu fostii colegi de facultate.Chisinau.1988.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Leuntea (Stefan Voda).1988.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Stalingrad.1986.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Caragas (Slobozia,Transnistria).1986.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Tiraspol.1984.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Armata Sovietica..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.In muntii Caucaz.1972.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Marneuli(Georgia).1972.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.APCE.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Tiraspol. 2000..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.1996.In arestul separatist.Hlinaia.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Saiti (Causeni).1980.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Budapesta.1980.jpg
- File:Ilascu.Leningrad.1981.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu fiica.Ciobruciu.1980.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Pervomaisc (Cimislia).1982.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu la Ciobruciu (Slobozia , Transnistria)1980.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Chisinau.1973.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu la tancul din Tiraspol.1977.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu colegii de facultate.Chisinau.1973.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu,La o demonstratie comunista.1974.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu colegii de facultate.Chisinau.1978.JPG
- File:Timbru cu Ilie Ilascu. 2000.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Sanct Peterburg.1990.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Sinaia.2009.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu si Dumitru Naconecnii la Paris .2006..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu la Kiev. decembrie 2004.JPG
- File:Causeni,Nina si Valentina.2011.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.APCE.Strasbourg.2008.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.APCE.2008.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Brusell .2006..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Soldanesti.2011.JPG
- File:Orheiul vechi.Ilie Ilascu.2011.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.2011.Linga Soroca.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Manastirea Saharna.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Iasi.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu Adrian Paunescu.2001.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.2001.Parlamentul Romaniei..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Cotroceni.2001.JPG
- File:Nunta Tanei .26 iulie 2008..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Monaco.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Capri..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu Kemer.JPG
- File:Paris. 5 - 10 decembrie.2004. 0093.jpg
.1988.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.1986.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.1972.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.1982.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1980.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 21:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept Portraits of Ilie Ilașcu in project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The above DR was closed as kept because the files are in scope. But even though these files are in scope, there are several copyright problems as INeverCry said. Different cameras and resolutions are used. Moreover, the old photos are unlikely to be made by the uploader. OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder(s) of these images.
- File:1992.5 In lunca Nistrului (Slobozia).jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Mexica.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Warsovia.Polonia.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris.Restaurant ,,Doina"..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Helsinki.Finlanda.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Mexica.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Valetta.Malta.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.CEDO.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Paris.2002.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Kirghizia.2005.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Chisinau.07.04.2009.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Intilnire cu fostii colegi de facultate.Chisinau.1988.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Leuntea (Stefan Voda).1988.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Stalingrad.1986.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Caragas (Slobozia,Transnistria).1986.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Tiraspol.1984.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Armata Sovietica..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.In muntii Caucaz.1972.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Marneuli(Georgia).1972.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.APCE.2004.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Tiraspol. 2000..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.1996.In arestul separatist.Hlinaia.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Saiti (Causeni).1980.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Budapesta.1980.jpg
- File:Ilascu.Leningrad.1981.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu fiica.Ciobruciu.1980.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Pervomaisc (Cimislia).1982.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu la Ciobruciu (Slobozia , Transnistria)1980.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Chisinau.1973.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu la tancul din Tiraspol.1977.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu colegii de facultate.Chisinau.1973.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu,La o demonstratie comunista.1974.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu colegii de facultate.Chisinau.1978.JPG
- File:Timbru cu Ilie Ilascu. 2000.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Sanct Peterburg.1990.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Sinaia.2009.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu si Dumitru Naconecnii la Paris .2006..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu la Kiev. decembrie 2004.JPG
- File:Causeni,Nina si Valentina.2011.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.APCE.Strasbourg.2008.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Strasbourg.APCE.2008.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Brusell .2006..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Soldanesti.2011.JPG
- File:Orheiul vechi.Ilie Ilascu.2011.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.2011.Linga Soroca.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Manastirea Saharna.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Iasi.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu cu Adrian Paunescu.2001.JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.2001.Parlamentul Romaniei..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Cotroceni.2001.JPG
- File:Nunta Tanei .26 iulie 2008..jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Monaco.jpg
- File:Ilie Ilascu.Capri..JPG
- File:Ilie Ilascu Kemer.JPG
- File:Paris. 5 - 10 decembrie.2004. 0093.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
★ Poké95 06:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement. Also no evidence of permission.
- File:PrePak™ Chips PVG (Пивиджи).jpg
- File:Shelftalker (Шелфтокер) Basic PVG (Пивиджи).png
- File:QR Stand PVG (Пивиджи).png
- File:Base CLZF PVG (ПиВиДжи).png
- File:PVG.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Basic_PVG_(%D0%9F%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete OTRS permission must be obtained, without that we must delete it. Taivo (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rosa Maria Morales (talk · contribs)
[edit]Look like scans of a magazine or a fashion catalogue.
Jespinos (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rosa Maria Morales (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of clip-art, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
pues yo creo que las imágenes deberían ser borradas pues como no le entiendo como subir fotografías y espero de su ayuda
Deleted: per nom. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - La autopsia - 1890.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - El Juicio de Paris - 1904.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Autorretrato - 1910 RGB.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Autorretrato - 1910 RGB.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Camino de El Paular - 1921 GQ.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Camino de El Paular - 1921 GQ.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Terremoto en Málaga - 1885.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Horst Gräbner as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: book cover from 1952.
IMO {{PD-text}} is applicable in this case. Leyo 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept Too simple for copyright. PD-text applies. -FASTILY 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
zawiera twarz osoby która nie powinna się tam znajdować Kapsuglan (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The image is about a person, who is irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Anandtr2006 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agamitsudo as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Bad quality + too recent building (built during the 90s). Didym (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture (sharper) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture with less blurring is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar better quality picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture with better quality is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar picture with better focusing here. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete; new version: File:Enrique Simonet - Flevit super illam - 1892.jpg Smnt (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a copyrighted model. Likely, Boeing is the copyright holder of this model, so a permission by their is required in order to publish this photograph under a free license. Our clear policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit. Please do not mix it up: the museum allows you to photograph but this does not include a free publication of your photographs of copyrighted objects. 178.10.107.102 13:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is the basis to assume that a model from the US from the late 1970s would be copyrighted? Remember that the US was not a signatory to the Berne Convention at that time, so they would have had to file explicitly for copyright on the model. That would have been a very unusual thing to do on any model that was not being created for a commercial model kit, etc. I see no reason to believe that the model is copyrighted. Since the complaint is effectively anonymous, I have no way to follow up and ask for your evidence beyond asking here. - Jmabel ! talk 14:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Models certainly may have a copyright -- they are mentioned explicitly in the US Copyright Office's circulars. However, in the USA, they must follow the same rules as everything else in order to have a copyright. While I like Jmabel's reasoning, it is not quite correct. From 1964 to 1977 all that was required was notice (since the project was cancelled in 1971, this surely falls in that period). There was no need to "file explicitly for copyright". So it is entirely reasonable -- certainly beyond a significant doubt -- that Boeing put "(c) Boeing 1970" (or whatever year it was created) on the bottom of the model -- or perhaps on the plaque on the stand, which we can't read in this image. Adding notice to created works was almost automatic for people working for hire in those days because they knew that their legal department would come down hard if it were omitted.
- In order to keep this, we need someone to examine the model closely to determine that there is no notice or to ask Boeing for a license. This DR also applies to File:MOHAI - SST model - raw.jpg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just so I understand - if Boeing had made this as a real SST, someone could take a photograph of it and release it to commons, but because it's a model, possibly still by Boeing, it can't? Hohum (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Just like you can take a picture of a person but not their statue. The SST would have been a "utilitarian object" not subject to copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'n not sure that in the new MOHAI location this is even on display, so I don't know if/when I'll have an opportunity to examine it that closely. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Just like you can take a picture of a person but not their statue. The SST would have been a "utilitarian object" not subject to copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- We have dozens of Models of vehicles here on Commons. 99% were created not by uploaders and are not old enough to be in PD. Are they copyvio? Ain92 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Probably.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per my comment above . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It was replaced by another file, because wrong. I'm sorry 2.231.82.74 06:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I confirm the nomination--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agamitsudo as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Bad quality Didym (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality. Others items in the category are better than that one. --Agamitsudo (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice Try, but this image spreads wrong information. Without changing countryborders it should not be used anywhere Arved (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Geez, is this another Yugoslavian nationalist or some other deletionist nonsense? -Nard the Bard 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
this is a rather strange map. You cannot try to display five hundred years of history by using contemprorary borders. Such a depiction is extremely misleading Antemister (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It has already been voted and the result was keep. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again removed from the german WP.--Antemister (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The box specifies: If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file. Circumstances have evidently not changed, because you rehash the same argument ("image is misleading") that was already brought forward in the unsuccessful deletion request of 2009. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the image from the WPs. See the respektive talk pages, where you can see further discussion. That "keep because it is in use" is a rather strange argument. Several WPs use rather nonsense images.--Antemister (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please make yourself acquainted with deletion procedures and valid reasons for deletion on Commons and stop the edit-warring. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the image from the WPs. See the respektive talk pages, where you can see further discussion. That "keep because it is in use" is a rather strange argument. Several WPs use rather nonsense images.--Antemister (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The box specifies: If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file. Circumstances have evidently not changed, because you rehash the same argument ("image is misleading") that was already brought forward in the unsuccessful deletion request of 2009. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again removed from the german WP.--Antemister (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The only argument was "in use". If I remove any uses of the file, there is a completely nue situation, as many just rely on that issue. I did so before starting the DR, but I cannot have a look on each such DR every day.--Antemister (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Check out Commons:Deletion policy, nothing what you seem to bear in mind is a relevant reason for deleting the picture. If being not in use would be a reason, 9/10 of all pictures on Commons would have to be removed right away... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept. –Not a valid deletion reason. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
unlikely to be "own work", probably not old enough to be in the public domain [14]. El Grafo (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This signed photo was probably taken c.1943 after he won the Knight's Cross. I used it in my book 'Struck by Lightning' published in 2012 ISBN 978-178035-480-4. The photo became part of the flotsam and jetsam memorabilia of post WW2 Germany and found itself on the internet. I suspect it is a signed copy of many reproductions made at the time, for German war-time propaganda. Despite searching -it has to my knowledge no known copyright owner. It is a good photograph and helps illustrate the Horst Weber Wikipedia page (which I have contributed to) for the reader. In the circumstances I would suggest delaying deleting it until (and when) Wikipedia is approached by the copyright holder -which is probably unlikely. Long Ben Every (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader is not the author, has to be treated as missing source/permission Denniss (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Michèle BOURTON (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - unused personal/promotional images of non-notable person
INeverCry 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong Filename, wrong description. It's not rutherford, it's Bohr and Meitner. See talk page for details. Kein Einstein (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly Hahn (not Bohr) and Meitner. --UvM (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Arrgh. Yes, Hahn. Kein Einstein (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The same image is already available on Commons with a correct name and description: File:Otto Hahn und Lise Meitner.jpg. Nothing would be lost if the NARA-558596 file would be deleted.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Consider that this file is saved as a lossless TIFF whereas the file with proper image description is a lossy JPG. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- TIFF is quite inefficient when used for photographic images. A 2 MB JPEG coded photo can deliver more detail than a 6 MB TIFF. However, the amount of detail of both files is limited by the resolution of the print, they were scanned from. The digital resolution of both files is sufficient to show the granularity of the original. No choice of format would be able to magically yield more details.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A 2 MB JPEG coded photo can deliver more detail than a 6 MB TIFF." That's just wrong. The file under discussion is an uncompressed TIFF, therefore it offers the best quality possible. JPG on the other hand is a lossy format and will always loose some details, especially when editing is done to the image and it is re-saved several times. It doesn't really matter in this case since the quality of both images is quite high. However whenever a lossless source is available it should be kept. I'd propose copying the correct information from the JPG version and deleting that one, while keeping the lossless TIFF --Patrick87 (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep We do not delete for incorrect descriptions; we fix them. TIFF is being used as an archival format; JPG is not appropriate as the source for image cleanup and modification (at least if there is a TIFF original). It is NOT considered a duplicate and is not a candidate for deletion in that regard. There is normally supposed to be a corresponding JPG with the same name but a .jpg extension, but I don't see that in this case for some reason. This was all part of a cooperation project with NARA. Ideally, the incorrect description should be reported to them (Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting) though I'm not sure how active they are at the moment. There were a number of uploads where a pair of images had their descriptions switched (these errors are present on NARA's ARC as well), so it's possible that happened here as well. The file pages need to be fixed to change the Description field, but there is no valid reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
that was not the emblem of that state, see File:Azerbaijan People's Government-9.jpg. The correct one does exist, File:Coat of arms of the Azerbaijan People's Government.svg Antemister (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
no statement/explanation why the original photo is public domain. Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the Bibliothèque nationale de France states so in the link provided. It clearly states it is in the public domain. If someone considers this information to be incorrect, please provide the evidence that proves the Bibliothèque nationale de France to be mistaken.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are so interested, I would suggest you ask them, do not simply nominate the picture for deletion with no prove of their claim being wrong. I trust their word. I see no evidence from any one proving the opposite. Which prove does any one have the picture is not in the public domain? Evidence anyone?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Read again Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. We do not want non-free files here and you cannot tell why this is PD - so we need to assume the opposite. --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who says is non free? Bibliothèque nationale de France says it is. And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so. If for some obscure reason that is not enough for you, again, go and ask them but stop implying it is not good enough. If you have prove showing they are wrong, kindly show it now and let us get over with. Otherwise, please try to avoid wasting people's time. I have better things to do in wikipedia and outside than trying to defend the validity of a file that is backed up by a national library from empty accusations... Really...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- "And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so." - Will go to my collection of funniest citations ever. Yes, we can stop discussion if you want and if you have no reason why it is PD. --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, or are you saying that the BNF owns the copyright and releases the images into the public domain? The current copyright tag on the file page doesn't say this. --Saibo (Δ) 20:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am saying the Bibliothèque nationale de France states the picture is in the public domain. And I have no reason to doubt them. For the last time, if you do (and I see no more than empty grumbling so far and no prove to suspect them), GO ASK THEM. If not, please stop bothering and waisting people's time. We all have better things to do, thank you very much.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- And, again, asking them is your job. --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, I have a job of my own, thank you very much. I contribute as a volunteer with a sizeable part of my spare time to ENLARGE (look it up in a dictionary I know it sounds a rather unfamiliar word to you) wikipedia while others play Mr. Inquisitor in his high chair. I trust an authority such as the BNF. If you don't it is up to you confirm your suspicions, no matter how far fetched.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personal attack is noted. EOD. --Saibo (Δ) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, I have a job of my own, thank you very much. I contribute as a volunteer with a sizeable part of my spare time to ENLARGE (look it up in a dictionary I know it sounds a rather unfamiliar word to you) wikipedia while others play Mr. Inquisitor in his high chair. I trust an authority such as the BNF. If you don't it is up to you confirm your suspicions, no matter how far fetched.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- And, again, asking them is your job. --Saibo (Δ) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am saying the Bibliothèque nationale de France states the picture is in the public domain. And I have no reason to doubt them. For the last time, if you do (and I see no more than empty grumbling so far and no prove to suspect them), GO ASK THEM. If not, please stop bothering and waisting people's time. We all have better things to do, thank you very much.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who says is non free? Bibliothèque nationale de France says it is. And I can tell why it is PD: because the Bibliothèque nationale de France says so. If for some obscure reason that is not enough for you, again, go and ask them but stop implying it is not good enough. If you have prove showing they are wrong, kindly show it now and let us get over with. Otherwise, please try to avoid wasting people's time. I have better things to do in wikipedia and outside than trying to defend the validity of a file that is backed up by a national library from empty accusations... Really...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Read again Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. We do not want non-free files here and you cannot tell why this is PD - so we need to assume the opposite. --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you are so interested, I would suggest you ask them, do not simply nominate the picture for deletion with no prove of their claim being wrong. I trust their word. I see no evidence from any one proving the opposite. Which prove does any one have the picture is not in the public domain? Evidence anyone?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If they claim that it is PD they must be able to say why it is. Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from Mondial Photo-Presse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did they do to find the author? Was the photographer an employee of Mondial PP? --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You keep on second-guessing the BNF but you are too afraid to nominate Mattbuck's uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did they do to find the author? Was the photographer an employee of Mondial PP? --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Bibliothèque nationale de France has the original glass negative from Mondial Photo-Presse. I know that won't satisfy you - nothing will. But please start nominating those uploads of Mattbuck instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you ensure to some certainty that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication."? --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per my other vote. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen some bloody stupid questions asked at DR before, but the desperation of some of Saibo's is ridiculous. The Bibliothèque's word is good enough for me, though why it isn't for Saibo I have no idea. Is Dec 27th National Brain Fart day or something? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Argument of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} by a national library is convincing. MBisanz talk 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Józef Piłsudski is listed as the author, which means this left copyright in life+70 nations in 2005, which means it was restored to copyright by the URAA and thus gets 95 years of protection from publication; if that was 1932, it'll be out of copyright in 2028. Prosfilaes (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- According to the BNF and I if I am not missing any extra piece of data from their web, Piłsudski is not shown as the author but as the subject of the picture. In this picture's record I read Auteur : Agence de presse Mondial Photo-Presse. Agence photographique, not Piłsudski (who appears in the picture anyhow making it rather difficult to be the author of the picture). The author is unknown from the BNF's description.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- My confusion; then it left copyright in nations with 70 year terms for anonymous authors in 2003. Same ultimate result; it's still in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Transfer notes: Canada has 75 years from creation for anonymous works. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
that was not the emblem of that state, see File:Azerbaijan People's Government-9.jpg. The correct one does exist, File:Coat of arms of the Azerbaijan People's Government.svg Antemister (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
"Author Nubifer Based on drawing found in NASA SP-2005-4539 [1], pag. 30." -- although the source is a NASA publication, there is no reason to believe that the drawings were made by NASA -- it is much more likely that they were made by Boeing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The original picture[1] (which I converted to SVG) was published by NASA, and, as per NASA policy, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". I see no credits to Boeing for such diagram into or near the picture itself, so I've legitimately made a derivative work of a {{PD-USGov-NASA}} image. --Nubifer (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The PDF which you cite includes only 189 pages of a document that is, according to its table of contents, at least 387 pages long. I would not be at all surprised if the credits are at the end. Also note that policies of government agencies are often at variance with the law. NASA's omission of a credit line does not put a Boeing image into the PD, even though the policy you quote says it does. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Although the hunt for Russell's teapot is not among my favourite hobbies :-) here are the "missing" 198 pages. For the mentioned picture there is no note in the whole textbook that give credits to Boeing. After all, NASA got involved with Boeing (as well as with its competitor Lockheed) in the SST program, so I have no diffucult to believe that someone at NASA had the competence to draw such a simple drawing (low scale, low details) to recap the troubled development of the aborted Boeing SST program.--Nubifer (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The PDF which you cite includes only 189 pages of a document that is, according to its table of contents, at least 387 pages long. I would not be at all surprised if the credits are at the end. Also note that policies of government agencies are often at variance with the law. NASA's omission of a credit line does not put a Boeing image into the PD, even though the policy you quote says it does. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for that effort. It is helpful because it shows that throughout the entire document, with several hundred images, there are no credits for illustrations. Although most of the illustrations could have been done by NASA and its predecessors, there are illustrations from Russian, Canadian, and British projects, among others. It seems very unlikely that a NASA employee was actually responsible for all of those, which casts doubt on all the others. I remain unconvinced that this drawing passes the test of "significant doubt" as required by Commons:PRP.
- I'm also not sure how Russell's teapot applies. Although modern radar technology is getting better and better, one cannot yet disprove the existence of the teapot, but you were able to disprove the existence of the photo credits with, I hope, a modest effort.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Jim, the teapot was introduced only to remind that the burden of proof of your opinion (that NASA infringed Boeing's copyrights) lies to you, not to me. Fact is that NASA declared that its material is not protected by copyright unless noted. (BTW If you think unlikely that NASA could have rights even on Russian projects, please have a look at this page.) I'm not the right person to address your questions on the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} tag, but I really see no significant doubt as per Commons:PRP. Instead, it seems very unlikely that a respectable organization like NASA indulges in systematic copyright infringement as you fear.--Nubifer (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-distorted image at File:Flag of the FARC-EP (cuadrado).jpg. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete --Smooth_O (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
that file is a now outdated duplicate/working file of File:Islam by country.svg, which is not in use. Delete it to make the maintainance of suchh maps more easily Antemister (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In use. And if it's outdated but was correct in the past it's historical. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not in use besides on working page. The shows the Vojvodina as in independant state (!), and colors it with the same shade like Serbia and Kosovo. This is not correct--Antemister (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Outdated and superceded FASTILY 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agamitsudo as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|Bad quality
Converted by me to DR, as this is no speedy-rationale. Uploader's wish might be granted, as we have similar File:Town hall of Saint-Maurice-de-Beynost.JPG. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad composition, used only in one excessivly big gallery Taivo (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Whether you think it's excessively big or not, it's still a free image in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If you do not feel this image adds value to the encyclopedia article, the proper place to bring it up is on that article's talk page. -Pete F (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Renato de souza
[edit]These files are uploaded by User Renato de souza:
- File:Via Sacra de Planaltina (DF).jpg (small copy of File:Via Sacra de Planaltina.jpg)
- File:Planaltina - DF-Brasil.jpg (small copy of File:Planaltina - DF.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These small files are used, but big files are not. Therefore it is obligatory to change files before deleting.
But there exists suspicion, that these two bigger files are copyvio, because he has uploaded File:Pedra Fundamental de Brasília.jpg, which is requested to delete due to same suspicion. Taivo (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of user:Paulamacke
[edit]User Paulamacke has uploaded some images, which are listed for deletion. Now I present all her files not yet listed for deletion:
- File:Rotta 66 primeira formação.jpg
- File:Rotta 66 2013.jpg
- File:Rotta 66 Ronildo Miranda (baixo) Biaphra Milhomem (bateria) Vilson Ferreira e Silvio Freitas (vocal) Rodrigo Campos (guitarra).jpg
- File:São miguel do araguaia smec.jpg
_Biaphra_Milhomem_(bateria)_Vilson_Ferreira_e_Silvio_Freitas_(vocal)_Rodrigo_Campos_(guitarra).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
None of these files have any license. Some of these files are used. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
borrar copia Nexcoyotl (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Copy of what? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete copy. Nexcoyotl (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion given. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We have two versions of this image which are the same pixel size:
They are identical, but the jpg is a smaller file and we generally use jpg for continuous tone images. Therefore I think we should keep the jpg which is the subject of this DR and delete the png. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To delete a lower quality of the same file (that you uploaded) as in this case, pelase use {{Speedy}} instead. Amitie 10g (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted dupe -FASTILY 23:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)