Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/14
 |
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}
![19 File:"Moscow city" business centre 2013-05-09 00-59.jpg](#File:"Moscow_city"_business_centre_2013-05-09_00-59.jpg){kind=link}
![34 File:Blonde hair,5"3 n weighs 138pnds n enjoy pretty weather 2013-05-13 03-03.jpg](#File:Blonde_hair,5"3_n_weighs_138pnds_n_enjoy_pretty_weather_2013-05-13_03-03.jpg){kind=link}
,_felino_di_provenienza_dalla_famiglia_dei_Certosini--_2013-05-13_02-08.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sukiyabashi_park,_Ginza.jpg){kind=link}
_duplicate.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_–_Alufelge,_10._Mai_2013,_Düsseldorf.jpg){kind=link}
_–_Innenraum,_10._Mai_2013,_Düsseldorf.jpg){kind=link}
_-_03.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted toy, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Agreed, deleting as part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pollock died 1956, undelete in 2027. russavia (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: undelete in 2027 russavia (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
logo => copyvio ? cf. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logo_F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Fran%C3%A7aise_de_Football.svg H4stings (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I went ahead and nominated this one for speedy, as it's a pretty blatant copyvio. Sarah (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted as speedy by another admin (copyvio) PierreSelim (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Extremely low-quality image with no foreseeable educational use for our purpose. Rahul Bott (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete Yup. Poor quality makes it virtually useless, combine that with copyrighted broadcast, and we might have a speedy on our hands. Sarah (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied by User:Túrelio for cpvio. Rahul Bott (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement Andre Engels (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned content for a non-notable....something and rather. I agree with the nominator! Delete! Sarah (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Has no purpose. Uploaded solely for a joke article here: en:Beyond Perfection. The article will shortly be deleted. Person seems highly unnotable. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete For a ton of reasons. Poor guy probably doesn't even know he may be the butt of a joke. Sarah (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not a text logo. It does not fall below the threshold given at COM:TOO#United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. It's also hosted on Wikipedia under a copyright. Sarah (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
description: "RV MATRIX offers a best erp to the vendors". In other words: advertising Andre Engels (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. Commons isn't an advertising cite, nor is it a photo site. Sarah (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of this widely published image:[1] Its derivatives have the same problem.[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ankylosaure_silhouette.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ankylosaure_outline.svg){kind=link}
- Delete Agree with nom. Poor dino. Sarah (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Images of a beaked whale that was thought to be a seamonster, no indication photographer released the image under such license. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not in the public domain in the United States. Sarah (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Images of a beaked whale that was thought to be a seamonster, no indication photographer released the image under such license. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not in the public domain in the United States. Sarah (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company Andre Engels (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned logo. We're not a storage site. Sarah (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Delete. Out of scope! Sarah (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Not self made. No source/copyright/permission info. See for instance, this search:[4] Begoon - talk 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yup. Merely uploading something to another website...and then another website....is not owning copyright. Sarah (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of - yes of what exactly? Andre Engels (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yup. Good question. Logo for non-notable whatnot, and it's orphaned. We're not a media hosting website. Sarah (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable something Andre Engels (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. We're not an image hosting service. Sarah (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. We're not an image hosting service. Farewell Jessie. Sarah (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Super cute but unidentifiable species of shaggy dog. Appears to be a fun upload from the mobile app. Mysterious dog is most likely out of scope. We're not a casual snapshot venue. Sarah (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Russia doesn't allow Freedom of Panorama, so I believe we have to delete this image? (if not..I'll learn something new!) Sarah (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
![04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/14#c-SarahStierch-2013-05-14T04:56:00.000Z-File:"Moscow_city"_business_centre_2013-05-09_00-59.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
![00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/05/14#c-INeverCry-2013-05-21T00:42:00.000Z-File:"Moscow_city"_business_centre_2013-05-09_00-59.jpg){kind=link}
Delightful cat on a fence. May be out of scope: we don't know what kind of cat it is, there is no article about cats on fences or sitting, and it appears to be a casual snapshot, which Commons is not used for. Sarah (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:An example of perfection, Adam Strassner- 2013-05-13 16-17.jpg (section) Sarah (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's a red link. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned out of scope personal snapshot. Sarah (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned, seems to be a non-notable person, and out of scope: casual snapshots aren't housed here on commons. Sarah (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Either not used personal image or an image of a very small resolution to be educationally useful. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope "humor" upload. Orphaned. Sarah (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope artwork (we aren't an online portfolio) that could also be copyrighted. Sarah (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Casual snapshot. Unclear where it was even taken and how it would be in scope. Sarah (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Casual personal snapshot of a lovely flower. out of scope. Sarah (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - advert. Sarah (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal snapshot with little to no description, small quality, and little to no educational value Sarah (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Blurry photograph of a random rose. We have plenty of good quality rose photos. Sarah (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Casual snapshot of someone's neighborhood. Quality and lack of description makes it questionable regarding educational value. Sarah (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Low quality casual snapshot of a dog. I think we can delete this one in lieu of better quality photos of dogs looking up, dachshunds, and dogs in bed. Sarah (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be a casual snapshot of a non-notable figure. Out of scope. Sarah (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: self promotional material Sarah (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Brithish shortair blue (Carlotta), felino di provenienza dalla famiglia dei Certosini-- 2013-05-13 02-08.jpg
[edit],_felino_di_provenienza_dalla_famiglia_dei_Certosini--_2013-05-13_02-08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_felino_di_provenienza_dalla_famiglia_dei_Certosini--_2013-05-13_02-08.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality casual snapshot of a British blue. We have other photos of better quality of such cats. People love their cats on mobile. Sarah (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
We surely don't need multiple copies of this. Sarah (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Unnecessary duplicated file. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: poor quality image of random cat that is orphaned. We have plenty of other images of cats. Sarah (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete Taivo (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned casual snapshot that is out of scope, and potentially in front of copyrighted artwork. Sarah (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Blurry poor quality random snapshot of a cross. I think we can delete this one. Sarah (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality casual snapshot. I believe we have other better quality photos of linens? Sarah (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This file is confusing. The title given is Khalid Ibrahim, while various sources: 1, 2 and others call him to be one Deepak Jaikishan. At any rate, the photo has been widely published on the web before being uploaded here and is quite unlikely to be an own work as claimed. No metadata present. Rahul Bott (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
,_Sukiyabashi_park,_Ginza.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Sukiyabashi_park,_Ginza.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
sculpture by Tarō Okamoto who died in 1996. No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
,_Sukiyabashi_park,_Ginza.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Yup. copyvio - the work is still under copyright, presumably, in Japan and thus unable to be shared here, on top of FOP. Sarah (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
,_Sukiyabashi_park,_Ginza.jpg){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete A cool clock, too! But yes, fails FOP and fails copyright in general for public art here. Sarah (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete And it may be taken in a private place, meaning that we don't have the legal permission to have this image hosted on commons. Sarah (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
no FOP in Italy, see de:Adalberto Libera Krd 06:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yup, FOP fail. Sarah (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
_duplicate.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_duplicate.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Accidental re-upload of image already at File:Page 348 (A Dictionary of Music and Musicians-Volume 1).jpg Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_duplicate.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Yup. Delete this one. Sarah (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
_duplicate.jpg){kind=link}
Portrait of non-notable person; the 'own work' claim also seems spurious Andre Engels (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete A shame we don't know who he is. It probably is public domain. Sarah (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company Andre Engels (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. Sarah (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no FOP in France / pas de liberté de panorama en France Bzh-99 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Yup. Delete. Sarah (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Support nomination. Farewell Harvey. Sarah (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Bad picture of a non-notable company's location Andre Engels (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope / advertisment Andre Engels (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Claimed own work, but clearly copied from a book. Also very poor quality. Andre Engels (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
weak keep Looks educational/informational to me - being used is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being in-scope. However, .pdf is a terrible file format for such an image and this is of terrible quality, so that may be grounds for deleting it. darkweasel94 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If this is really own work, it's probably out of scope. More likely it's a copyright violation. Andre Engels (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person\ Andre Engels (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Another copyright violation of Pooja Chopra; this is, again, clearly a publicity still. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
downlowding some images does NOT work. this is one of them. I enjoy Wikimedia but sometimes it is a waste of time. thanks. Kind Regards Bree. 124.168.60.255 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? Are you proposing deletion, or are you having problems using/downloading something, or what? darkweasel94 08:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. The image looks taggged OK to me. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- KeepThe download works. There is no delete reason. It is a waste of time. --Botaurus (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work, created in 2011 by an artist who died in 1986. Need I say more? Andre Engels (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
"A group of 8 people very famous in their village" - out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused image about person, article proposal about whom failed a request for creating article Taivo (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. JuTa 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a government ministry, and own work. Am I supposed to believe that? Andre Engels (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The same goes for File:GOB CMYK.jpg. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable something Andre Engels (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement Andre Engels (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Small size, no clear description, not clear what it is Andre Engels (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
personal picture Andre Engels (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unclear content, doubtful own work claim Andre Engels (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused file with unknown purpose Taivo (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
To be deleted, used during a wikipedia workshop to show participants how to upload content.--ManosHacker (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I just uploaded this from Wikipedia, but it appears it is a copyvio. The art of the front was published in London in 1930, and don't believe the artist died more than 70 years ago. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks like en.wiki will use the image under their non-free use criteria, which don't apply here. – Quadell (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Vacuous own work claim; probably copyright violation Andre Engels (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Cannot be useful without description Taivo (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of Nelson Navarro, but does not make clear who that is Andre Engels (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
logo of a non-notable something Andre Engels (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal picture? Portrait of unknown person. Andre Engels (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of unknown person Andre Engels (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Notability? Andre Engels (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Who is Philippe Neuffer? Andre Engels (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This shows the sculpture "Najade" by Paul Scheurle (1892 - 1952). Sculpture copyrighted in Germany until the end of 2022. Lupo 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unused, personal photo, no COM:SCOPE russavia (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a group of people? Private picture? Andre Engels (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just some Chinese characters. We've had Unicode available for years now, so don't need images for such a thing. Andre Engels (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just some Chinese characters. We've had Unicode for years now, so don't need images for that kind of thing. Andre Engels (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable musician; from a page that was speedy deleted as non-notable, created by the subject itself. Andre Engels (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
FOP does not seem to apply in Ethiopia. No reason to think it's in the Public Domain Themightyquill (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
FOP does not apply in Ethiopia. No artist or title information included. No reason to think this is public domain. Themightyquill (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Due to low image quality (thereby out-of-scope), as most of the image is out of focus and even the penis is not fully depicted, but cut at its outer end. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This redirect may be used to wrongly identify Marisa Pavan. The file to which it redirects is in fact an image of Pier Angeli Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Redirects shouldn't be deleted to not break possible external links. --Alan (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Redirects should not be used where they can lead to misidentification. This is a living person we're talking about. And damn the external links: any that are in place will surely be incorrect misidentifications in violation of those projects' local BLP policies. If that's not sufficient, leaving this image redirect in place violates COM:SCOPE as not being realistically useful for an educational purpose. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Mendaliv speaks the truth. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
out of com:scope test file. No com:permission McZusatz (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Spelling error, duplicate of File:Taipei shilin oysteromelet.jpg – Quadell (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Data that can be easily represented as Wikitable Sreejith K (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete But do not forget to do that, this needs some time. The table is used in pt.wiki. Can you replace the file with table yourself? Taivo (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
personal pic not in use Daphne Lantier 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a file without any encyclopedic value Sreejith K (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No cosplay, no encyclopedic, no nothing. Taivo (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete sorry。--Aoke1989 (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe this was scanned in and is a copyvio. The user on Wikivoyage never made any other images, and this looks scanned and references numbers for things not mentioned at Wikivoyage. – Quadell (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Cover artwork is clearly not by the Flickr-user, who likely only scanned the cover. Due to the specialties of U.S. copyright (assuming it's an U.S. edition), it might be PD-US. But that needs positive confirmation. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Fixertool (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is no excuse for deletion, it would be useful to explain better.--Veronidae (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of the license given. Eutelsat haven't released anything recently under the free art license, maybe they used to many years ago, but we've no proof. Which type of Eutelsat satellite is this anyway? Eutelsat have many different types of satellites in their constellation. Secretlondon (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fashion designer's self promotion. Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.bellezavenezolana.net/mruniversemodel/2011/Voting/9.htm Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/robinson_tajmuch.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/leo%20opazo.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/gustavo_garcia.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/gustavo_garcia.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: https://twitter.com/CHILEMr/status/247065504852897792/photo/1 Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/gustavo_garcia.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.misterchile.cl/prensa.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://ropajotaesezeta.blogspot.com/2010/05/resultados-mister-universe-model.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/leo%20opazo.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.ftmodels.cl/html/leo%20opazo.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.misterchile.cl/mr_2012.html Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.lanacion.cl/noticias/site/artic/20130221/pags/20130221154423.html?fb_action_ids=10200635626913137&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200635626913137%22:541388905893002%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200635626913137%22:%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a sign from 1996 in the United States. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably a screenshot from a film or something. Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unidentified country, but shows w:Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan who was from a country without freedom of panorama. Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Although Kwanghwamun is old, this museum is not. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Fixertool (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is no excuse for deletion, it would be useful to explain better.--Veronidae (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
falta ser actualizado Josecius (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This is not a valid argument for deletion. If you need an updated version, only upload a newer image of this soccer player. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with Amitie 10g. By the way, Josecius changed the image's information, including its license.Nuno93 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: invalid DR Denniss (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Sexual penetrative use of cucumbers
[edit]- File:Dede Cucumber 0433.jpg
- File:Dede Cucumber 0437.jpg
- File:Dede Cucumber 0445.jpg
- File:Shanon Cucumber 0415.jpg
- File:Shanon Cucumber 0423.jpg
- File:Shanon Cucumber 0433.jpg
I'm nominating these because they were taken in a private place but there's no evidence that the subject consented to the release and upload to Commons, the Flickr account they're attributed to is no longer active so there's no way to obtain consent, and because they're out of scope. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete These photos were obviously taken in a private place, and thence COM:IDENT is an issue. As the account is no longer active on Flickr it is not possible to determine whether {{Consent}} for their initial publication was given. On this basis alone, that requires deletion. The photographs appear to have been professionally done, and the images would be inscope, but there's no possible way these can be kept. russavia (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Russavia. Critical to have proper permissions from subject, and yeah, that Flickr situation has been an ongoing concern for me with a lot of sexual content on Commons. Regardless, it could very well (sadly) be in scope, but, resolution declares need for permission. Sarah (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Russavia. -Pete F (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom - Alison ❤ 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - the images are within scope - please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dede Cucumber 0437.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dede Cucumber 0445.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shanon Cucumber 0415.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to further point out that of the 17 million files we have, a total of 10 are of sexual penetration by anything other than a penis or a made-for-purpose dildo. This DR will reduce that number to 4, or to 1 if the banana images get deleted as well. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of model consent to the Flickr upload, let alone the Commons upload. And geolocation data on top of it? Geez. What were the people who kept these in the prior deletion discussions thinking? --Andreas JN466 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of model consent forms on file with the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its agents.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. No consent, plus original images have been deleted from Flickr. Maybe they know something there we don't? Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of consent. Gobōnobo + c 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a reason why there are no deletion notices on the file pages? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- No idea. Anyway, I've added them now, though I'm not the nominator. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Question - why are the similar images of bananas not being discussed as well? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. I've created Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_bananas. --Conti|✉ 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is interesting to see Commons admins deleting images that have previously been kept and doing so on the basis of missing consent, but I fear that it is as short-lived as it is surprising. Once the attention dies down, will we be back to ignoring that this is a widespread problem here? Will these images simply be reuploaded? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Do File:Dede Cucumber 0445.jpg and File:Shanon Cucumber 0433.jpg need models consent? Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. There seems to be a belief on Commons that if the subject's face is not shown then consent is not required. The argument seems to be that the person is not identifiable if their face is not shown (or is distorted by blurring or pixelation). This is a silly argument for two reasons. One, the subject may be identifiable through other physical attributes (moles, tattoos, etc) or simply by context (surroundings, clothing, etc). Two, if the subject has not consented, they may still be distressed by knowing that their image is here or may be concerned that someone will associate them with that image (in which case it doesn't really matter if Commons editors feel that the person is identifiable). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, and Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per consensus. INeverCry 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Casual snapshot of a non-notable musical act. Sarah (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Just the words "I Never Cry" Andre Engels (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete An old personal image. No longer needed. INeverCry 17:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader not needed, please delete and close. Penyulap ☏ 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per the above Lupo 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Just the words "I Never Cry" Andre Engels (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete An old personal image. No longer needed. INeverCry 17:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I am the uploader not needed, please delete and close. Penyulap ☏ 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per the above Lupo 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted advetisement. Per COM:FOP#Belgium. Eleassar (t/p) 10:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Modern sculpture (work of Daniel Vrečič, still living). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation of Google streeview: url. Identical blur to the streetview imagery. Chris857 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- delete as a patent copyright violation. Mangoe (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Unlike the maps (which is copyrighted), most of the images obtained through Streetview vehicles are subject to Freedom of panorama (depending on the laws of different countries). Because this picture is of a landscape and haven't any copyrightable element (as logos or watermarks), it remains in the Public domain. And also, the file is in use (but replaceable by any free photography). Amitie 10g (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete freedom of panorama only means that an architect cannot sue us. Photos of landscapes always pass the threshold of originality, so Google still can sue us. darkweasel94 08:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation of google streetview PierreSelim (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gonars
[edit]Modern architectural work. Per COM:FOP#Italy.
- File:Moderna cerkev Gonars.JPG
- File:Notranjost cerkve Gonars.JPG
- File:Stebri in strop v cerkvi Gonars.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 10:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gonars concentration camp
[edit]Non-free information board. Per COM:FOP#Italy.
Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gonars concentration camp
[edit]Non-free monument. Per COM:FOP#Italy.
Eleassar (t/p) 10:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Library of Belarus
[edit]There is no COM:FOP in Belarus.
- File:Belarus, Minsk New National Library (3942194541).jpg
- File:NATIONAL LIBRARY OF BELARUS - MINSK.jpg
- File:National Library, Minsk.JPG
- File:ORNATE BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO THE NATIONAL LIBRARY CAMPUS - MINSK.jpg
- File:ORNATE ENTRANCE TO THE LIBRARY.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. Cool building, but we can't host it. Sarah (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- почему удаляется? --ВиталийГурин (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- В Беларуси отсутствует Свобода панорамы--Хомелка (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- почему удаляется? --ВиталийГурин (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Library of Belarus 2
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Belarus: non-free architecture.
- File:1997. Stamp of Belarus 0241.jpg
- File:90-летие основания Национальной библиотеки Беларуси.jpg
- File:Нацыянальная бiблiятэка Беларусi crop.jpg
- File:Нацыянальная бiблiятэка Беларусi.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 09:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- OOO! This is {{PD-BY-exempt}}!--Хомелка (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of the United Nations, 2010-Slovenia.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- In Belarus, by law stamps are in the public domain.--Хомелка (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Where in the law do you read this? Also, there is only one image of a stamp. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of the United Nations, 2010-Slovenia.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- OOO! This is {{PD-BY-exempt}}!--Хомелка (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Нацыянальная бiблiятэка Беларусi crop.jpg is also stamp, croped from envelope. From Template:PD-BY-exempt: according to the Law of the Belarus No. 370-XIII of May 16, 1996 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights. Article 8. Works that are not Objects of Copyright Shall not be objects of copyright: state symbols and signs (flag, coat of arms, anthem, awards, banknotes and other signs (Postage stamps are state signs according to the Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 258-З of December 15, 2003 on Mail Service)--Хомелка (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're reading too much here - this original synthesis goes against
- Article 15:[5] "The personal non-ownership rights shall belong to the author irrespective of his/her ownership rights and are preserved with him/her even after assignment of exclusive ownership rights on use of the work."
- Article 19: "Reproduction or communication for universal knowledge of works of architecture, fine art, photos, which are permanently located in a place opened for free visiting, except for cases when an image of the work is the main object of such reproduction or communication for universal knowledge or when it is used for commercial objectives."
- Please mind that your interpretation about Belarusian postage stamps being PD is not supported by any reliable source; see e.g. this page, which states that the modern Belarusian postage stamps are copyrighted. It's customary that when in doubt, the copyright should be interpreted to the benefit of the author, and here we have just the same problem as we are having when the United States government takes a photo of an unfree statue: by claiming that this reproduction is not an object of copyright, we're infringing the architect's copyright. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
As poststamps, This is official text of law:
Статья 7. Произведения, не являющиеся объектами авторского права
1. Не являются объектами авторского права:
...
- государственные символы Республики Беларусь (Государственный флаг Республики Беларусь, Государственный герб Республики Беларусь, Государственный гимн Республики Беларусь), символы государственных наград Республики Беларусь (ордена и медали), государственные знаки (денежные знаки Республики Беларусь, почтовые марки и иные знаки), официальные геральдические символы (флаги, гербы административно-территориальных единиц Республики Беларусь, геральдические знаки, знамена, нагрудные знаки, эмблемы государственных органов и др.);
...
In english from me to you, dear Eleassar:
Article 7. Works that are not subject to copyright
1. Objects are not of copyright:
...
- state symbols of the Republic of Belarus ( Belarus national flag , the national emblem of the Republic of Belarus, the National Anthem of the Republic of Belarus) , symbols of state awards of the Republic of Belarus (medals), state (banknotes of the Republic of Belarus, post stamps and other signs), the official heraldic symbols (flags, coats of arms of the administrative-territorial units of the Republic of Belarus, heraldic signs, banners, badges, emblems and other government agencies)
...
sorry for for poor English skills.--Хомелка (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Post stamps are in PD in Belarus, see Template:PD-BY-exempt (Shall not be objects of copyright... state symbols and signs... Postage stamps are state signs according to...). Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, because thr Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 258-З of December 15, 2003 on Mail Service defines how the stamp is looking and how is using in mail services, but it does not defines any copyrights. Thus the only low that regulates copyright (in fact, no any copyright!) was cited by Хомелка. - Frantishak (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- In the Law No. 258-З in definitions it is said "почтовая марка – государственный знак..." Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, because thr Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 258-З of December 15, 2003 on Mail Service defines how the stamp is looking and how is using in mail services, but it does not defines any copyrights. Thus the only low that regulates copyright (in fact, no any copyright!) was cited by Хомелка. - Frantishak (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep* File:1997. Stamp of Belarus 0241.jpg, File:90-летие основания Национальной библиотеки Беларуси.jpg and File:Нацыянальная бiблiятэка Беларусi.jpg. The BY stamps are PD.
But similar to RU-law, BY stamps are PD until they remain stamps - the issuer (Beralus) and denomination ("A") must be preserveв - so, File:Нацыянальная бiблiятэка Беларусi crop.jpg is not PD. Alex Spade (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept, Three files kept, one deleted, according to the arguments of Alex SpadeYmblanter (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Library of Belarus 3
[edit]There is no FOP in Belarus and the building is from 2006.
- File:2014 National Library in Minsk - panoramio.jpg
- File:Atrium of the National Library of Belarus.jpg
- File:Belarus 3881 - I forgot my library card.. (4184694331).jpg
- File:Belarus National Library.JPG
- File:Belarusian National Library at night 2016.jpg
- File:BelarusNationalLibrary.jpg
- File:Catalogs of the National Library of Belarus.jpg
- File:Facade of National Library - Minsk - Belarus (27546547935).jpg
- File:Interieurbibliothequebelarus.JPG
- File:Interior of National Library - Minsk - Belarus (27270158110).jpg
- File:Library - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Minsk - Weißrussische Nationalbibliothek - panoramio.jpg
- File:Minsk national library 2014 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Minsk Nationalbibliothek 1.JPG
- File:Minsk Nationalbibliothek 2.JPG
- File:Narodowa Biblioteka W Minsku (50519280).jpeg small size, low quality, not used
- File:National Library - panoramio.jpg
- File:National Library Of Belarus (259997497).jpeg
File:Park of National Library of Belarus.jpgkept- File:Reflection - panoramio (54).jpg
- File:Фото-1339.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: , wooden furniture isn't an architecture. Homoatrox (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Homoatrox: The ceiling, columns, walkway, and juxtaposition are architecture. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Park of National Library of Belarus.jpg. The library is not the main object of the photo --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Чаховіч Уладзіслаў: The designs of the park and library are not DM. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: File:Narodowa Biblioteka W Minsku (50519280).jpeg seems to be De Minimis, no? We just see some illuminated structure. Still useful to see that there's something there, but seems to be impossible to be used to infringe any copyright.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I would consider that photo to be low quality and very blurry. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Despite the low quality, it still seems to be useful to illustrate the building, specially at night and illuminated, so I would choose Keep for that one.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: If the image is "useful to illustrate the building", doesn't that prove that we should not keep it? -kyykaarme (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kyykaarme: No, because it doesn't show any copyrightable elements. But it still shows a building roughly with that chape, illuminated with those colors at night. I certainly would use it in the article about the library.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: If the image is "useful to illustrate the building", doesn't that prove that we should not keep it? -kyykaarme (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Despite the low quality, it still seems to be useful to illustrate the building, specially at night and illuminated, so I would choose
- @DarwIn: I would consider that photo to be low quality and very blurry. Sorry I didn't mention that earlier. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:National Library Of Belarus (259997497).jpeg Possibly De Minimis? (building seems very casual in the photo) -- Darwin Ahoy! 04:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I suppose the filename doesn't count? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: We can always change the filename. It seems impossible to photograph that street in that direction without partially catching that building in the end.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: I suppose the filename doesn't count? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- File:Park of National Library of Belarus.jpg - Crop out building and Keep? -- Darwin Ahoy! 04:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: The designs of the park and library are not DM. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: In that case, I remove the suggestion to keep.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: The designs of the park and library are not DM. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Library of Belarus
[edit]As per [6], the modern architectural marvel was authored by architects Mihail Vinogradov and Viktor Kramarenko. Its inception was in 2006. Unfortunately, Belarusian freedom of panorama prohibits commercial uses of images of recent artistic works in public spaces by living or recently-deceased architects, sculptors, muralists etc. These images do not show the work as "not the main subject". Either needs COM:VRTS permission for use of commercial Creative Commons licenses from Mihail Vinogradov and Viktor Kramarenko or have the law changed to remove non-commercial restriction.
- File:Belarus 3881 - I forgot my library card...jpg
- File:Bn W Nocy (50519282).jpeg
- File:Minsk (34370537743).jpg
- File:Национална библиотека Белорусије у Минску.jpg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Files of User:Conocedorable
[edit]User Conocedorable has uploaded 12 images and 3 of them are currently presented for deletion as photos about non-notable persons. Here are the others:
- File:Quarzo1.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo2.jpg (dubious little picture about big city)
- File:Quarzo3.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo4.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo5.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo6.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo10.jpg (apparently non-notable band)
- File:Quarzo12.jpg (dubious postcard, although exists freedom of panorama in Panama)
- File:Panama1.jpg (very small)
They are all unused photos. None of them has source information. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work as stated and/or out of scope. JuTa 18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Papodactillo
[edit]User Papodactilo has uploaded 5 images and 1 of them is currently presented for deletion as photo about non-notable band. Here are the others:
They are all unused unsourced photos about apparently non-notable band. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work as stated. JuTa 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akshayukekar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pictures. Out of scope. Potential copyright issues. For example, File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-49.jpg uses the same background as http://img.webme.com/pic/m/miezen-hilde/10juni.jpg and http://94.23.8.188/~datavip/medias/0512/gilbert80-vip-blog-1335893426.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-57.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-55.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-54.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-53.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-52.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-50.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-49.jpg
- File:Akshay ukekar 2013-05-14 17-46.jpeg
Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The uploader can obviously not be the author to both of these since they are credited to different people. The {{PD-self}} claim is dubious.
Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
From some book. The art style suggests that it isn't a very old book.
- File:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques savoir 2013-04-21 9-23.jpg
- File:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques savoir Adele and her father 2013-04-21 9-22.jpg
- File:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques savoir 2013-04-21 9-22.jpg
- File:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques savoir 2013-04-21 9-21.jpg
- File:Le plus populaire du monde by Jacques savoir 2013-04-21 9-20.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RegularMan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of very poor quality. No usage on any project, no educational purpose.
- File:Human Scrotum close up.jpg
- File:Human Penis and Scrotum ..jpg
- File:Human Penis and Scrotum hanging.jpg
- File:Human Scrotum.jpg
- File:Erect Human Penis.jpg
- File:Human Penis and Scrotum.jpg
A.Savin 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]We have enough penis shot here. Out of scope
- File:Male sex.JPG
- File:Shave sex.JPG
- File:Erection movimiento.jpg
- File:Sexo al frio.JPG
- File:Al decanso.JPG
- File:Sesso.jpg
- File:Despues de la playa.jpg
- File:Jugando.jpg
- File:Nudo.jpg
- File:Érection sexe.JPG
- File:Vue arrière.JPG
- File:Sexe au repos.JPG
- File:Début d'érection.JPG
- File:Semi erection.JPG
Morning ☼ (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete on File:Despues de la playa.jpg, File:Jugando.jpg, File:Sesso.jpg and File:Nudo.jpg as out of scope useless artwork. While the rest aren't great, File:Erection movimiento.jpg certainly has some educational value so I would Keep that one at least. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as out-of-scope on everything except File:Erection movimiento.jpg, which arguably could have educational use. Rrburke (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting all with the exception of File:Erection movimiento.jpg russavia (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Missing any possible educational value. Out of COM:SCOPE?
- File:Sexus6.jpg
- File:Sexus4.jpg
- File:Sexus 3.jpg
- File:Eros light.jpg
- File:Eros light 2.jpg
- File:Sexus1.jpg
A.Savin 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Wonderfully awesome artistic images, that unfortunately are outside of scope. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]What new could be added to Category:Penis?
- File:Sexe circoncis en érection.JPG
- File:Sexe circoncis avec prépuce reformé vue de face.jpg
- File:Sexe circoncis.JPG
- File:Sexe circoncis avec prépuce reformé vue de dessous.JPG
- File:Pré-ejaculate.jpg
- File:Prépuce sexe circoncis.jpg
- File:Sexe circoncis au repos.JPG
- File:Verge circoncis.JPG
- File:Sexus5.jpg
- File:Erect sex 2.JPG
- File:Erect sex.JPG
- File:Erection movimiento.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]More dicks, see COM:PENIS. These images do not add anything to the images we already have, and are unlikely self portraits.
- File:Restored foreskin.jpg
- File:Cock ring 3.jpg
- File:Cock ring 2.jpg
- File:Simply cock rings.jpg
- File:Erected sex with cock ring.jpg
- File:Foreskin restaration.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Book cover, {{Own}}, no COM:OTRS. See COM:PRP. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Doubtful again, but, added an OTRS template request. Sarah (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The book was published in 1900 and is copy rights free.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the cover of 1900 publication? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so, I will get back with exact year.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the exact year so I would recommend it to be deleted and after that I will upload this cover image in low resolution so as to get rid of copy vio problems. I thinks it is fair enough.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so, I will get back with exact year.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the cover of 1900 publication? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Quietly becoming a fan of non-harmful fake articles in Wikipedia userspace. Looks like she's gotta go. Delete! Sarah (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This file is used on user page in en.wiki. But ... maybe this is an attack page? I'm not sure. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Very unlikely to be own work, as claimed by uploader MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Definitely need to see COM:OTRS before I accept that this cover was created by the user as claimed by {{Own}}. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Added OTRS template just to assume good (even if a tiny doubtful) faith. Sarah (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was published in 1927 and hence copy right free.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Currently the file description says that it was created in 2012 and that it was created by you. Can you please update the description. I also think that we need to have OTRS to show that this is the cover of the 1927 publication and not of any reprint after. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I will edit the description after I get OTRS (although I don't understand why OTRS is needed). In the mean time I will upload low resolution image of the same cover.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Currently the file description says that it was created in 2012 and that it was created by you. Can you please update the description. I also think that we need to have OTRS to show that this is the cover of the 1927 publication and not of any reprint after. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Non educational objective, self promotional Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is used in meta on user page. Having some personal images on user page is allowed. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Having some personal images on user page is allowed MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Non educational objective, self promotional Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It is used in meta on user page. Having some personal images on user page is allowed. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Having some personal images on user page is allowed MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It may be a DR of a copyrighted work. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Added another OTRS request. Again, I wonder what the copyright status is of this book cover in the county it was created. Sadly, we need more information from the uploader (or someone aware of tis book). Sarah (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was certainly published before 1937 as author died in 1937 and it was not published after that but I don't know the exact year, I will get back with the exact year.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Sarah, the said book was published in 1918. The same can be Established from the library catalog of "Forbs Gujarati Sabha" on http://forbesgujaratisabha.org and http://forbesgujaratisabha.org/login/show-book.php this being the book cover of the Important book shall not be deleted. --Sushant savla (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
We definitely need COM:OTRS before we accept a published book cover as {{Own}}. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I added an OTRS request. So we can hold out until the passes us by. I wonder when this book was published? Perhaps it's out of copyright. Sarah (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The file is currently in use, thus I think that we need to wait and see if OTRS will come through. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- This book was first published in 1937 and is currently being uploaded at Gujarati Wikisource. It is copyright free book.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the cover of 1937 publication? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, It is.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Due to this clarification I would like to withdraw my nomination. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Thank you.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I do believe you in this case, it would still save you a lot of headache in the future if you follow COM:OTRS to send them a scan of the page where it has the publication date. In my experience so far many people read COM:PRP to be more "precautionary" than it actually is. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I do believe you in this case, it would still save you a lot of headache in the future if you follow COM:OTRS to send them a scan of the page where it has the publication date. In my experience so far many people read COM:PRP to be more "precautionary" than it actually is. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Thank you.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Due to this clarification I would like to withdraw my nomination. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, It is.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the cover of 1937 publication? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a copyright notice on the picture, and I don't see any evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I requested an OTRS permission letter. Let's wait, as we should, and see what happens, no response or appropriate letter, then we delete. Sarah (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Zombrito
[edit]User Zombrito has uploaded 5 images, all about football referee Mokhtar Amalou, and 3 of them are currently presented for deletion as copyright violations. Here are the others, they can be copyvios too:
Taivo (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Added OTRS permission requests just to assume good faith. Sarah (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I do not see any OTRS permission here. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This coat of arms was requested here by fr:User:Cyril-83, drawn and uploaded by SanglierT. Now Cyril-83 asks SanglierT (Mathieu C.) and me to help him remove it because the title in French (coat of arms of a specified high school in a specified French town) makes it appear very high in Google hits for the school, though this coat of arms is only a proposal and discussion about it is still ongoing. So basically, it is a non-existent coat of arms and a case of "not realistically useful / not legitimately in use": please remove it, thank you. Oliv0 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
fake - photomonrtage. -- Kaganer (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Авторство и свободная лицензия сомнительны Dogad75 (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Wird nicht mehr gebraucht, neuere Version ist Goldener Schnitt Definition Graphen.png McTheSpoon (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It seems that his main claim to fame is being vice-president of some narrowly-notable organisation Andre Engels (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No idea whether this passes COM:TOO#Russia or not. Stefan4 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
this file is unlinked, and is an old and inferior version of the file here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brickwork_in_monk_bond.svg Jonathanriley (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Orsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet Edition 918 Spyder (997, Facelift) – Alufelge, 10. Mai 2013, Düsseldorf.jpg
[edit]_%E2%80%93_Alufelge,_10._Mai_2013,_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Alufelge,_10._Mai_2013,_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate, wrong name M 93 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Orsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet Edition 918 Spyder (997, Facelift) – Innenraum, 10. Mai 2013, Düsseldorf.jpg
[edit]_%E2%80%93_Innenraum,_10._Mai_2013,_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Innenraum,_10._Mai_2013,_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate, wrong name M 93 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Sri Lankan film poster, i.e. imho non-free content, Roland 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- i have rights for this picture,i can prove it with emails from the film Director and producer, and with any document i can prove it,can submit documents if its required Musiclanka
Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Fun shot from someone's vacation. We do have plenty of images of redwoods. Sadly, Commons doesn't serve as a place to house travel shots. Thanks though! Sarah (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Good picture, clearly in scope. I added Category:Sequoia sempervirens. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Taivo Alan (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TreyGeek as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See main logo at top of page|source=http://jtrjujutsu.com/index_02.html INeverCry 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- this file was uploaded incorrectly. The user has permissions from the file owner69.243.110.100 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
_-_03.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_03.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Contravenes {{FoP-Canada}} MPF (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
_-_03.JPG){kind=link}
- I do not understand. This is just an image of a sign providing information about a tree. How is this problematic? --Another Believer (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is a derivative of copyrighted text. Which (with no FOP for this in Canada) is just as much a breach of copyright as posting a photo of a page from a book. - MPF (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know the text is copyrighted? Just trying to understand for future reference. --Another Believer (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is a derivative of copyrighted text. Which (with no FOP for this in Canada) is just as much a breach of copyright as posting a photo of a page from a book. - MPF (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently ripped from flickr without permission. FASTILY 05:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
_-_03.JPG){kind=link}
- Ripped from Flickr? I took the picture myself. I do not understand why this image was deleted. --Another Believer (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is no Freedom of Panorama for signs in Canada. Unfortunately this file is not eligible for Commons -FASTILY 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But how does one know if the text is copyrighted? --Another Believer (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no Freedom of Panorama for signs in Canada. Unfortunately this file is not eligible for Commons -FASTILY 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Source is a leaflet of Spartakusbund? Could be fake. Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I protest harshly against the deletion! In my opinion this is nothing but censoring! In a previous version the source of the leaflet was of course mentioned, but this version was also deleted by other users. The leaflet is NOT A FAKE and the deletion is nothing but a violation of this article!!!--Vonschill (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Politisch korrekte Zensur bei Wikipedia? Zwei Anmerkungen zu dieser Diskussion und den sich daraus ergebenden Implikationen: 1. Beitrag "NS-Propaganda?": Textbelege und Zitate sind zunächst einmal nicht auf ihre politische Korrektheit zu untersuchen, sondern auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt und ihre Sachdienlichkeit als Beleg für im Text aufgestellte Thesen/Behauptungen. Ansonsten dürfte man keine Zitate von NS-Größen bringen und das kann im Sinne der historischen Wahrheit ja wohl niemand wollen. "Das Buch vom deutschen Freikorpskämpfer" ist eine akribische Zusammenstellung der Ereignisse des deutschen Nachkriegs aus Sicht eines Freikorps-Teilnehmers. Wertungen, die dieses Buch sicher auch enthält, spielen im Zusammenhang mit den dort erwähnten (nachprüfbaren)Fakten keine Rolle. Das Buch ist für den an dieser Epoche historisch Interessierten ein "Must-have", da es eine sehr umfangreiche Sammlung von Fakten enthält. Im übrigen war der Autor zwischen 33 und 45 sicher kein Nazi, sondern wurde sogar einer Scheinhinrichtung unterzogen. Er lebte mit einer Jüdin zusammen, die er erfolgreich vor den Nazis schützte und schrieb nach dem Krieg Drehbücher, z.B. für den Antikriegsfilm 08/15. Wenn man hier bei Wikipedia solche Autoren in den Quellenangaben zensiert mache ich mir ersnthaft Sorgen! 2. ist nun auch aus diesem Text eine Bildquelle gelöscht worden, weil irgendjemand die Echtheit angezweifelt hat. Interessanterweise handelt es sich um einen Aufruf zur Diktatur des Proletariats, in dem unverholen mit der "Abschlachtung der Bougeoisie " gedroht wird. Warum wird gerade diese Bildquelle aus fadenscheinigen und nicht nachvollziehbaren Gründen gelöscht? Die Quelle ist ebendieses Buch von v. Salomon (Seite 369) und es gibt überhaupt keinen Grund, die Echtheit anzuzweifeln, zumal es damals - und auch das weiß der historisch Interessierte - natürlich solche Anschläge in vielen deutschen Städten gab, um die Konterrevolution einzuschüchtern.
Fazit: Mittlerweile steht ein Großteil dieses Artikels nur noch unter Vorbehalt, weil er "nicht hinreichend belegt " sein soll. Ja, wenn man die Quellenangaben derart dreist abqualifiziert und löscht (siehe oben), dann kann man den Artikel eigentlich auch gleich ganz löschen, oder?! Es ist ein ganz düsteres Signal, wenn die Artikel hier von historischen Laien in Blockwart-Manier auf die genehme politische Richtung abgeklopft und zensiert werden. So etwas kommt nämlich vor allem in totalitären Regimen vor, in denen vorgegeben wird, was man zu denken hat. Wenn dieser Artikel weiterhin derart "bearbeitet" wird, dann stelle ich meine Mitarbeit bei Wikipedia ein. Ich möchte nämlich nicht zum Handlanger von solchen Machenschaften werden. Im Übrigen fordere ich, daß die unter Punkt 2. genannte Bildquelle wieder eingestellt und das unter Punkt 1. genannte Buch wieder als Quelle genannt wird.--Vonschill (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- As much as I undestand, author of this leaflet is Max Hölz. When did he die? Taivo (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The authenticity is not sure. It comes from a 1938 book of Ernst von Salomon, who died in 1972. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Itto. The source is "Kriegstagebuch der Landesjäger, Halle 1919" - the war diary of the Freikorps commanded by Maercker. Von Salomon just copied it from there. This is an original source and there is absolutely no doubt that it is authentic. Again: I do not understand why there is any question about this topic and I strongly assume that it is for political reasons. The point is that historical proofs like this leaflet show that german after-war was not a fight between good (communists) and evil (Freikorps). Maybe this is something what some ears do not want to hear these days, but it is not acceptable to change history with suppressing parts of the historical truth.--Vonschill (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- How trustworthy is a war diary (Kriegstagebuch) regarding the enemy? We need a better source, a historian. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- The leaflet is a facsimile reproduction, therefore trustworthy; another source is not needed. The quoted leaflet shouldn't confused with the literary content of the diary. --Hasenläufer (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- How trustworthy is a war diary (Kriegstagebuch) regarding the enemy? We need a better source, a historian. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Taivo: The author Max Hölz died in 1933. --Hasenläufer (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for deletion nomination (a question and a guess) and the following arguments are entirely inappropriate or insufficient and therefore invalid. BTW & IMHO, the author is Max Hoelz, search for "Wir haben mit unseren roten Truppen den Ort besetzt" in Google, first hit is a manuscript at www.br-online.de. --Hasenläufer (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did question the source and I was right: It´s not a scan of an original 1919 leaflet, it comes from an anti-communist book of Ernst von Salomon, printed 1938 in Nazi Germany. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The question is not What is the source?. The question is Who is the author of the leaflet?. Without doubt, it's Max Hoelz, his name is mentioned in the leaflet itself. Ernst von Salomon citates the leaflet by a facsimile reproduction of it in his book. This makes von Salomon not the author of the leaflet. No information is available to attest the leaflet is a fake. Neither any information is available to be in doubt of the authenticity. Even if the book of Ernst von Salomon was published in 1938, this makes von Salomon not suspicious to cheat with a facsimile reproduction. BTW, I consider the leaflet as a highly valuable contribution regarding historical documentation. Thanks to the uploader! --Hasenläufer (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The uploader wrote "Source=Flugblatt des Spartakusaufstandes 1919". But the source is Ernst von Salomon (a right-wing terrorist and nazi propagandist) and - as far as I can see - there is no mentioning of date or location (Halle? 1919?) in the book. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again, Ernst von Salomon is NOT the author of the leaflet. The author is Max Hoelz. Author ≠ Source. I fixed author, source and description of the file. --Hasenläufer (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ernst von Salomon was a "right-wing terrorist"? Interesting. Please add this knowledge to the article de:Ernst von Salomon. This DR is not an appropriate place to discuss about von Salomon, particularly he isn't in any authorship of the leaflet. --Hasenläufer (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- So we shall believe a member of the terrorist Organisation Consul, one of the assassins of Walther Rathenau, who put a bomb in the Reichstag building in 1929? Interesting point of view, indeed. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned before: completely off-topic discussion. --Hasenläufer (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- So we shall believe a member of the terrorist Organisation Consul, one of the assassins of Walther Rathenau, who put a bomb in the Reichstag building in 1929? Interesting point of view, indeed. --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(vermeintliche) Zusammenfassung
[edit]
I summarize: Source not trustworthy about the author, maybe copyright violation (taken from a book whose author died in 1972), description and file name are wrong (Has Hoelz ever been to Halle? The Spartacist uprising (Spartakusaufstand) was in Berlin in january 1919, Hoelz only got in command of some revolutionaries in the village of Falkenstein later that year. The text of the leaflet points to fightings, that were in 1920). --Ittoqqortoormiit (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Zwei Punkte zum Thema:
- Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, warum diese Diskussion in Englisch eröffnet wurde. Zwar mag man dadurch einen vermeintlich größeren Benutzerkreis ansprechen. Faktisch macht das aber keinen Sinn, da das Objekt der Diskussion deutschsprachig ist und daher nur diejenigen Beiträge liefern können, die der deutschen Sprache mächtig sind.
- Die vermeintliche Zusammenfassung ("I summarize ...") ist keine Zusammenfassung der hier bislang erfolgten Diskussion. Sie blendet alle Argumente und Fakten aus, die außerhalb der persönlichen Sicht des Beitragenden liegen. Sie bringt zusätzliche Aspekte ins Spiel und kann allein deshalb nicht als Zusammenfassung betrachtet werden. Diese "Zusammenfassung" kann daher lediglich als persönliche Sichtweise des Beitragenden bewertet werten.
- Gruß, --Hasenläufer (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Weitere Links zum Thema
[edit]
Zur Info, ich habe diese Diskussion auf dem Commons-Forum thematisiert. --Hasenläufer (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It looks like this is PD, published before 1923 FASTILY 05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about some part of this film:
- You can hear a commentator speaking, and I'm not sure if COM:DM can be used here. Also, in some countries, such as Sweden and Finland, COM:DM exclusively applies to artistic works, but a speech is a literary work. This appears to be from the UK where COM:DM might seem to include literary works.
- The way the car is driving and subsequently damaged seems to be planned in advance and might violate performance rights. There might also be performance rights for the commentator's speech. Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Especially becauase I think the car driving "choreography" is copyrightable. In my opinion one could reason that the commentator does not pass the threshold of originality. Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding performance rights, our guideline Commons:Non-copyright restrictions says "Commons considers non-copyright restrictions to be matters for photographers/uploaders or reusers and are not grounds for deletion of works from Commons". The clarification in the policy Commons:Licensing#Scope of licensing is utterly unclear. I can't judge the copyright issue. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- After reading w:Related rights I think performance rights may be a copyright issue. It seems to me performance rights certainly apply in this case. Just how I do not know! Thincat (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, related rights are clearly copyright rights, except perhaps industrial designs in certain countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- After reading w:Related rights I think performance rights may be a copyright issue. It seems to me performance rights certainly apply in this case. Just how I do not know! Thincat (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
KeepThe guy just gives informations and doesn't do a speech, and this isn't a performance this is a roll over competition. And even if this would be a performed stunt it's not copyrightable cause it was done so often, is taught in stunt schools and so on. It would be copyrightable if you have acting before and after.--Sanandros (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Performance rights are related rights which are copyrights. FASTILY 05:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Extremely bad quality copy of File:Lionel Walker (photo de campagne).png Andre Engels (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, you can delete it. BastienGuerry (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 05:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
solely used for spam/alt-energy promotion. Uploader blocked on en for this behavior, now being continued by various IPs. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in pt.wiki and therefore cannot be deleted in any other reason than copyright issues. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It could easily be removed there as spam and then it would be unused (I see that multiple editors have repeatedly removed it from many pages on multiple *.wp sites). (spam/self-promotion is explicitly listed as a non-realistically-educationally-useful use in COM:SCOPE). Looking further, the image is also taken from a website (the same one being promoted) that does not assert open licensing. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, promotional material FASTILY 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
solely used for spam/alt-energy promotion. Uploader blocked on en for this behavior, now being continued by various IPs. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in pt.wiki and therefore cannot be deleted in any other reason than copyright issues. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It could easily be removed there as spam and then it would be unused (I see that multiple editors have repeatedly removed it from many pages on multiple *.wp sites). (spam/self-promotion is explicitly listed as a non-realistically-educationally-useful use in COM:SCOPE). Looking further, the image is also taken from a website (the same one being promoted) that does not assert open licensing. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope - promotional content FASTILY 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Logo for an unknown smartphone created by an unknown company. Suspected fake. Andre Engels (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think we can go beyond suspect - and it's a fake :) Sarah (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used on user page in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 19:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The book was written in 1907, this does not mean that the cover was published then. If it's {{Own}} we need COM:OTRS. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I asked directly on the uploaders user page. Perhaps they can tell us when that copy of that book was published. Sarah (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant when this copy was published as original publisher of all the Mahatma Gandhi books in Gujarati made them copyright free a long time ago.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Was this cover published by the "original publisher of all the Mahatma Gandhi['s] books"? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes this particular book was published by the original publisher.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note:- This book was published in 1922 by the original publisher and republished in 1990 by the same.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- When the publisher has brought its publication of Gandhiji's work out of copy rights... So does its cover! The request for deletion shall be removed. --Sushant savla (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note:- This book was published in 1922 by the original publisher and republished in 1990 by the same.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes this particular book was published by the original publisher.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Was this cover published by the "original publisher of all the Mahatma Gandhi['s] books"? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is freely licensed FASTILY 19:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
While text itself may be PD-textlogo, the texturing takes it above the threshhold in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nom. This should just be used on WP under fair use if needed. Sarah (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep, it does not meet the threshold of originality. Everybody can make the same thing within few seconds. Don't forget to delete those one File:200x150 pretty hurts.jpg, File:Alphas TV show.svg, they are the same in texturing. It is just a text with some effects in it like sunshine.--Spillik (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it were just the characters, I would agree that it would be ineligible for copyright, but the texturing was specifically chosen by someone for effect, arranged specifically, and that is what I believe takes it beyond the threshold. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex non-free logos are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 19:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
J'en suis l'auteur, je n'accepte plus que cette photo soit régulièrement pillée dans la presse, comme cela arrive chaque semaine avec la licence Creative Commons. Cette photo, de plus, n'est vraiment pas terrible. Simio (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google-translat.: I am the author, I do not agree that this picture is regularly plundered in the press, as happens every week with the Creative Commons license. This photo, moreover, is not that great. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Simio, while I can understand your feelings, thanks to similar experiences with my own uploads, deletion of this image is not really a solution. At least in your own country (for practical reasons) you can sue anybody who uses this image without crediting it to you. --Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Note the derivative at File:Emmanuel Todd-retouched.jpg. Rama (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Simio: tu es trop sévère: vu les conditions de lumière, cette photo est tout à fait honorable. Rama (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a reason to delete I guess FASTILY 19:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Photo previously available here with slightly better resolution. There it is credited to Canadian Coin News. Not sure about the copyright status of the work although. Rahul Bott (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I added an OTRS template just for good measure. Let's wait it out, and if no response...delete. Sarah (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 19:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Photographer given as "Schaul, Hamburg, phot." That would be Albert & Leo Schaul, Hamburg, active from around 1900 until the late 1930s.[7] Leopold Schaul was born 1870-02-23 and died 1943-02-10 at the KZ Theresienstadt.[8] The profession on that death certificate is given as "Photogr.", the last address as "Hamburg". I consider it highly unlikely that there were two photographers of the same name in the same time span in Hamburg: I do assume that this Leopold Schaul was the one from the studio Albert & Leo Schaul. Prosecution, deportation and murder by the Nazis also offers an explanation as to why the studio ceased to be active in the late 1930s. On Albert Schaul, I have not found anything.
Unfortunately, this means that the photo is still copyrighted in the source country (Germany), where it will enter the public domain at the earliest on January 1, 2014. Lupo 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: we have five more files by "Atelier Schaul":
- Lupo 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
_in_Altona.jpg){kind=link}
- Minor update on Albert Schaul: Ellis Island has a record on him; he arrived on 1910-01-13 aboard the Cincinnati. The original ship records list him as Schaul, Albert, photographer, last permanent residence Hamburg, nearest relative: brother Leopold Schaul, Hamburg, Speersort 24. "Intending to return to Europe by steamer Cincinnati on January 29/30." He was 38 years old at that time, birth year would thus be 1871, one year after Leopold. Lupo 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- The adress books of Hamburg list both Albert and Leopold, and their studio, up to 1914.[9] From 1915 on, they don't list Albert anymore.[10] In 1930, the studio is still listed as "L. &. A. Schaul"[11]. Leopold is listed right up to the 1940s.[12] So in 1914, Albert either moved away from Hamburg, or he died that year. Lupo 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's also possible that the studio ceased to exist because of the Great Depression. The studio is listed in the address books of Hamburg originally at Speersort 24 from 1900 until 1915 (1900 only as L. Schaul; Albert is mentioned only from 1901 on), then from 1916 to 1921 at the private address of Leopold (Börnestrasse 41), then from 1922 to 1929 at Steinstrasse 147 (Jacobihaus), and from 1930 to 1932 on at Ferdinandstrasse 48. After 1932, there's no separate entry for the studio, but it's still mentioned in Leopold's entry. Börnestrasse is a residential area, but the other addresses are all in the inner city. Lupo 08:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The adress books of Hamburg list both Albert and Leopold, and their studio, up to 1914.[9] From 1915 on, they don't list Albert anymore.[10] In 1930, the studio is still listed as "L. &. A. Schaul"[11]. Leopold is listed right up to the 1940s.[12] So in 1914, Albert either moved away from Hamburg, or he died that year. Lupo 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Minor update on Albert Schaul: Ellis Island has a record on him; he arrived on 1910-01-13 aboard the Cincinnati. The original ship records list him as Schaul, Albert, photographer, last permanent residence Hamburg, nearest relative: brother Leopold Schaul, Hamburg, Speersort 24. "Intending to return to Europe by steamer Cincinnati on January 29/30." He was 38 years old at that time, birth year would thus be 1871, one year after Leopold. Lupo 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 19:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Uploader claims this is PD-textlogo, but this image does not appear to fall below threshhold of originality. Far too complex in design. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nom re: threshold of originality. Should just be uploaded to WP under fair use if needed. Sarah (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep, why it is really originaly? Perhaps it uses under copyrighted fonts? Or background is something. Or maybe it consists of simple complicated geometric shapes and/or text? If it is, please, tell me in what place.--Spillik (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a matter of font or geometric shapes, it is that there is tremendous design involved here, from various texturing to light glow on the right to the various shading all over the image. It is a complex image, rather than a simple design that is ineligible for copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Only text and simple geometry, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The text, yes, but there is much more than simple text here, which is what takes it beyond the threshold. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex non-free logos are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 19:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MadnessReigns (talk · contribs)
[edit]fictional parties and map. no educational value.
- File:NP2.png
- File:NP1.png
- File:Fictional Map.PNG
- File:Pirate logo.png
- File:Green logo.png
- File:V and A.png
- File:The Letter A.png
- File:Heart logo.png
- File:Letter R.png
- File:Social Democracy.png
- File:Conservative Logo.png
- File:Liberal logo.png
- File:PDP Logo.png
- File:Nordic flag.png
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep for File:Nordic flag.png -- it's one of many "special or fictional flags" here on Commons, and they aren't usually deleted just for being special or fictional, but only if there's an additional aggravating factor... AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- File:Liberal logo.png is used and File:Social Democracy.png is widely used. Used files cannot be deleted in any other reason than copyright issues. The fictional map made me laugh – a wet dream of scandinavian suprematists. Why aren't Shetland and Orkney islands colored? And why did you not present File:TDKL.png? This file seems to be copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I tagged TDKL already accordingly. I see a problem with fictional flags claiming to be original and may confuse other users. I don't have a problem when the files are tagged as fictional. I won't insist in any way on deletion, I'd like to put these files up for discussion. That's all :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 19:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)