Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unlikely to be own work: looks like a video game character (almost certainly copyrighted). — TintoMeches, 13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted Most definitely a copyright violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: looks like a video game character (almost certainly copyrighted). — TintoMeches, 13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted Most definitely a copyright violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is copyrighted image by studio of Artemiy Lebedev. AndyVolykhov (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio Dschwen (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: looks like a video game character (almost certainly copyrighted). — TintoMeches, 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted Most definitely a copyright violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: looks like a video game character (almost certainly copyrighted). — TintoMeches, 13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedily Deleted Most definitely a copyright violation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Empty Yuriy Kvach (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Empty Yuriy Kvach (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Felviper (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.larepublica.ec/blog/economia/2012/04/10/banco-pichincha-cumplio-106-anos-de-fundacion/ . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://200.93.248.45/web/galerias/quitumbe/index.php . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|Privacy issue: Contains information identifying me as the uploader, including name and location. It is a privacy issue.}} Lenhardtl (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Savhñ 07:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly out of scope, no need to let this stew any longer. Dschwen (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://ww1.elcomercio.com/quito/noches-restriccion-tuneles_0_785921506.html . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission and the image is out of scope, but an IP address keeps deleting all problem tags from the file information page. Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.televisionglobal.tv/joomla/index.php/canal-corporativo/item/376-asur . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://blog.icsc.org/?p=473 . This user constantly uploads copyrightd images. Felviper (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.quicentrosur.com/local.asp?qSeccion=2&qLocal=178# . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.quicentrosur.com/ . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.quicentrosur.com/ . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.quicentrosur.com/ . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.lahora.com.ec/index.php/noticias/show/1101464995#.UahGUdi7_SQ . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Image taken from http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/hoy-ultimo-plazo-para-elegir-las-siete-maravillas-de-quito-491109.html . This user constantly uploads copyrighted images. Felviper (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:เทศบาลตำบลทากาศ
[edit]User เทศบาลตำบลทากาศ has uploaded these images:
I do not believe, that uploader is copyright holder. Most probably copyright violation, and this is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
created by mistake, I intended to make a category RomanM82 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: uncontroversial housekeeping Dschwen (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As in the heading of this picture a mistake has been made so I am deleting it. Mrpiyush.gupta7 (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all JuTa 15:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
copy from http://u.jimdo.com/www56/o/s8674e1e557e65a87/img/ie86865216559c40f/1367592646/std/image.png BlitzTornado (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
speedy This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from http://www.somenofilms.com/%E7%A4%BE%E9%95%B7%E7%B4%B9%E4%BB%8B/ --RvRt (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yanagimotoso (talk · contribs)
[edit]All three are taken from websites. No proof that they are under free license is provided, thus copyvio.
- File:ロダン考える人.jpeg taken from http://tabelog.com/imgview/original?id=r419681716550
- File:西山美術館全景.png taken from http://www.2480.jp/museum/
- File:スクリーンショット 2013-05-24 18.02.43.png taken from facebook of 石井義哲 as stated in file description
Nightingale (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyriht violations. JuTa 18:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Outside COM:SCOPE: "photographs of you and your friends". Eleassar (t/p) 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Also the following images:
- File:Krvavec 10 (5756305622).jpg
- File:Krvavec 11 (5756369960).jpg
- File:Krvavec 8 (5756353246).jpg
- File:Krvavec 9 (5756328912).jpg
--Eleassar (t/p) 07:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting as part of upload cleanupo russavia (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
derivative: Obviously a reproduction of part from a newspaper. No evidence why the newspaper content should be free. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Belgium Hektor (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for drawings of seals in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The subject of the photograph died in 1940. I therefore suspect that the uploader is not the original photographer and copyright holder as claimed. Diannaa (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Taivo (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Note on source this still is from stated "Note: This video cannot be reproduced and is licensed for online music use only." Watermark on video says CSA/ASC. See also related comments at File talk:Chris Hadfield Space Oddity.png. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
derivative: reproduction of newspaper from 1976. No evidence why the newspaper content should be free. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
derivative: obviously a reproduction of part from a newspaper. No evidence why the newspaper content should be free. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Small image - looks more to be an internet image and is thus mot the work of the person who uploaded it 91.57.75.223 02:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete 1930 photo, better no. Taivo (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Similar material in an article on WP:EN has been deleted as out of scope -- not notable. This is just spam.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Can Commons keep this derivative image uploaded by a bot? This image has several designs on it. Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per FOP in Iran. Probably less than 30 years old. Takabeg (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
derivative: reproduction of a newspaper from 1967. No evidence why the newspaper content should be free. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused file. No realistic educational purpose. There is no desciption. The name of the file seems to be related to the Neotropic ecozone, but this is not a good map of it. (Why this pink rectangle?) BrightRaven (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and very bad quality. Needs cropping, but would remain small. Taivo (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per FOP in Iran. Probably less than 30 years old. Takabeg (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per FOP in Iran. Probably less than 30 years old. Takabeg (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in belgium Hektor (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree No discussion here. Please moved it to the corresponding the [Category:Undelete in 2018] Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
[[I am the author and I agree as well.}}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukanc cemetery.JPG
Converted by me to DR. Is the legal threshold of originality in Slovenia really that low, that such a building would be copyrighted? -- Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. A creative work, nothing traditional here. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep - too simple for copyright. --Sporti (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Without evidence as to the threshold of originality in Slovenia, it's a COM:PRP case indeed. russavia (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Most probably such building is copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Person depicted on the image died less than 70 years ago. No evidence provided that PD Old applies Hektor (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. Horta died in 1947. Museum internal rules forbid pictures. Hektor (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Belgium Hektor (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Daniel Bond
[edit]User Daniel Bond uploaded these three files:
They illustrate all a hoax named Nacion de la risa (Laught Nation), a non-existent territory in Spain (coat of arms, map and flag). All are unused. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mathieudu68 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images look like screenshots of the copyrighted en:Jetpack Joyride.
- File:JPJsnowJ.jpg
- File:JPJfruitJ.jpg
- File:JPJblueJ.jpg
- File:JPJlaserJ.jpg
- File:JPJrainbowJ.jpg
- File:JPJsharkJ.jpg
- File:JPJtraditionnalJ.jpg
- File:JPJvapeurJ.jpg
- File:JPJBallonJ.jpg
- File:JPJGunJ.jpg
- File:JPJBubbleJ.jpg
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
These maps are unlikely to be the uploader's "own work". In addition, better quality maps already exist on Commons.
Senator2029 04:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment No proof is given, that we have better maps, and one of these maps is used. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work (low res, no exif etc.). Eleassar (t/p) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused self-portrait. We have 213 images in Category:People with cameras. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
it is Robert Koch: File:RobertKoch cropped.jpg Andreykor (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is Robert Koch.
What about renaming the file?--Irena Plahuta (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, I think, that I can list here all his uploads:
- File:Առաքելի.jpg
- File:Գասպարյան.jpg
- File:Արթուր.jpg
- File:Հրանտ.jpg
- File:Ալեքսանի.jpg
- File:Ալյոշա.jpg
- File:Մուրադ.jpg
- File:Վիգեն.jpg
- File:Սամվել.jpg
- File:Անաիդա.jpg
- File:Հրաչիկ.jpg
- File:Սերոբ.jpg
- File:Արտակ.jpg
- File:Քաջիկ.jpg
- File:Նարիմանյան.jpg
- File:Միքայել.jpg
- File:Ռուդոլֆ.jpg
- File:Էրիկ.jpg
- File:Ասրյան.jpg
- File:Ազատյան.jpg
- File:Կարեն.jpg
- File:Աննա.jpg
- File:Իսակի.jpg
- File:Գրիգորի.jpg
All are quite small photos and all but one are used. Taivo (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, Brancusi died 1957 Alinea (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, Brancusi died 1957 Alinea (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio, Brancusi died 1957 Alinea (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
doesn't exist anymore Cajakova (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I do not understand, what doesn't exist anymore, but we can delete this as unused logo of non-notable something. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
it was test image. i will upload a new file shortly. Saqib Qayyum (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As you can read here, the uploader is not actually author of the image, but scanned it. I would say, that this is not a standard font and surpasses threshold of originality. Anyway, licence is invalid. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
this is an information plaque from the Huntington Botanical Gardens. It is not de minimis; rather, it is the sole focus of the photo. As such, I feel that it is a copyright violation. DS (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete We must have permission from artist. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
only text. not in use. recently uploaded. possibly out of com:scope McZusatz (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
La photo semble avoir été prise dans un lieu privé et l'auteur de la photo n'a plus de compte Wiki... Une nouvelle photo plus actuelle et plus représentative est désormais disponible sur Commons : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sylvia_Pinel_1.jpg Ygor75 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Translation in English : "this picture seems to have been taken in a private location and the author doesn't have any Wiki account anymore... A new picture, more recent and more representative, is now available on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Just a guess concerning the location. The addition of a {{Personality rights}} template should be enough since there's nothing incriminating nor embarassing about this picture. The other arguments are not valid : the fact that the uploader doesn't use Wiki anymore is not a problem at all, and having pictures of someone at different periods is actually a good thing for the project. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used. Taivo (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Fichier en doublon Bxazey5r (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, duplicate. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Fichier en doublon Bxazey5r (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Author's request, duplicate. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused bad quality image of animal. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The image is claimed as "own work" but there is no evidence that this is the case. Ponyo (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Despite the LULz, this image is out of scope and being used incorrectly in an article about types of bread. I think we can release the cats to the wild of the internets (perhaps Flickr). Sarah (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of the previous comment. There is every place for the use of humour, especially when said humour is factually correct. Breadcatting is a widespread phenomenon; one only has to search the internet for images of breadcats to appreciate the true extent of its prominence.
The Oxford English dictionary publishes four updates a year to maintain its relevance to today’s society. It is only appropriate that Wikipedia should embrace this same attitude and acknowledge that whilst it may not be deemed ‘conventional’, bread cat is an increasingly common type of bread in the modern world. With regards to their release to the wild [of the internets]- everyone knows that evolution of the domesticated (bread) cat has diminished their natural survival instincts, so this would in fact be unethical.
Plus it’s darned hilarious.--Sd56787 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, and I would say, unusable. Taivo (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that we have no permission from potato-expert James Godfrey. Taivo (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe nice, but out of scope and quality. Nothing TeX wouldn't do it as last resort. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This appears to have been cropped from a larger image that is most likely unfree. I can't find any direct match but judging from the dress, the photo was taken during this event in May 2011. Unfortunately the uploader LordMethven has a habit of adding unfree photos of royals and nobility, so I'm sure this a derivative made by him, and not an original work. If LordMethven really took the original photo, I'd like to ask him to upload the full resolution. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Twenty of their uploads have been deleted as copyvios. Why has this user not been blocked? Alternatively, why has no one made clear to this user the terms of use? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Work by Paul Neefs, who died in 2009. No proof for permission given. Ronn (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Work by Paul Neefs, who died in 2009. No proof for permission given. Ronn (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No own work. Neefs died in 2009. No permission from the photographer given. Ronn (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Insufficiently described; appears to be a copyrighted logo of a futsal team. —Andrei S. Talk 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a photomontage, using a non-free photograph copyrighted by Mars, Inc. See http://www.marssustainablesolutions.com/blogs/ecolutions/marscocoaoperations.html Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a hoax flag. See en:User:Candyland.gov/Ankamamina. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This money bill is a hoax. See en:User:Candyland.gov/Ankamamina and http://candylandgov.wordpress.com/ Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This money bill is a hoax. See en:User:Candyland.gov/Ankamamina and http://candylandgov.wordpress.com/ Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Box art is copyrighted. Sorry, but this is certainly not "Own work". Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Ras67 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wide spreaded over the net, probably a copyright violation. Ras67 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope image without evidence of permission. A user keeps removing all problem tags. Stefan4 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of permission and looks like an advertisement. An IP keeps deleting all problem tags. Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete IP is presumably User:Linoavac, which matches the site being spammed (and a pattern of spam and blocks on en.wp). DMacks (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: 6 uploads = 4 copyvio grabbed from different Panoramio-accounts + suspected sockpuppet of Henriquehorta. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so this one (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Gunnex (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This photomontage uses a non-free photo. See http://www.cinemablographer.com/2012/11/forbidden-fruits.html Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This photomontage uses a probably non-free photographed found on the internet. See http://thefrogblog.de/2012/04/05/von-der-kakaobohne-zum-schoko-ei/ Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This photomontage is not useful for educational purposes, and it uses a probably non-free photograph. See http://www.multivu.com/mnr/51180-great-smoky-mountain-lumberjack-feud Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a hoax map showing a non-existent island. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a hoax map showing a non-existent island. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a hoax file. There is no AKJ currency. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
These are hoax stamps. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This photomontage is not useful for educational purposes. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This photomontage is not useful for educational purposes. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Uses copyrighted Google Maps data as background. Pleas redo using OSM data. Dschwen (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a two-dimensional work of art, so the photograph is copyrighted. —innotata 22:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Not encyclopedically usefull, no description, misleading filename. Dschwen (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The same file (without information about the author) can be found here: [1]. The date given by the uploader was obviously incorrect, since Mrs. Scholt-Wanckel died several years before that date. Sitacuisses (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The monument was created in 1960 by Janez Lenassi (1927-2008).[2] Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, the image is not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete --Miha (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This coat of arms is a hoax. See en:User:Candyland.gov/Ankamamina and http://candylandgov.wordpress.com/ Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
no educational value Daphne Lantier 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Español: alejandra 191.126.51.133 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Low quality photograph (screenshot?) of an unidentified person. Delete. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Works created after 1945; nominated per COM:FOP#Slovenia.
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, Albert Jakopič.jpg
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, biste.jpg
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, Jože Borštnar.jpg
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, Lado Ambrožič.jpg
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, spomenik 05.jpg - work by Edvard Ravnikar; undelete in 2064
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, spomenik 06.jpg - work by Edvard Ravnikar; undelete in 2064
- File:Kobilnik Trnovo, Stane Potočar.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern architecture; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:B!ttu
[edit]User B!ttu has uploaded these files:
They are all unused personal files. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Erreur lors de ma création de la cat (que j'ai ensuite rectifiée en Category:Composition of The Flagellation by Piero della Francesca). --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 12:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Nura1911
[edit]User Nura1911 uploaded these files:
- File:SWScan000000012.JPG (scan from "Pravda")
- File:SWScan222я.JPG (scan from "Pravda")
- File:М.Нурбаев.jpg
- File:SWScan000000017.JPG
- File:SWScan000000049.JPG (1934 photo cannot be own work)
- File:SWScan000000123.JPG
- File:SWScan000000137.JPG
- File:Нурбаев Мамат.jpg
As Mamat Nurbajev died in 1991, photos date 2013 is clearly invalid. Big doubt in authorship. A lot of files have "scan" in file name. His other contribution is also presented for deletion due to copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Breslevmeir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:לוי יצחק בנדר הרב.jpg
- File:התיקון הכללי באומן.jpg
- File:הרב שמעון יוסף הכהן ויזנפלד שליט"א.jpg
- File:REBBI VISINFEALD.jpg
- File:"ישיבה לבעלי תשובה "נצח מאיר.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chriscellura13200 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo images. I think permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Affiche Féria de Pâques 2012.jpg
- File:Christopher en 2013.jpg
- File:Féria Arles 2013.jpg
- File:Christipher Cellura - Twilight.jpg
- File:Christopher Cellura en 2013.JPG
- File:DeluxeEdition.jpg
- File:Cellura Christopher 2012.jpg
- File:Cellura Christopher 2011.jpg
- File:Cellura Christopher au Festival de Cannes.jpg
- File:Cellura Christopher.jpg
- File:Cellura Christopher.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now it is COM:COPYVIO. Delete. --C messier (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Grey Devey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of album covers/promo photos. I think permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:ARMAGA wn.jpg
- File:Armaga dark-authority.jpg
- File:ARMAGA Mystic cover.jpg
- File:Armaga-newmembers.jpg
- File:Sobolevsky.jpg
- File:Vasiunin.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Henriquehorta (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying 11 fresh uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different panoramio--accounts, blogs etc.) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Most all files uploaded originally with nonsense descriptions like "asdfsdgv" or "wefewf" which addionally underlines the copy&paste behaviour.
- File:Aerodromo.jpg
- File:Fonte santos.JPG
- File:Casaavos.JPG
- File:Aldeiaantigasantos.jpg
- File:Procissaocaratão 2.JPG
- File:Procissaocaratao.JPG
- File:Igrejacaratao.JPG
- File:Telhadocaratao.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Related user started some kind of edit war (removing templates from files and user talk page) and is actually blocked. Gunnex (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing exceptionally good here, let's Delete everything. But all files are used. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Milanilich (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
- File:Ashcan Comic Issue 3.jpg
- File:Ashcan Comic Issue 2.gif
- File:Ashcan Comic Issue 1.gif
- File:Ashcan.png
Didym (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ntr99subbu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Uploader requested, the file was supposed to have a different name but Upload Wizard didn't do it for some reason and uploaded it under "AJAX1". Please delete this redirect, as well as the file, which is unstable. I have to start over from the begining. Fry1989 eh? 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I retract. The servers appear to have stabilized the image after a few hours. Please still delete the redirect "AJAX1" however. Fry1989 eh? 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in the US for modern drawings of birds. Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: On second thought, I withdraw this nomination as the drawing is fairly simple. You can Keep this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn FASTILY 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
irrelevant GreenpointX (Diskussion) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC) GreenpointX (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: well inside COM:SCOPE JuTa 14:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant picture, deletion request by author GreenpointX (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Excellent photo about the plane, well in scope. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept, no reason to delete. --Denniss (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A rather large proportion of the image is a derrivitive work of a cityscape Ronhjones (Talk) 00:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The derrivitive image of the cityscape you refer to was taken from a personal free to use collection and this image was manipulated by a computer to incorporate into the photograph. We own the image in it's entirety and it is free to use hence the reason it has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I applaud the fact that these things are highlighted but where does one draw the line? Can a personal photograph be deleted because it contains an image of a skyline or iconic building? This image breaches no rules or guidelines set down by Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons User:TDM67 (Talk) 14.39, 02 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, unfortunately a personal photo can be deleted, if it contains an image of skyline or iconic building, if the building is copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama in that country. Taivo (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
While the uploader gives a link to the back of the postcard which has no copyright notice on it, there is clearly a copyright notice down at the left front of the postcard, so the licence used is not valid. Ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, that was the wrong license. I fixed it with {{PD-US-not renewed}}.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you are good with that licence, then it's ok by me too. How do you know it was not renewed? Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Minsky Bros. ceased to exist in 1948 (source). I would say that it's highly unlikely that the copyright on a postcard for a minor city was renewed after the demise of the company.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you are good with that licence, then it's ok by me too. How do you know it was not renewed? Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
nation awards Hanif khan deewana (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Uploader requested, Upload program uploaded file as unstable, I need to start over. Fry1989 eh? 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I retract, the servers appear to have stabilized the image after a few hours. Sorry about this. Fry1989 eh? 05:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to ask you to kindly delete the first two versions of this file, which I had uploaded in 2011, because according to my further research on Lichnau churchbooks there are false relations in it, unfortunately. Just leave the latest, corrected version of 2013 online, please. Thank you very much. Felixitas (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: done FASTILY 07:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agamitsudo as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No authorization for that logo. But, I think...Valid using {{PD-textlogo}} ??? Alan (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd text FASTILY 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Faulty license. This is an original and copyrightable design that is certainly not exempt from Russian copyright. Banknotes as a state-issued means of payment may not be copyrightable in Russia, but this card is issued by Mastercard. The file should be deleted as a copyvio. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you crazy? This file is an EXAMPLE of Moscow transport card which could be issued by Avangard bank. This EXAMPLE like banknote EXAMPLES is not copyrightable and it will never be. All tabloids and sites used this media without any permissions.Spider death (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that other sites are using this image without permission does not give you the authority to upload it here under a free license. The graphics used on this card are original enough to be copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a real card, this is an example of card. The name is "Mr. Cardholder" the number is not real etc. Logo could be copyrighted but logo of Mastercard Wiki use for free. You could read any article about MasterCard. It will be worse ONLY for Wiki if you delete it.Spider death (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter at all if the card is functional or not. What matters is that the design is copyrighted by the original artist. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm not talking about the Mastercard logo which is in fact too simple to be copyrighted, I'm talking about the red background graphic. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is useless to discuss with you. You are not understanding the arguments. This media file is necessary for the article of Moscow Metro tickets. This is the main thing. If this logo and design of the card would be protected the site of Avangard bank (link is on this file description) the site would be protected. And this is not protected because this is a ticket design, not more. These cards are ADVERTISING of Avangard bank and only crazy people could in this situation speak about "copyright". But if you are european or american for you to understand that there are some things MORE important that rules is really impossible.Spider death (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a real card, this is an example of card. The name is "Mr. Cardholder" the number is not real etc. Logo could be copyrighted but logo of Mastercard Wiki use for free. You could read any article about MasterCard. It will be worse ONLY for Wiki if you delete it.Spider death (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that other sites are using this image without permission does not give you the authority to upload it here under a free license. The graphics used on this card are original enough to be copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've just said, if you are european or american for you to understand that there are some things MORE important that rules is really impossible.Spider death (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not a state symbol, as this is a private bank. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately we all are a bit crazy here in Commons and delete this image due to wrong licence. This bank is not a state organization. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio FASTILY 07:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has a problematic history across several WMF projects, including this one. He probably does have the photograph "in my possession" but that does not mean he owns the copyright to it. Unless he used a self-timer, he certainly did not take the photo. Sitush (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Example of the competence issues elsewhere can be seen here. I am told that the same applies at hi-WP and I am wondering whether we should be doing a mass delete of their uploads to Commons. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sitush Ji! Since my son Swadesh Gaurav had taken all the photographs of the release ceremony with a manual camera. All of snap shots are still with me. As per advice of the previous administrator (see my talk page) I had added the desired information and uploaded a new version of higher resolution of the same image from my personal laptop pictures and accordingly have edited the file also. But today I was shocked to see that you have again nominated it for deletion. No problem. Let there be consensus. With lucky omen! Krantmlverma (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if that is a good image then I've no idea what you consider a poor image to be. But, regardless, you have been thought to be either lying or grossly misunderstanding the English language in the past and you'll have to excuse me if I do not assume good faith on this occasion. I realise that this is Commons and the system here pretty much allows you to upload anything, regardless of quality, provided that the copyright issues are ok, if you want to self-promote (as has been your history here, at en-WP and at hi=WP) then you'd probably be better opening a Flickr account. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sitush Ji! Since my son Swadesh Gaurav had taken all the photographs of the release ceremony with a manual camera. All of snap shots are still with me. As per advice of the previous administrator (see my talk page) I had added the desired information and uploaded a new version of higher resolution of the same image from my personal laptop pictures and accordingly have edited the file also. But today I was shocked to see that you have again nominated it for deletion. No problem. Let there be consensus. With lucky omen! Krantmlverma (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I believe own work. The file is used and therefore in scope. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Encyclopedic. Both subjects have articles on various encyclopedias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader has already stated that they did not take the photo themself, so COM:OTRS permission is absolutely required for this file to be hosted on Commons -FASTILY 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has stated that he did not take the photo himself in previous discussion so he is not the author of the photo. Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 12:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted:' as above. Yann (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Horta died in 1947. PD old does not apply. Hektor (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The legal status of signatures is disputed, varies with jurisdiction, and mainly depends on whether they are copyrightable as "artistic works." With a few exceptions of signatures of living persons, a signature is believed to be ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain. See for example 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am ok with that justification. But when I did the nomination, the only provided explanation provided was PD-Old. Hektor (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I forgot to add the appropriate permission when I created the file. I modified it accordingly following your deletion request. Thanks again. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am ok with that justification. But when I did the nomination, the only provided explanation provided was PD-Old. Hektor (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The monument was designed after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, it can't be freely reproduced for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep - typical monument of its time, surely it is not the first with a hammer and sickle on a star. --Sporti (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's typical of its time. However, still original enough to be protected by copyright. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Typical of its time -> doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Hence Keep --Miha (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Typical of its time -> doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Hence
- Per your logic, all modern monuments would not be copyrightable. The art style is irrelevant as to the copyright. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Surpasses threshoöd of originality. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
|
This file has been superseded by Zakhar Berkut(1944).djvu. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent. Reason to use the other file: "The other file has a better OCR layer"
|
|
Deleted: pdf < djvu FASTILY 07:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The plaque was designed by J. Plečnik (1872-1957).[3] Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep - too simple for copyright. --Sporti (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is described as an artwork: "The plan for the plaque was devised by the architect professor Jože Plečnik... It is carved in the form of an elongated quadrangle, smooth and plain in the middle, and turned out at its edges. In the middle below the bottom edge it has a console in the form of a volute, whereas above the plaque is a stone handle for wreaths. The inscription has been done in a noble, highly classical antique without any ornaments. The letters are red, except for two words in the bottom line that are golden. ... The plaque is a true, from a deep love and piety born artwork." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 07:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The basilica is work by Silvan Baresi (1884-1958). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, its reproductions are not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 10:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM --Miha (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- The majority of the image is taken by the copyrighted architecture. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete None is de minimis there. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not DM, and there is no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
not sure if we should sue them http://osmena.co.uk/shop/ for not mention wiki commons as source, or just delete the pictures as copyvio ?! ;-)
- File:Lg Onyx Gemstone Earrings.jpg
- File:Onyx Gemstone Earrings.jpg
- File:Rose Coral Earrings.jpg
- File:Onyx Gemstone Ring.jpg
- File:Chalcedony Gemstone Ring.jpg
- File:Rose Quartz Gemstone Ring.jpg
- File:Amethyst Gemstone Ring.jpg
Wer?Du?! (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the copyright holder, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-art license Poco2 08:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete anything. If you have questions about the copyright status, ask at COM:VPC FASTILY 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-art license Poco2 08:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
This user uploaded lots of material with copyright and assigned to himself the authorship but in this case maybe we can accept this file with PD-old license Poco2 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo without description. But the image is somehow interesting, maybe we can use it in some other way? Taivo (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by High Contrast as no permission (no permission since), however the photographer is verifiable as Dan Lindsay as declared on his en.wp account (User:Edgy01, an account active since 2008) and as his legal identity as a photographer can be linked to his en.wp account on the internet at sites like this. Were this a false claim on en.wp then his account would be blocked as falsely representing a living person. I am raising this deletion request to establish the principle that OTRS tickets are not a necessary default to apply when the photographer's identity is public and easily verifiable, without going via the non-transparent process of OTRS nor needing to use the time of OTRS volunteers. Fæ (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Fae's argumentation is quite thin. The regular way is to send a permission to the OTRS-team. As you can see on User:Edgy01's talk page on en wiki, files uploaded by this user have been deleted previously due to any problems. As such it is advantageous to have it reviewed by an OTRS-member which are trusted users - nothing intransparent there. Do not defame their work. User:Edgy01 seems to be active since 2008 - very good! Then it shouldn't be a problem to ask for an Email. --High Contrast (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The facts are that:
- If Edgy01 has been falsely representing himself as the living person with a legal identity of Dan Lindsey for the past 5 years, then all the accounts under this name should be blocked as a precaution.
- OTRS is not transparent. There is no access for non-OTRS volunteers to read the correspondence, or to find out what verification has been done, unless the OTRS volunteer decides to make this public. This is not "defamation", it is a statement of fact, and based on my experience as an OTRS volunteer for 2 years. Wikimedia Commons should default to processes as transparent and open as possible. Should a user need to validate their identity using confidential information then alternative processes can be chosen, even then, OTRS may not be the best option as there is no guarantee that information published in that database will stay confidential indefinitely, in fact correspondence on OTRS stays available to be read by a large number of volunteers including those that may join in the future, so if a user is concerned about private matters then directly emailing a bureaucrat or other established user might be felt to be a more confidential and private process than OTRS.
- If anyone wishes to check the status of these photographs, or wishes to confirm with Edgy01 that the Panoramio account under the same name with the same photographs (see here) is his, then this is easily done by asking him rather than just deleting his photos within 7 days and making it someone else's problem. I note this photograph has been happily available for the public benefit on Commons for more than 3 years.
- I have emailed Edgy01 the following notification as he does not use a Commons account under this name:
- --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have had a positive and prompt email reply from Edgy, and will be following up on it shortly to ensure the licence is made verifiable. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I emailed back some guidance today suggesting that Edgy either associates his Commons account with his legal off-wiki identity, or contact OTRS if he wishes to keep any of it confidential. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Edgy is reviewing the guidance for OTRS requests and may apply that process. I suggest we are generous with time on this DR, though if Edgy does not get around to verifying their identity as the photographer, the precautionary principle must apply. --Fæ (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment In fact I do not understand all that mess at all. I do not know the procedures of Commons precisely, but I believe High Contrast's way to solve this particular case is wrong and damaging.
He and we hardly know anything about the Edgy01's photos that have been deleted from en.wikipedia, what was the real problem with them as the templates are quite non-specific and we are not en.wiki admins to check them in deleted history. Just to make it clear: I have had a lot of similar notices made by other users (very similar to High Contrast) to my talk page here just because I have - in good will - transferred the files from Wikipedia here and later they have been deleted because something happened and I was again and again notified instead of the original Wikipedia uploader (N.B.: who, by contrast, was not notified and his talk page and account remained clear...). There is not much we can say about Edgy01 now, except the fact he has several strange notifications on his talk page and on the contrary that he has uploaded several undisputed images. High Contrast should have contacted him instead of pushing others to do so, before tagging the file with a template. And although there is a strong unavoidable accent on correct copyright status of any file, on the other hand there must be a strong prove or at least an absolute lack of other side's cooperation to accuse an editor of intentionally breaching the copyright, which just happened here.
I am really surprised that High Contrast asked me to solve the situation (and the way how he did it), because I have never had anything to do with Edgy01, I just followed the recommendations how to transfer the file here to make it available for more projects. I do not want to strip myself of responsibility if the transfer was obviously wrong or if I missed some obvious evidence the file is problematic, but I do not believe this is the case, thus I am feel strange to be responsible for proving the Edgy01's identity.
I strongly support Fae's steps although I tend to think even her steps, made in good will as well, make all the procedure quite exaggerated.
Summary: Communication with the original author shall always be the first step in any such suspicion and must not be substituted by template- and time-limited attempt to contact the person who only made the transfer from Wikipedia to Commons, however is not the original uploader. Okino (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Let's wait until the email by the original author has been received before others start to lay an egg ;-)
I really hope that we can keep this image. And by the this user Okino was not "forced" to state any comment. --High Contrast (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. If OTRS receives a permissions email, then the file can be restored FASTILY 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone has cropped one of my picture to have a separate file for this logo. But it may be a copyvio... and if it's not a copyvio, then we could easily upload a far better version of it ! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Closing admin should take a position about whether this is a copyright violation or not. If not, then maybe it is better to wait, until we get a better version, because this file is heavily used. Taivo (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well if there's no copyright, it's easy to transfer this logo from French Wikipedia and delete this one at the same time ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: IMO, too complex to be pd-shape. FASTILY 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
no es la bandera del distrito Mariano Melgar Ybethchz (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason to delete FASTILY 22:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
