Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:PENIS. Blurry shot of male genitalia, from poor angle. Avenue (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:PENIS. Blurry shot of male genitalia, low res too Perumalism Chat 20:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The same user has also uploaded photographs of Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian (deleted), and Danish princesses, claiming that they are his or her "own work". I strongly doubt that he or she has access to such high-ranking individuals across Europe, from one end to the other. I am also nominating File:Isabella of Denmark.jpg, File:Mabel 2008.jpg, and File:Ingrid and her father, 2012.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This image is a scaled-down duplicate of File:DSCI0001-1.JPG, and is not in use by any Wikimedia project. Senator2029 00:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Please don’t misuse DRs for this; tag it instead with {{duplicate|DSCI0001-1.JPG}}(which I did just now). -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted duplicate Dschwen (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This image is no used The Photographer (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied, leftover after moving of recently uploaded file Denniss (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Jobs_by_Walter_Isaacson.jpg Proshob (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete: it is a non-free image. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" / CC 3.0 for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The video shows copyrighted logos (not de minimis). Unless someone crops it, it must be deleted as non-free. Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a single arena without some advertisment and logos? --Miha (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I meant the logos in the first five seconds. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then I have to agree with you. --Miha (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: trimmed McZusatz (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The video shows copyrighted logos (not dm) and copyrighted music by J. Kovačič. Unless someone removes the music and the logos, it must be deleted as non-free. Eleassar (t/p) 08:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: muted, trimmed McZusatz (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the music is free. Eleassar (t/p) 08:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: muted McZusatz (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Non-free music. Eleassar (t/p) 08:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: muted McZusatz (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; nice effect, but rather unencyclopedic, unused. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Agreed on all accounts. (Really nice effect!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Ireland road sign RUS 011.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 00:33 UTC 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in the United States doesn't apply to statues, and this was unveiled on 16 November 2012. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 01:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative photo of sculpture by en:Matvey Manizer who died in 1966. No Panorama Freedom in Russia. A.Savin 05:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of a sculpture erected in 1957. There is no FoP in Russia. A.Savin 06:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Chenopodium album Sturm27.jpg, with wrong title and text Thiotrix (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Scaled-down duplicate of File:Australian road sign R1-2.svg; not in use. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 06:58 UTC 06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Scaled-down duplicate of File:Australia R1-3.svg; not in use. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 06:59 UTC 06:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Australian 130 speed limit sign.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:01 UTC 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:MUTCD W20-7 (temporary).svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:08 UTC 07:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Circle sign 659.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:15 UTC 07:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright condition is unknown. The claimed original link on Flickr was gone so no way to verify if the author of the photo really authorized it. SElefant (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Norwegian-road-sign-640.10.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:45 UTC 07:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Norwegian-road-sign-640.20.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:46 UTC 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Norwegian-road-sign-650.20.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:46 UTC 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Norwegian-road-sign-723.31.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:46 UTC 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by better-quality File:Norwegian-road-sign-650.21.svg. Alkari (?), 5 September 2013, 07:47 UTC 07:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If the picture is an anonymous work created "around 1965" as specified, it will enter the public domain in the EU in around 2035. Until then, it's copyrighted. El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Restored: OTRS ticket #2013090510008371 --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, because the image is almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE and unlikely own work by uploader Trololo06 (!), who has been permanently blocked on :es[1]. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Plain text PDF, out of scope per Commons:SCOPE#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Few people seem to have noticed that this is a photomontage (the different colour temperatures of the aircraft and the buildings are revealing), but the main reason for deletion is the dubious license. The original high-rise picture can be found here [2]. It has a non-commercial license, so the derivative work can't be used commercially either. That's what the description of the Commons file says as well (copied from Flickr?): "This picture [...] won't be used for commercial purposes". The Flickr source of this file seems to be unavailable now (I don't have an account there). The commercial license that was confirmed by FlickreviewR must be wrong, maybe unintentionally. Also, the encyclopaedic value of this image is much more limited than people seem to be aware of: The airplane that was added to the sky is depicted much larger than it would look in reality. The building with circular windows (top right) is Jardine House, Connaught Place, Hong Kong. The side length of the facade is 50 meters, according to Google Earth. The wingspan of an Airbus A320 is only 34 meters. An airplane that flies above the building would look smaller than the top of the facade of Jardine House, but in this picture the wingspan is much longer. Furthermore an aircraft typically wouldn't fly this low over that specific place. Kai Tak Airport, where the approach was leading over buildings (File:KaiTakAirport-2.jpg), is situated somewhere else in Hong Kong and was closed in 1998, long before the picture was taken. Sitacuisses (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep This picture is the result of a CC collaboration with Swisscan (Swissscan aka Reto Fetz, the original author of the picture) and Luis Argerich, who created the photomontage. The fact that this is a collaborative created work is also stated in the file description. It was free licensed and publicly visible, but since then it was changed to a private image and the licensing of the originsl file changed from "CC BY 2.0" to "CC BY-NC-SA 2.0". The free license under which it was available cannot be revoked and was confirmed on 10 February 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot.--FAEP (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the original description was inherited from Flickr, the author clearly expressed his will by writing "This picture is Free and won't be used for commercial purposes. (See CC license)". Selecting an entry from a list of abbreviated license codes may be be prone to error, writing a plain sentence is not. The author didn't revoke the license, he corrected a careless mistake that contradicted his intentions. Exploiting an obvious error is against good faith. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Either the license issues or the scope question would probably be a reason to delete. Both together certainly are. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Derived from this pdf, so not "own work". Might be simple enough to keep, but unused, uncategorized and possibly out of scope. El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Doubt "own work": Bigger, uncropped versions of this file can be found on various websites (e.g. [3]). El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image -- out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Source and author information are translated by Google to "File is received directly from Irina Surina" and "Photographer Vitaly Stepanov". Hence, we need a written permission to use the file under the specified license. See Commons:OTRS for details. El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete non controversial request be the file creator. --Jarekt (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There exists an svg version. The png file can be easily rendered from the svg file. Furfur (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized picture of unidentified people at an unknown event. Probably out of scope. El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Was declared as "own work" but is obviously not. I corrected that and also added {{PD-ineligible}}, but I'd like to hear a second opninion about that. El Grafo (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: As you say, ineligible . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
bad quality personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably not the uploader's own wirk: Typical web-resolution file with missing EXIF, previously published here. El Grafo (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is a building from 1840th years, but with a new mall build inside (in 1990th). I have added the information. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The top of the building with glass windows is recent and not de minimis. I think that you will have to wait until the architect who designed the top of the building has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The picture illustrates the old building, not the modern glasses. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The picture illustrates both parts and is therefore a copyvio of the modern part. If you want to illustrate just the old part, then you would have to crop the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The picture illustrates the old building, not the modern glasses. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The top of the building with glass windows is recent and not de minimis. I think that you will have to wait until the architect who designed the top of the building has been dead for at least 70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly the recent, copyrighted, structure is a significant part of this image. DM cannot apply. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Logo of the vocational university Hotelschool The Hague, therefore it's highly likely not the work of the uploader. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 13:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like either a copyright violation or unwanted self-promotion. El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work" on the one hand but The Diagram is from Richard D. Mattuck -" A Guide to Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem" on the other hand (note below the information template.) Ist this simple enough to keep? El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I say "probably not" to El Grafo's question, but in any case, we don;t want this as a PDF. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The source given for this image at de:Data2map is offline, but the archived version does not provide any evidence of a free license. Unless a permission is provided via Commons:OTRS, we must treat this as a copyright violation. El Grafo (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The source given for this image at de:Data2map is offline, but the archived version does not provide any evidence for a free license. Unless a permission is provided via Commons:OTRS, we must treat this as a copyright violation. El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Also affects:
-- El Grafo (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately has to be deleted as there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. К сожалению, фотографию следует удалить, так как в России нет свободы панорамы. Ymblanter (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Architect dead in 1944 => PD only in 2015 (no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This image is an example of original research, and should be deleted as it has no source other than an editor's interpretation of the film. TheOldJacobite (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OR is permitted on Commons and this image is widely used. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Red Dawn is a work of fiction! This map about the events in the movie is inaccurate and there are good maps on other websites. 83.81.15.75 10:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Claimed to be a derivative work of one non-existing image and one image deleted as a copyright violation. Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23900118 --Azusa talk - contribs 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Architect (A. Stevens) dead in 1944 => not PD until 2015 (no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately has to be deleted, since there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Just a normal private photo of someone. Trijnsteltalk 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Text only, out of scope image Nutshinou Talk! 19:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 09:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for likely copyrighted DVD cover of a film Deanlaw (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal Picture Proshob (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal Picuture Proshob (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Complex logo, missing proper license. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- This file is in the Public Domain.Do not delete it. I do not know how to upload it differently. Jacobrubinovitz (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is PD, are you sure? Anyone can print this logo on a tee or a mug without owning the company a dime? Or it is just needed to show on the vanity page being currentely pushed in at the English Wikipedia? (Hint: You can host a non-free logo there, restricted to fair use on that one article.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The company website, http://www.realeyez3d.com/, carries the note "© 2010 All rights reserved to RealeyeZ3D". --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is PD, are you sure? Anyone can print this logo on a tee or a mug without owning the company a dime? Or it is just needed to show on the vanity page being currentely pushed in at the English Wikipedia? (Hint: You can host a non-free logo there, restricted to fair use on that one article.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Higher resolution image uploaded by same user to en:wikipedia as with a claim that the author was Baykar Makine (http://www.baykarmakina.com) not the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong category (a small town in Bulgaria), strange description in spanish language ("he is a professor or teacher, he is 17 years old, he will graduate in 2025, Australophitecus ... ???), probably a joke (the user who loaded up this picture did only this work); definitely no picture for Commons. Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Since this is an organizational user name, "own work" has no meaning and therefore there is no permission for the image. In addition, the display image captured here probably has its own copyright, which would have to be seperately licensed. It would be free of copyright if and only if it had not been recorded, which is unlikely in this day of almost free recording. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The uploader messed up and uploaded 3 of the same files. This one is a duplicate. PDXDUS (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Advertising Hangsna (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
brochure photo mr.choppers (talk)-en- 21:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The depicted person is not Franc Ravnikar, but an unknown man from the 19th century. Unless someone recognises him, it is best to delete the photo as misleading.
The photo is attributed to E. Pogorelc who died in 1892 and the style also closely resembles his. Ravnikar was born in 1886 and was 6 years old in the year of Pogorelc's death. In 1905 (dating of the photo by the reference),[4] he was 19. The person in the photo does not look 19 years old. Eleassar (t/p) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: It is it not Franc Ravnikar, rename the file ASAP as some dude.jpg. To deleted a properly licensed historical image like this one would be heedless curating (or vandalism, really). -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination You're entirely correct. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the music in the video would be free. Also contains shootings of non-free drawings etc. Eleassar (t/p) 08:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this picture was created/published before 1923. El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure whether this is a photograph or a drawing. If it is photograph, we're safe here because she died in 1917 [5]. If it's a drawing (and I tend to believe that it is one), it might have been created after her death. Or am I overly cautios here? --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It looks to me like a photo above the neck and a drawing below -- which is obviously not the case. But even a photo is not safe just because she died in 1917 -- remember that it is publication, not creation, that had to happen before 1923. This is obviously a halftone, so published somewhere, but without that date, PRP says delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. Leyo 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio, but hard to distinguish photos of a non-changing object. Leyo 10:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Some kind of promotion for a non-noteworthy company → out of scope. El Grafo (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Promotional watermark, promotional description, summary filled with gibberish. Used only on a promotional user page on en.wiki. Uncle Milty (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No EXIF data Mattythewhite (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Photographer is seemingly not the copyright holder of the pictured work (fusuma-e by Bunta Inoue). Sushiya (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Comes from untrustworthy flickr profile. Several copyvios have been reported from this profile, e.g. File:MHR4 703 (5721146840).jpg. There has also been an OTRS complaint about an image from this flickr profile. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
improper license "own work" for film still from likely copyrighted film Deanlaw (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope poor quality image. Is not used and cannot be used either Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
not in use + very poor quality (barely readable) => no encyclopedic value Kathisma (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kalpana_Chawla,_NASA_photo_portrait_in_orange_suit.jpg Proshob (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: 6 September 2013 by Alan; closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Low Resolution image Proshob (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of modern, non-free sculpture. There is no FoP in Russia. A.Savin 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of modern, non-free sculpture. No FoP in Russia. A.Savin 17:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free content / shown artwork. A.Savin 17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of modern sculpture. No FoP in Russia. A.Savin 17:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Too deformed. No authenticity = no usefulness for WLM projects. A.Savin 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Can be easily squeezed back to a realistic aspect ratio (original is ), after which it will be really useful, completemnting the others at Category:Saint Catherine's Church (Kingisepp). This should have been tagged with {{DistortedAspectRatio}}, not with a DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Whoa, stop the press! Click on the image and view it in your browser (like this), or download it and view in in your program of choice. This is not deformed, it is just causing Mediawiki’s thmbnail mill to grind on in badly. Fix that instead, and keep this file. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know how to fix it. --A.Savin 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I don't understand why, but, as Tuvalkin says, it is only the thumbnails that are deformed -- the full image is beautiful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say who the photographer is or where the photo comes from. Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- United States military badges are public domain. In any event, the badge image itself was created by Naval Coastal Warfare Group One. -207.245.177.14 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- No one is questioning the copyright status of the badge. As I wrote, there is no information on where the photo of it came from. As it is a 3D object, permission is needed from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is not a photograph. It is an image made from multiple sources and created with photoshop. Since I made it, but it is a representation of a US Government created item, I did not "give permission." I do so now. SGT141 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In the future please fill in source and author on your work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The same user has uploaded photographs of Danish, Dutch, Belgian (deleted), and Monegasque princesses, claiming that they are his or her "own work". I strongly doubt that he or she has access to such high-ranking individuals across Europe, from one end to the other. I am also nominating File:Monaco, stephany.jpg, File:Mabel 2008.jpg, and File:Isabella of Denmark.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom -- it appears elsewhere on the Web . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The same user has also uploaded photographs of Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian (deleted), and Monegasque princesses, claiming that they are his or her "own work". I strongly doubt that he or she has access to such high-ranking individuals across Europe, from one end to the other. I am also nominating File:Monaco, stephany.jpg, File:Mabel 2008.jpg, and File:Ingrid and her father, 2012.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Many Web appearances, some larger -- this is cropped from a larger image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The same user has also uploaded photographs of Norwegian, Monegasque, Belgian (deleted), and Danish princesses, claiming that they are his or her "own work". I strongly doubt that he or she has access to such high-ranking individuals across Europe, from one end to the other. I am also nominating File:Isabella of Denmark.jpg, File:Monaco, stephany.jpg, and File:Ingrid and her father, 2012.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Domfront église saint-julien02.JPG, File:Domfront église saint-julien01.JPG, File:Domfront église saint-julien03.JPG, File:Église Saint-Julien (Domfront, France).JPG
[edit]L'architecte, Albert-Désiré Guilbert, est mort en 1949. Pas de liberté de panorama en France. VIGNERON (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No license tag – does this qualify for something like {{PD-Textlogo}}? El Grafo (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 21:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:xyz6666.jpg Kasturi saikia (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
B71 Studios
[edit]Despite flickr licence, EXIF states all rights reserved.
-mattbuck (Talk) 07:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hôtel Splendid, Dax
[edit]This building has been designed by André Granet (1881-1974). As there is no Freedom of panorama in France, this work is not free until 2045.
Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
inthenite Let’s talk For me it's ok for deletion 17:47 , 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Riga Central Train Station
[edit]No COM:FOP in Latvia for buildings
- File:Central Railway tower (8229946044).jpg
- File:Estación de FF.CC. de Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-09, DD 01.jpg
- File:Estación de FF.CC. de Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-09, DD 02.jpg
- File:Estación de FF.CC. de Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-09, DD 03.jpg
- File:Estación de FF.CC. de Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-09, DD 04.jpg
- File:Riga, nádraží.jpg
russavia (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akhil.Jariwala (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Combined Heat and Power Equipment.png
- File:Installation of inverter at Argand in Glen Raven.png
- File:SAS Solar PV.png
- File:Solar PV training.png
- File:NCSU Solar house.png
- File:Garden photovoltaic system.png
- File:Electric Vehicle - NCSC.jpg
- Oppose: this type of picture is common among plug-in electric vehicles (just check the thousands of pics in that category). Furthermore, there is no evidence of copyright violation, and like most pictures in the Commons, the uploader claims to be the author. Solid evidence of copyright violation was not provided.--Mariordo (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: this type of picture is common among plug-in electric vehicles (just check the thousands of pics in that category). Furthermore, there is no evidence of copyright violation, and like most pictures in the Commons, the uploader claims to be the author. Solid evidence of copyright violation was not provided. What is this, a witch hunt? Please provide evidence.--
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios, pic of car is a DW of the art on the car, etc. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Low quality train photos. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jakeshkumaroad (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files are personal, added to a wiki page that is nominated for deletion. Commons is not a personal gallery or photo storage place.
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (14).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (13).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (15).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (11).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (12).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (10).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (9).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (7).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (8).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (4).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (6).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (5).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (3).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (2).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad (1).jpg
- File:Jakesh kumar oad.jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (21).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (20).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (19).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (18).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (17).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (16).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (15).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (13).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (14).jpg
- File:995768 578554152188527 467615624 n (12).jpg
- File:10th Class Of Jakesh Kumar.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly out of COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jakeshkumaroad (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 06:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Professional photos and artwork, mostly from burpy.com. Probably not the uploader's own work → we need a written permission via Commons:OTRS. (Plus: Why on earth were they ulpoaded via Wiki Loves Monuments?)
- File:Grocery Delivery Service.jpeg: Copyright violation (burpy.com)
- File:Houston Grocery Delivery Services.jpg: Copyright violation (burpy.com via Facebook)
- File:Order Groceries Online In Houston.jpg: © Sensitive2light [6]
- File:Online Grocery Stores.png: Logo from burpy.com – might qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} or something like that.
- File:Austin Grocery Delivery Services.jpg: probably copyrighted Banner from burpy.com
El Grafo (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robel adugna (talk · contribs)
[edit]These appear to be copied from the http://ethiopianorthodox.org website, which suggests that an email to OTRS is necessary before they should be made available on Commons.
- File:Amharicmezmur.pdf
- File:Aquaquam.pdf
- File:Betekirstianbeayehudmehakel.pdf
- File:Arganontranslation.pdf
- File:Eyesus.pdf
- File:Constantinopol.pdf
- File:Christ amalaj or temalaj.pdf
JesseW (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
All looks like postcard scans. No info on author/permission.
- File:Волжская набережная 03.jpg
- File:Волжская набережная 02.jpg
- File:Волжская набережная 01.jpg
- File:Советская площадь 02.jpg
- File:Советская площадь 01.jpg
A.Savin 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The gallery is now redundant. Galleries of respective complementary images have been added to Image:Gradiva-p1030638.jpg and the 3 images showing details. RM Vollmer (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
bad file name, unused file, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily on 10 September for having no license Trijnsteltalk 22:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Unneeded with the new better design. Detcin (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This can be speedied (per G7) since it's uploader requested within a week of uploading. –Fredddie™ 03:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 23:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the music in the video would be free. Eleassar (t/p) 08:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: muted McZusatz (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy: contains an extensive footage of a 1962 chapel.[7] Eleassar (t/p) 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted I think this is in Slovenia, not Italy, but Slovenia also lacks FOP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is Italy. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Fotografía de mala calidad. No se aprecia contenido aceptable para ser identificado el lugar. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Fotografía de mala calidad. No se distingue su localización. Sólo se aprecia la propaganda de una marca de cervezas. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
no me gusta Samueldavidnelsonrojas (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Fotografía de mala calidad. No se distingue el contenido, y no se puede confirmar su localización. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
SOETHU3556 203.81.175.234 11:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the previous DR and the UnDR did not notice that the uploader is not the photographer and there is no evidence of permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete OTRS-permission from Chuchai Nakpan is needed. Taivo (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Fotografía de mala calidad. Prácticamente no se distingue nada. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
no me gusta Samueldavidnelsonrojas (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Diese Grafik ist - gelinde gesagt - Bullshit. Steuerzahler ist, wer die Steuer an die Steuerbehörde abführt. Das ist bei der Einkommenssteuer regelmäßig der Arbeitgeber (Abzugssteuer) und genau NICHT der Steuerpflichtige. Faszinierend auch, dass es laut Grafik in Deutschland scheinbar nur eine Einkommensteuer gibt. Weiterhin ist auch noch die Beschriftung falsch: es wird nur das zu versteuernde Einkommen besteuert und nicht das Gesamteinkommen (Kinder- und Härtefallabzüge). Den Grundfreibetrag haben zudem alle. Diese Grafik ist pure Theoriefindung und völlig falsch. Weissbier (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Will be reuploaded with correct info. Centralartarchives fng (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 1
[edit]The sculpture is still covered by copyright, and there is no FOP in the US for artworks.
russavia (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Deleted, speedy would have been more appropriate than a DR.--KTo288 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 2
[edit]No FOP in the US for sculptures
russavia (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 3
[edit]No FOP in the US for statues.
russavia (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 4
[edit]US FOP does not cover works of art or replicas of such work
- File:"Charging Bull" replica.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull1.jpg
- File:ReplicaCharging Bull2.jpg
- File:USA-NYC-Charging Bull.jpg
Elisfkc (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 5
[edit]No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures
- File:-i---i- (2315240491).jpg
- File:-i---i- (4018723188).jpg
- File:Arturo Di Modicas New York Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bowling Green Area - panoramio.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bull (781864253).jpg
- File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg
- File:Bull Market (14240717915).jpg
- File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg
- File:Bull Wallstreet.webm
- File:Bull-3112617.jpg
- File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (8825706602).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (9619086816).jpg
- File:Charging Bull - NYC, Set2011 (6177838958).jpg
- File:Charging Bull in 2020.png
- File:Charging Bull, Bowling Green, Manhattan, New York (7237057222).jpg
- File:Charging Bull, Bowling Green, Manhattan, New York (7237058674).jpg
- File:Chief Sitting (on) Bull ) (5871046255).jpg
- File:El Toro de Wall Street.webm
- File:Financial District, New York, NY, USA - panoramio (73).jpg
- File:I think he's running away from Wall Street... (3007506886).jpg
- File:More Bernie Less Bull.jpg
- File:New york (9787993752).jpg
- File:New York City (4890606552).jpg
- File:New York City NYC June 2010 (4739150916).jpg
- File:New York City, Wall Street The Charging Bull, 2013 (11435305495).jpg
- File:NYC The Bull (6542136151).jpg
- File:NYC The Bull (6542138021).jpg
- File:NYC – Broadway - Charging Bull or Wall Street Bull - panoramio.jpg
- File:People bringing offerings to the bull statue down on Wall Street. Someday, after Wall Street has fully hollowed out the US economy, we will be asked to explain what was going on here. (4985649767).jpg
- File:Shooting Charging Bull 2.jpg
- File:Taking The Wall Street Bull by the horns.3gp.webm
- File:The Wall Street Bull.webm
- File:Wall street (9071954241).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (11376739555).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (32840395088).jpg
- File:Wall Street IMG 3044 (5503618960).jpg
- File:Where's the bull? (4650882388).jpg
- File:“Charging Bull” of Wall Street (29061011327).jpg
Elisfkc (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg and File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg since they do not violate COM:FOP US, due to de minimis usage. The Cunard Building and 26 Broadway, which are depicted in these images, were completed before December 1990 and as such is exempt: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. The bull is such a minor portion of these images that it doesn't infringe on the copyright of the original artist, but it is nearly impossible to take images of the specified vantage points without also including the bull in a de minimis capacity.
- Delete the remaining images as they are FOP violations without de minimis use. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc: For File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, which was taken by me, the Cunard Building was intended to be the focus, rather than the Bull. I was trying to get a picture of the entire building (see File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 77.jpg), but the street is too narrow so I had to take two images: 77 and 78. However, there is no way to get a direct shot of the lowest few stories, i.e. this view, because the Bull is in the way. I can theoretically take that image from beside the Bull, but I'd have a bunch of angry tourists. So i took 78 instead, with what I hoped was de minimis usage.
- For File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, I can't speak for Tdorante10, but I think the key part is that he was trying to take a picture of that particular vantage point, but the main features are 26 Broadway and the Bull. I would personally interpret it as an image of 26 Broadway, with the Bull as a de minimis incidental. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I understand now for File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg. I'd support a de minimis usage for that. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep File:Shooting Charging Bull 2.jpg as de minimis: subject of the photo is the people taking photographs of the statue, which is not even shown in its entirety, just the top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep
- as de minimis. It is because the bull is so small that it is obviously not the main subject of the first two photos. For the remaining one, there are many people surrounded the bull and we can't identify the bull clearly. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, but some are kept. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 6
[edit]No FoP in USA. Some of the images have a "de minimis" template. and some have been kept before. However none is de minimis. In the case of kept images there was never given a rationale in the keep decision of the deciding admin (or added next to the entry), why a specific image could fall under de minimis. The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis. Not in the DR: an image of the covered charging bull.
- File:26 Broadway (15526932196).jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 13.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg
- File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg
- File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg
- File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg
- File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg
- File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg
- File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg
- File:New york (9787993752).jpg
- File:New York 2010, (20100324-DSC01214).jpg
- File:New York City (4890606552).jpg
- File:New York City Mai 2009 PD 034.JPG
- File:New York Film Academy (48126534366).jpg
- File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg
- File:The Line to be Photographed with the Charging Bull, Broadway, Manhattan, New York (7237048326).jpg
- File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg
- File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg
- File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg
- File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg
- File:Where's the bull? (4650882388).jpg
- File:美國紐約68.jpg
C.Suthorn (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator's claim "The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis." is untrue. Some of these files have categories that describe even minor things in the image. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg also contains Category:1 Broadway, which is only visible as a sliver, and Category:Exterior of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, which is partially visible in the background (unlike sculptures, buildings in the USA do have FOP). I find it very hard to believe that Charging Bull is not de minimis in that picture, given that it's a very tiny portion of the picture itself; there are so many people in front of the sculpture that it actually is de minimis. There are other images where the Charging Bull is clearly not the focus of the image. File:美國紐約68.jpg is a view up Broadway where the sculpture is mostly hidden behind flagpoles. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg, the focus of the image is clearly the cement truck, and the bull is an incidental object in the background. File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg has been cropped significantly so that the clear focus of the image is 26 Broadway; however, its source file, File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, is eligible for deletion. One of the strangest files listed for deletion here is File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg, where Charging Bull is so clearly not the object of the picture that, if you did not know what the bull looked like, the brown objects on the right could be just about anything.That said, there are some images which definitely should be deleted, e.g. File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg and File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for a formal vote, Delete File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg (these three are my own pictures but I have no problem with deletion), File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg, File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg, File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg, File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg, File:New york (9787993752).jpg, File:New York City (4890606552).jpg, File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, and perhaps File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg and File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg. Keep the remaining files. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As for a formal vote,
- Keep all, please stop trying to remove entire photographic backgrounds of reputable topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- How is File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg not de minimis? The Charging Bull is not the subject of the photograph (a photo taken from a distance and is of the street and buildings, which have FoP in the US) and is mostly blocked by people and only the top of the rear is visible if you’re looking hard enough.
- I’ve not looked at all of the others yet. Bidgee (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the nominator even bothered to check any of the images, instead indiscriminately nominating all files in Category:Charging Bull except for the covered bull (which has no chance at being deleted). To me, this is a very careless DR made simply because "the image is in the category, that means Charging Bull is not de minimis". Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree that one passes de mimimis. But is it worthwhile keeping as a generic NYC street scene? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree tat the nom did not investigate the images for whether or not the use of the sculpture was de minimis or not. Certainly my image, File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg is pretty much the definition of de minimis, as thre focus of the picture is not the sculpture itself, but the photographers taking images of it. Keep all until the nom take the time and effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a trout to boot Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP for this.
- I'm unconvinced by the de minimis claims. Maybe for this one, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, because there's a focus to that which isn't the Bull. But the others are either the Bull (a problem) or else they have no focus and they're a crowd of people blocking sight of the Bull. Now those might pass for de minimis, but I think that same argument then makes them fail COM:SCOPE! I see little need for a photo which describes as "A row of bollards, stopping anyone getting near, or us photographing, a copyrighted sculpture". If anyone wants to claim that these do have scope value (I think the 99% one does, maybe File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg too) then I wouldn't argue. But for general street scenes, we can and have done better with other images. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.
This entire nomination is an exercise in overreach and carelessness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.
- I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion above and the few images I checked, this is just another indiscriminate DR. Keep all, without prejudice to more targeted nominations with specific rationales. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: without prejudice to renomination of smaller groups. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Charging Bull 7
[edit]No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures
- File:'Charging Bull', Broadway, Manhattan, Feb. 2008 (2295717216).jpg
- File:'Charging Bull', Broadway, Manhattan, Feb. 2008 (2295723628).jpg
Elisfkc (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fairly clear case here. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Will upload a better version in a few minutes — Ludopedia(Talk) 12:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don’t request for a deletion then. Just reupload. If the filename is not good, ask for a renaming. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a redundant and inferior copy of Image:Gradiva-p1030638.jpg. RM Vollmer (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal Picture Proshob (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: That bridge looks awasome, if only we had a photo of it with the guy moved off… (Crop? Half bridge better than none! And where is this?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, let's ask for permission to be sent to OTRS. The uploader has uploaded multiple full resolution images with EXIF data, which makes it plausible, at least, that he is affiliated with the WJC. --Dschwen (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email OTRS FASTILY 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is copyright holder Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- How about we ask for permission being sent to OTRS first. --Dschwen (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email OTRS FASTILY 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This logo is licened as a English logo according to the tagg. As you can read here the treshold of originality is lower in the UK than in the states so I want a second opinion on this one. I doubt the simple geometry because of the different colors and the letters do not have the same thicknes. Because of the colors you get more complicated forms then arcs and basic geometrical figures. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a comparassis: this the forms of this logo ar similar but it is still protected according the English law. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The other ITV logos are here including the master one. Fry1989 eh? 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 07:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a UK logo. UK has low COM:TOO. The choice of colours in the special font would more than meet that TOO 106.68.109.97 10:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete above to per my previous rational. The previous closing seems to be based on a other stuff excist argument which can hardly be called a valid argument. Natuur12 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy close per WP:DENY (or local equivalent being hammered out at COM:ANUP) (Nomination by sock of Russavia) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: meets the threshold of originality in the European Union (and therefore in the United Kingdom). The author was, to quote the Court of Justice, "able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices". This is shown – in my opinion – in the combination of an original, handwriting-like typeface and an original colour scheme. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Andy Dingley and previous DR result. Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kept, per precedent (previous DRs for this and similar logos) and bad-faith nomination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I went through the deleted uploads on de: of the named uploader and could not find that image, leaving the images unsouced and without a valid license template. The english encription let me doubt the german original as well. JuTa 20:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I read in the German original this drawing originates from 2005 and was originally drawn by Mr. Joachim Baecker. Mr. Joachim Baecker/Joachim Bäcker (Fantagu) emerges as the author/source in lots of the Jagd & Co images on the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Fantagu#Jagd_.26_Co page. From what I read I understand Mr. Joachim Bäcker used Fantagu as his Wikipedia editor name, drew this drawing and has stopped contributing to Wikipedia in 2009 because he got quite annoyed by how Wikipedia was run.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email OTRS FASTILY 07:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Will be reuploaded with upgraded information. Centralartarchives fng (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Then reupload/overwrite it, don’t waste your fellow contributors’ time with needless deteltion requests. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tuválkin. whym (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
the second similar file! Revontulet (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: DR is not making sense. Besides, this photo shows trees, yet it is wrongly categorized as showing a monument (typical WLM clutter; I’m still cleaning up what the same kind of nonsence did for Lisbon in 2010): There’s something among the trees that may be “art” (or just a children’s playground?) but it is de minimis. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just as a notice from local organising team: this is officially a monument, for unknown reasons this park is on the monuments list provided by local authorities as a landscape monument of 1930s. Although it is definitely more suitable for Wiki Loves Earth, it is officially a WLM monument — NickK (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Per above, and "similar" is not good enough for a reason for deletion. whym (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Public person, in a private situation. Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:JRKRUK 20130829 ALFRED MIODOWICZ BUSKO IMG 3314.jpg -Paelius discussion 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Situation is not the same, I don't see reason to delete this partucular photo. Yarl ✉ 21:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Situation is the same. I've just copy+paste the reason for deleting this image from the reason it was said, when the first was deleted. — Paelius
discussion07:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Situation is the same. I've just copy+paste the reason for deleting this image from the reason it was said, when the first was deleted. — Paelius
Deleted: not a public place FASTILY 06:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo d'une chaine télévisée sous la protection des droits d'auteur, et l'auteur a dit sur la description que le logo et peut être sous une licence libre et il a dit au même temps que c'est lui le propriétaire des droits d'auteur — Mouh2jijel [Talk] 07:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-textlogo}} could apply imho. BrightRaven (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete il est bien clair ici que les droits sont réservés, regardez en bas de la page (© 2009 SNRT. Tous Droits réservés) rien ne dit qu'il est sous une licence libre comme c'est précisé dans la description --— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 07:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Je crois que ce logo est trop simple pour pouvoir être protégé par le droit d'auteur (par contre, il est bien évidemment protégé par le droit des marques). Les logos simples sont acceptables sur Commons (Category:PD ineligible). Voir Commons:Threshold of originality (en anglais). BrightRaven (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Simple ou compliqué, on viole pas les droits des autres !!!--— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 09:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le droit considère qu'on ne viole pas les droits d'auteur en reproduisant des logos simples. Voir Commons:Threshold of originality. BrightRaven (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le propriétaire du logo a bien noté la phrase suivante (© 2009 SNRT. Tous Droits réservés), Regarde ic: [8] !! Je pense qu'il fallait proposer une supression rapide --— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 08:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le propriétaire du logo Best Western pensait aussi que son logo était protégé par le copyright. Mais la justice lui a donné tort : un logo aussi simple ne dépasse pas le seuil d'originalité et ne peut donc pas être protégé par le copyright (par contre, il est protégé par le droit des marques, c'est pourquoi nous utilisons le modèle {{Trademark}}). BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- logo Best Western est un fichier SVG (Best Western logo.svg), il y a du travail quand meme. mais par contre le fichier proposé à la suppression est un fichier (.GIF), son origine est le site de la télévision à 100 % sans aucun travail de plus par l'utilisateur. (et regarder les imports de l'utilisateur [9] , meme chose) !!!!--— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- ça ne change rien au niveau du droit d'auteur. Il est interdit de publier une image de Tintin en SVG, car il est au dessus du seuil d'originalité et on ne peut le copier par quelque moyen que ce soit. Par contre, une image en dessous du seuil d'originalité est considérée comme dans le domaine public, donc on peut le reproduire librement, par n'importe quel moyen. BrightRaven (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- logo Best Western est un fichier SVG (Best Western logo.svg), il y a du travail quand meme. mais par contre le fichier proposé à la suppression est un fichier (.GIF), son origine est le site de la télévision à 100 % sans aucun travail de plus par l'utilisateur. (et regarder les imports de l'utilisateur [9] , meme chose) !!!!--— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le propriétaire du logo Best Western pensait aussi que son logo était protégé par le copyright. Mais la justice lui a donné tort : un logo aussi simple ne dépasse pas le seuil d'originalité et ne peut donc pas être protégé par le copyright (par contre, il est protégé par le droit des marques, c'est pourquoi nous utilisons le modèle {{Trademark}}). BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le propriétaire du logo a bien noté la phrase suivante (© 2009 SNRT. Tous Droits réservés), Regarde ic: [8] !! Je pense qu'il fallait proposer une supression rapide --— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 08:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Le droit considère qu'on ne viole pas les droits d'auteur en reproduisant des logos simples. Voir Commons:Threshold of originality. BrightRaven (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Simple ou compliqué, on viole pas les droits des autres !!!--— Mouh2jijel [Talk] 09:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Je crois que ce logo est trop simple pour pouvoir être protégé par le droit d'auteur (par contre, il est bien évidemment protégé par le droit des marques). Les logos simples sont acceptables sur Commons (Category:PD ineligible). Voir Commons:Threshold of originality (en anglais). BrightRaven (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be on the complex side. I'd suggest uploading this under fair use locally FASTILY 06:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Das sehe ich anders. Es ist ein animiertes Smiley. Da es Smiley in allen Farben und Formen gibt, finde ich dieses Werk durchaus aussagekräftig. Wenn man den Zweck dieser Datei anzweifelt, kann man auch den jedes anderen Smileys hier anzweifeln. --Gast005 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other smileys are used by the Wikimedia projects' communities. This one seems to be stored here for use on a private website. BrightRaven (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nach meinem Kenntnisstand ist die Nichtnutzung kein wirklicher Löschgrund. U.U. erfolgt diese zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch. Die Verwendung außerhalb von Wikimedia-Projekten ist statthaft, häufig sogar erwünscht. Die Nutzung auf privaten Webseiten spricht für mich daher eher gegen eine Löschung. Gruß --Gast005 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other smileys are used by the Wikimedia projects' communities. This one seems to be stored here for use on a private website. BrightRaven (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Wurde genutzt. --
Krabat der Zauberlehrling 
--> Nach Schwarzkollm 
16:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused collage with no scope. BrightRaven (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In der Tat handelt es sich hier um eine zur Zeit ungenutzte Collage. Was mir an dem Bild fehlt, ist eine Kennzeichnung, dass dieses Bild nicht die Realität zeigt. Dennoch, wer das Bild zum ersten mal sieht, der hält es wahrscheinlich nicht für abwegig, dass dieses die Wirklichkeit abbilden könnte. Leider sind nämlich gerade in Deutschland viele Ge- und Verbote äußerst intransparent und für den nicht Eingeweihten nicht nachvollziehbar. Dieses Bild stellt für mich daher so etwas wie Warunung vor einer Überregulierung dar. Ich finde daher man sollte es behalten. Gruß --Gast005 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep wurde auch benuzt -- Krabat der Zauberlehrling --> Nach Schwarzkollm 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Kann mit heutiger geänderte description (ursprünglich wurde entfernt) verwendet werden. Bitte zukünftig bei Verwendung von Bildern die Beschreibung (und/oder Koordinaten) entfernen/ändern. --Geri-oc (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted logo (in the beginning, not dm), also the copyright status of the music is uknown. Unless the logo is removed and the music is proven to be public domain, the video must be presumed non-free. Eleassar (t/p) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Muted. Logo is {{PD-textlogo}}, too simple to be copyrighted. --McZusatz (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the plaque with the coat of arms in 0:45 - 0:50 is simple enough. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
A small yellow dot. Unused, undescribed, uncategorized and very, very lonely. Let's find a place for him to be – or at least have the decency to administer the coup de grâce. El Grafo (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Funniest DR in a long while. However, not that it has a family, so it is not so lonely, just left out from the category give-around the other were treated with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I guess cleaning up Category:Media_needing_categories can have serious implications on your brain if done for too long ;-) I've put it in Category:Yellow circles, so it's not alone anymore. Still not sure whether it's worth keeping, since it's off-center and has a lot of unnecessary space around it, but that's true for File:Reddot!.png, File:Bluedot!.png and File:Greendot!.png as well. In any case, they should be either kept all or deleted all in order not to rip apart the family… Personally, I'm fine with both options. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree on all accounts. (Especially the 1st: I’ve been doing only a few each day, and trying to never forget that it doesn’t have to be done all by me, right now!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I guess cleaning up Category:Media_needing_categories can have serious implications on your brain if done for too long ;-) I've put it in Category:Yellow circles, so it's not alone anymore. Still not sure whether it's worth keeping, since it's off-center and has a lot of unnecessary space around it, but that's true for File:Reddot!.png, File:Bluedot!.png and File:Greendot!.png as well. In any case, they should be either kept all or deleted all in order not to rip apart the family… Personally, I'm fine with both options. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 07:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Krabat der Zauberlehrling (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork
- File:Smiley Badass.png
- File:SchwitzenderTyp.png
- File:I-Klo.png
- File:Bieristgesund.png
- File:Picasion.com a0e942137507a4817f1d0418df8f2c12.gif
- File:Arken-Treffen.png
- File:Werkzeugsmiley.png
- File:Destroy.gif
- File:Dumm-Smiley.png
- File:Stop-Smiley.png
- File:An die Arbeit!.png
- File:Smiley-Love.gif
- File:Smiley-Zunge.gif
- File:Smiley-Finger.gif
- File:Vandalenkill.gif
- File:Smiley-Muskel.gif
- File:Smiley-Dance.gif
- File:Hochprozentig.gif
- File:Arken Wiki Logo.png
- File:Vorschau zeigen.png
BrightRaven (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Dem stimme ich nicht zu. Es handelt sich bei den o.g. Dateien meist um Smileys. Da es Smiley in allen Farben und Formen gibt, finde ich auch diese für Commons aussagekräftig genug. Wenn man den Zweck dieser Dateien anzweifelt, kann man auch den der anderen Smilies hier anzweifeln. Das Smilies Artworks sind, lässt sich nunmal nicht vermeiden. (Es gibt ja leider keine lebenden Smilies die man fotografieren könnte). Dass die Dateien im Wikimediaprojekt nicht genutzt werden, ist kein Löschgrund. Eine Nutzung kann später erfolgen. Auch wenn es hinsichtlich der Löschung nicht wirklich relevant ist, so sein angemerkt, dass Nutzungen der Dateien außerhalb des Wikimediaprojektes erfolgen. Ich widerspreche daher allen o.g. Löschvorschlägen. Gast005 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The other smileys are used by the Wikimedia projects' communities. This one seems to be stored here for use on a private website. BrightRaven (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wie ich oben schon schrieb, ist nach meinem Kenntnisstand die Nichtnutzung kein wirklicher Löschgrund. U.U. erfolt diese zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch. Die Nutzung außerhalb des Commons-Projektes ist statthaft, häufig sogar erwünscht. Die Nutzung auf privaten Webseiten spricht für mich daher viel mehr gegen eine Löschung. Gast005 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Es gibt auch noch andere unbenutze Smileys wie diesen --Krabat der Zauberlehrling (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Habe die Smileys jetzt auch auf WC und WP verwendet --Krabat der Zauberlehrling (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please read COM:POINT. BrightRaven (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Entschuldigung. Wie gesagt habe ich die Smileys jetzt hier verwendet, werden sie dadurch eventuell nicht gelöscht? --Krabat der Zauberlehrling (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- As these images have no use for Wikimedia projects, why don't you store them on your private website? BrightRaven (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn´t works. And I think also that other persons like the smileys, and dont find on my site -- Krabat der Zauberlehrling --> Nach Schwarzkollm 17:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Viele Dateien / Smilies werden hauptsächlich nur auf User-Seiten, Diskussionsseiten oder auf den Datei-Seiten ähnlicher Versionen verwendet. Eine Löschung dieser Dateien wurde noch nie gefordert. (Auch ich würde so eine Löschung nicht fordern) Ich kann allerdings nicht erkennen, warum diese Smilies wertvoller sein sollen, als die von Krabat dem Zauberlehrling. Und wenn man wirklich objektiv, wird man erkennen, dass es auch keinen Grund gibt diese Dateien zu löschen. Ich halte jedenfalls Krabats Werke für wertvoll und ich denke auf Dauer wird man auch in Wikimediaprojekten vermehrt mit ihnen arbeiten
. Liebe Grüße --Gast005 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) - PS - Commons:POINT ist nur eine Empfehlung und keine offizielle Richtlinie. Gast005 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Viele Dateien / Smilies werden hauptsächlich nur auf User-Seiten, Diskussionsseiten oder auf den Datei-Seiten ähnlicher Versionen verwendet. Eine Löschung dieser Dateien wurde noch nie gefordert. (Auch ich würde so eine Löschung nicht fordern) Ich kann allerdings nicht erkennen, warum diese Smilies wertvoller sein sollen, als die von Krabat dem Zauberlehrling. Und wenn man wirklich objektiv, wird man erkennen, dass es auch keinen Grund gibt diese Dateien zu löschen. Ich halte jedenfalls Krabats Werke für wertvoll und ich denke auf Dauer wird man auch in Wikimediaprojekten vermehrt mit ihnen arbeiten
- It doesn´t works. And I think also that other persons like the smileys, and dont find on my site --
- As these images have no use for Wikimedia projects, why don't you store them on your private website? BrightRaven (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Entschuldigung. Wie gesagt habe ich die Smileys jetzt hier verwendet, werden sie dadurch eventuell nicht gelöscht? --Krabat der Zauberlehrling (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){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){kind=link}
.svg){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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06_-_26_Broadway,_Charging_Bull.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){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&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}
_Bull_)_(5871046255).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&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_06_-_26_Broadway,_Charging_Bull_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2783130469).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 06:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)