Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
wrong image Ahnjoe (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably also copyvio Dschwen (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nicht relevantes Bildmaterial, bitte sofort löschen. Perseus1984 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Album cover - patterened background, not just text Ronhjones (Talk) 22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close. Copyright violation. Derivative work (cropped) of copyrighted CD cover. Alan (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had uploaded two files of like design... this "ｽﾍﾟｱﾐﾝﾄ.JPG" is one side of failed. Anzoon (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
dup file Aircraft 30+93 (8669169456) Seisato (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hégésippe Cormier as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|no clue showing that the uploader has the right to upload this image under a free license. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
David's website states that his intention is to create a CC stock photo library. There is little reason to assume this picture is unfree. Furthermore David is an active user here. Might as well ask him directly. Dschwen (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi guys - what Dschwen said is true, that if I took the photograph and you find it on my website or my Flickr feed then it is licensed Creative Commons 3.0. Unfortunately, I did not take this photograph nor is it anywhere on my website - confusing! Looks like it was taken at some event in France guessing from the backdrop. --David Shankbone (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Thanks David. I'll close this immediately as the speedy that it was. Dschwen (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Image uploaded here[1] claims it first came to the German edition of Wikipedia in April, 2006; the image here is listed as authorized via Creative Commons. However, the same image posted here [2] in Flickr at roughly the same date claims a full copyright status with no Creative Commons license; this is further complicated by an individual claiming ownership of the image in Flickr who is apparently not the same individual as the one who uploaded it into Wikipedia. Bmac49 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spixara.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: Bmac49 (talk · contribs) created a malformed deletion request on the file's talk page; I've converted that into this deletion request. Эlcobbola talk 19:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Nominator is incorrect about dates. The image was uploaded to de.wiki on August 5, 2006, and then to the Commons on January 24, 2007. The Flickr version was uploaded to Flickr on July 2, 2010, nearly 4 years (!) after the de.wiki upload (and the Flickr uploader has only been on Flickr since 2009). Further, other files uploaded by the de.wiki user were taken with the same camera model (Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL - see Hoehlensalmler.jpg, for example), a congruity which suggests the de.wiki user is indeed the author beyond the dating. Everything points to the Flickr user taking the image from the Commons, not the other way around. Эlcobbola talk 19:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)- Keep per Эlcobbola above. The only thing I would add (which is supportive of keeping, though not conclusive in itself) is that the images in the Flickr uploader's photostream appear to come from various sources, often media reports. I'd guess that the Flickr uploader has more concern for animal welfare than for copyright. --Avenue (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Aside from the evidence above, which in itself I find convincing, note that User:Robert01, the uploader, has been an editor on WP:DE since 2006 and here on Commons since 2011. Although not a large contributor, there have been no problems with any of his other work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Image taken 2006, upload to Flickr 2010. Flickr-User likely not the owner of the image, thus upload by Robert01 not a copyvio. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vikoula5 as Copyvio (copyvio) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete Couldn't find source, but doubt own work. Maybe uploader added borders and text? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vikoula5 as Copyvio (copyvio) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Couldn't find source, but doubt own work. Maybe uploader added borders and text? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope (and wrong license) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
IMHO out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
clearly a professional photo, and a typical, unclear license, generally chosen when someone in fact only wants to permit use by press, or for educational purposes. Modification and commercial use, for example selling post cards or posters with this photos on it, are not expressly permitted and it has to be be assumed that this wasn't intended. Plus, professional photographers are usually unable to give a free license, because they typically have contracts with VG Bild-Kunst preventing this. rtc (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - I read the OTRS ticket and I don't find it contains a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
image quality is fairly poor, and its not clear where this is in the bay area. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality genitalis image. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here, -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The graphic in the upper half of this book cover is clearly above COM:TOO and thereby copyrightable. We need either a valid license/permission from the artist or the image needs to be deleted as a derivative. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is rather a recent mural and thereby copyrighted. Regrettably, Morocco has no freedom-of-panorama exemption, whereby this photo violates the copyright of the painter. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. No FOP in Morocco. For this case.--Wdwd (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Reverse of a post card, not author's work. 91.66.153.214 08:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Reverse of a post card, not author's work. 91.66.153.214 08:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that license {{Cc-sa}} is valid. Original source no longer exists and no archive of it exists either. Original uploader was blocked for abusing sockpuppets. —howcheng {chat} 09:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: Derivated & previously published via http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?57538-Meet-The-Sports-Writers&s=1b8231b20203e21c591054dbe20b7719&p=1282405#post1282405 (2008, by " Bill Burgess") = http://s685.photobucket.com/user/BillBurgess/media/Meet%20The%20Sports%20Writers/Image4-5-1.jpg.html = http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Meet%20The%20Sports%20Writers/Image4-5-1.jpg (last modified: 2009) Gunnex (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Made by the Cambodian government; not own work by the uploader. Unknown copyright status. Stefan4 (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Invalid copyright tag: this is more complex than w:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg for which the copyright tag can't be used. Unlicensed government work. Stefan4 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
merely promotional and possible copyviol Bramfab (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Source says "Copyright: for information contact Katholiek Documentatie Centrum, Nijmegen". That doesn't look like a CC license to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is written, that the images from tthe University Website are free licensed? Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free photograph. Also (pics of the same photo):
File:Панорама площади.JPG (stitches!)
File:Обзорная картина.JPG - Kaluga.2012 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work 91.66.153.214 12:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously shot in a museum. derivative of both depicted images. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Obviously recent statue and building, thereby still copyrighted. As DRC has no freedom-of-panorama exemption this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor and the architect. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope Didym (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Ford publicity photo, source is stated as "noticias automotivas"... mr.choppers (talk)-en- 13:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No education value; Commons is no private photo album - thus out of scope High Contrast (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
upload error Vjcmx (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
personal photo Atsirlin (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
image quality is unaccepatable Atsirlin (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This photo shows the fence. I doubt that it has any value for Commons Atsirlin (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Private memory pic, poor quality 91.66.153.214 15:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
File for personal use that is unused. Spillik (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality Atsirlin (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
personal photo Atsirlin (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
personal photo Atsirlin (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality, useless Atsirlin (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality Atsirlin (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality, the image is very dark Atsirlin (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Logo of UK company, complex enough for copyright in the UK per COM:TOO#United Kingdom. January (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded twice. Iuliana Netoi (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
personal photo Atsirlin (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Bad name Kusurija (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
File:In the country pop song ‘Love Story’, Taylor Swift and Justin Gaston presented the character of Young Thomas Jefferson and Martha Wayles.jpg
[edit]
Serious doubts about this license. Uploader is likely not the author. Ronn (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
File:In the country pop song ‘Love Story’, Taylor Swift and Justin Gaston symbolized the character of Young Thomas Jefferson and Martha Wayles.jpg
[edit]
Serious doubts about this license. Uploader is likely not the author. Ronn (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure this logo is just simple and geometric shapes. I find that it has exceeded the minimum threshold of originality. 198.244.48.35 19:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The same image can be found on http://www.catedralescatolicas.com in a higher resolution. Instead of 800 × 600 pixels (Commons version), you can get a 1024 × 768 pixels version there exact link to the image; page link High Contrast (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, as a much more detailed image of the same shot is everywhere online ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Unused. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](http://callnconnect.com/cnc-admin/product/25838_s9LmBW8XI5.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkH5FpGO4Bg/TBzVfZ16zTI/AAAAAAAAAPg/0f7-oC2pgkI/s1600/delhi_university.jpeg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zelsRxAcjc/TpCvweDyZkI/AAAAAAAAAAc/q0mepfMHCHw/s1600/studying%252520in%252520nz.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://iibsbangalore.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/pic4wordpress.jpeg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.duhocnewzealand.info.vn/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/du-hoc-new-zealand.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work Stromare (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- And? If you read Commons:Derivative works, you will see this is OK. It is not a direct scan of the work, so meets the threshold of originality. It is displayed in a public place for the duration of its life (until it is destroyed) and Germany has admirably free "freedom of panorama". Additionally, I don't believe that there is any copyright holder anyway, since the "value" of the image itself is created by the anonymous vandal and not by the poster's designer. I note you have flagged two of my uploads at once, by the way. May I ask why? Brigade Piron (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be Flickr-washing. Note Flickr (and description here) attribute authorship to John McMurtie (whose images are copyrighted.) The Flickr stream belongs to Mary Boome, not McMurtie. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: low res file. needs permission (com:otrs). McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
low quality, very dark image Atsirlin (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality Atsirlin (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
low quality Atsirlin (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No educational content. Commons has lots of better pictures of Vologda Atsirlin (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
whitout permission Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
No meaningful description. Which bell is it? Belltower of St. Sophia Cathedral? Atsirlin (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion McZusatz (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, no educational content Atsirlin (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
album cover, copyvio Mjrmtg (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This image was screenshot from the Google website and the user claims that it owns the image. Blurred Lines (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope McZusatz (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Derrivitive of en-wiki image, now deleted as copyvio of http://www.iconarchive.com/show/refresh-cl-icons-by-tpdkdesign.net/System-Calendar-icon.html Ronhjones (Talk) 23:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Rudko (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- in scope! --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep image is in use, part of de:Wikipedia:Musketiere/Taten/Februar 2013. Holger1959 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use McZusatz (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Rudko (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- in scope! --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep image is in use, part of de:Wikipedia:Musketiere/Taten/Februar 2013. Holger1959 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: in use McZusatz (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Rudko (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- in scope! --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep image is in use, part of de:Wikipedia:Musketiere/Taten/Februar 2013. Holger1959 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Holger1959's rationale. We allow even a few userpage-only uploads, but this one is related to a :de-Wikipedia project. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per comments McZusatz (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, unused. Spam description, misquoting wp. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The image has the ebay watermark visible in the lower right corner. It is claimed as own work, but this would obviously require preferably a higher resolution image with EXIF data to be uploaded, and then COM:OTRS permission. russavia (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete At the time that I uploaded this image, I had sold some Isotonix OPC-3 on Ebay. It is possible that I inadvertently uploaded someone else's image from Ebay, rather than a directly-taken photo of my own. In the interest of respect for copyright, I would like this image removed from Commons as soon as possible. (Note that Jimmy Wales would lecture and harangue about a deletion request like this, but I'm such a cordial guy, I can quickly admit possible fault when I'm not certain of my actions.) Thank you Tuvalkin and Russavia. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palais du Louvre
[edit]Merci de supprimer ces photos, elles ont été chargées par erreur. Elle doivent seulement servir à réaliser un panorama.
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 32.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 33.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 34.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 35.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 36.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 37.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 38.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 39.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 40.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 41.jpg.jpg
- File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 42.jpg.jpg
Thesupermat (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per request (uploaded by mistake) Coyau (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Ofel
[edit]
The two image files are promotion/advertising, the category only contains those two images, plus has a link to the company these files were uploaded to promote. All created by the same user, Ofel. --Agricolae (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Unclefester
[edit]- File:Impure thoughts about athletic leg waiting in line uncovered and nude.jpg
- File:People waiting like sheep to be stuffed with yuppie delights.jpg
- File:Urinal at Univesity of San Francisco (used and unflushed).jpg
- File:Cafe with people and food in it.jpg
- File:No freakin clue.jpg
- File:Back_of_woman's_neck.jpg
- File:Starving americans waiting in line at a cafe for food rations.jpg
- File:Laundro mat in black and white.jpg
- File:Wasco_laundry_drawer_in_black_und_white.jpg
- File:Crew fixing window smashed by car.jpg
- File:Fire hydrant that looks thirsty.jpg
- File:Two stairs one going up and one going down or vice versa.jpg
- File:Sidewalk_ornament.jpg
- File:Sign behind bars.jpg
- File:Sidewalk_ornament_2.jpg
- File:Empty_building_waiting.jpg
- File:Empty_storefront_with_reflect_of_photographer_in_it.jpg
- File:Empty_building_waiting_for_an_occupant.jpg
- File:Food_stores.jpg
- File:Food_stores_2.jpg
- File:Massage_parlor_days_7.jpg
- File:Massage_parlor_days_5.jpg
- File:Massage_parlor_days_4.jpg
- File:Massage_parlor_days_1.jpg
- File:Morning commute 40.jpg
- File:Morning commute 39.jpg
- File:Morning commute 38.jpg
- File:Morning commute 37.jpg
- File:Morning commute 36.jpg
- File:Morning commute 35.jpg
- File:Morning commute 34.jpg
- File:Morning commute 33.jpg
- File:Morning commute 32.jpg
- File:Morning commute 31.jpg
- File:Morning commute 30.jpg
- File:Morning commute 29.jpg
- File:Morning commute 28.jpg
- File:Morning commute 27.jpg
- File:Morning commute 26.jpg
- File:Morning commute 25.jpg
- File:Morning commute 24.jpg
- File:Morning commute 23.jpg
- File:Morning commute 22.jpg
- File:Morning commute 21.jpg
- File:Morning commute 20.jpg
- File:Morning commute 16.jpg
- File:Morning commute 15.jpg
- File:Morning commute 14.jpg
- File:Morning commute 11.jpg
- File:Morning commute 10.jpg
- File:Morning commute 9.jpg
- File:Morning commute 8.jpg
- File:Morning commute 7.jpg
- File:Morning commute 6.jpg
- File:Morning commute 5.jpg
- File:Morning commute 4.jpg
- File:Morning commute 3.jpg
- File:Morning commute 2.jpg
- File:Morning commute 1.jpg
- File:Busted ass wooden chair.JPG
- File:White dude with bloody noise 4.jpg
- File:White dude with bloody noise 3.jpg
- File:White dude with bloody noise 2.jpg
- File:White dude with bloody noise.jpg
- File:Japanese restaurant.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 6.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 5.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 4.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 3.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 2.jpg
- File:Random san francisco photos 1.jpg
- File:Riding BART 3.jpg
- File:Riding BART.jpg
- File:Man with models 6.JPG
- File:Man with models 5.JPG
- File:Man with models 4.JPG
- File:Man with models 3.JPG
- File:Man with models 2.JPG
- File:Man with models.JPG
- File:Cat walking on door.JPG
- File:(plastic) snake sandwich 2.jpg
- File:(plastic) snake sandwich 3.jpg
- File:(plastic) snake sandwich.jpg
- File:Cigarettes for buddha.jpg
- File:Woman smoking with cigarette in mouth.jpg
- File:Room number 1.jpg
- File:Woman on laptop in black and white 4.jpg
- File:Woman on laptop in black and white 3.jpg
- File:Woman on laptop in black and white 2.jpg
- File:Woman on laptop in black and white.jpg
- File:Blue toenails.jpg
- File:Home_buddhist_shrine.jpg
- File:Woman with lottery ticket on phone etc 4.jpg
- File:Woman with lottery ticket on phone etc 3.jpg
- File:Woman with lottery ticket on phone etc 2.jpg
- File:Woman with lottery ticket on phone etc.jpg
- File:Plastic_bottle_filled_with_cigarrette_butts.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 17.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 16.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 15.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 14.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 13.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 12.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 11.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 10.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 9.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 8.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 7.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 6.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 5.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 4.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 3.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc) 2.jpg
- File:Woman in chair (eating apple, etc).jpg
- File:Woman_on_phone_(san_francisco).jpg
- File:Woman_smoking_marlboro_lights.jpg
- File:Woman's_nude_legs.jpg
- File:Woman_peeking_around_corner.jpg
- File:People standing in line for pizza (san francisco).jpg
- File:Book_and_laptop_in_Cafe_in_san_francisco.jpg
- File:Reflection_in_dryer.jpg
- File:Drinks on pinball machine (las vegas).jpg
- File:Man_excited_over_taco_battle_(he_lost).jpg
- File:Writing_haiku_in_a_cuban_cafe_in_miami_beach_drinking_a_cafecito.jpg
- File:Buffalo_new_york_hostel_beds.jpg
- File:Snow_footprints.jpg
- File:IMAG0046 man with hat and button 2.jpg
- File:IMAG0045 man with hat and button.jpg
- File:IMAG0047 chair in illinois.jpg
- File:IMAG0035_chairs_in_a_cafe.jpg
- File:IMAG0032.jpg
- File:IMAG0033_some_leaves.jpg
- File:IMAG0031 view of windows from office building next door 7.jpg
- File:IMAG0030 view of windows from office building next door 6.jpg
- File:IMAG0029 view of windows from office building next door 5.jpg
- File:IMAG0028 view of windows from office building next door 4.jpg
- File:IMAG0027 view of windows from office building next door 3.jpg
- File:IMAG0026 view of windows from office building next door 2.jpg
- File:IMAG0025 view of windows from office building next door.jpg
- File:IMAG0038 FORGOT. TO PREVIEW.jpg
- File:IMAG0035 downtown.jpg
- File:1359424119582 bus.jpg
- File:IMAG0124 - woman wearing glasses.jpg
- File:IMAG0119 woman smoking.jpg
- File:IMAG0092 - painted toenails.jpg
- File:IMAG0062 - woman applying makeup.jpg
- File:IMAG0050 apt stove sf.jpg
- File:IMAG0026- woman's shoes (san francisco).jpg
- File:IMAG0003 - sandwich clerks (oakland).jpg
- File:IMAG0311 - banana with stainless steel mug next to (apple) keyboard.jpg
- File:IMAG0303 - woman smoking.jpg
- File:IMAG0004.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_snake_sandwich_2.jpg){kind=link}
_snake_sandwich_3.jpg){kind=link}
_snake_sandwich.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_9.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_8.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.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}
_keyboard.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Out of scope, and many pictures are of non-notable people with no evidence of permission from the depicted. Sophus Bie (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Fire hydrant that looks thirsty.jpg for the white fire hydrants category and File:(plastic) snake sandwich.jpg that appears to document an unique event.--90.165.123.12 10:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: All but 4 deleted. Not sure about the snake sandwich ones, but those could have their own DR if needed. INeverCry 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ANILKUMAR9991056600 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:ANIL YADAV..jpg
- File:ANIL KUMAR YADAV.jpg
- File:ANIL YADAV KUMAR.jpg
- File:ANIL YADAV HANSI.jpg
- File:ANIL YADAV HISAR.jpg
- File:ANIL YADAV.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Historical photos (uploaded in 09.2013) may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. Unlikely to be own work, as declared and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}-fail as author = nieznany/unknown. Mostly all files previously published in the internet, e.g. http://www.forum.dawnygdansk.pl/viewtopic.php?p=131703 (2012) or http://www.pg.gda.pl/?kat=aktualnosci&id=315
- File:Politechnika Gdańska, gmach główny, 1904 r..jpg
- File:Politechnika Gdańska, hol w gmachu głównym. 1904 r..jpg
- File:Politechnika Gdańska. Sala Senatu, 1904 r..jpg
- File:Politechnika gd CHEMIA 1904.jpg
- File:Politechnika gd aula 1911-40.jpg
- File:Wieza cisnien pg 1904r.jpg
- File:Politechnika gnaska powojenne 1945.jpg
- File:Gmach glowny pg 1904.jpg
- File:Gmach glowny pg 1904r.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominating also - per above:
Gunnex (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BFPlayer 0 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of images from Internet. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Neva md.jpg
- File:Konkurs md.jpg
- File:Infantry2 md.jpg
- File:Infantry1 md.jpg
- File:Giacint md.jpg
- File:Btr-80 md.jpg
- File:Snar-10.jpg
- File:9p149.jpg
- File:BTR-D(MG).jpg
- File:Chu-1.jpg
- File:Tr-580 1.jpg
- File:TR-580.jpg
- File:Tr-580m.jpg
- File:TR-85 M.jpg
- File:Tr-800.jpg
- File:Tr-580 2.jpg
- File:Tr125m 001.jpg
- File:TR-85 1986.jpg
- File:TR-580 in 2 proection.png
- File:TR-580rom.jpg
- File:98mm mod93.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Bikram d.jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (7).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (4).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (6).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (5).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (3).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (2).jpg
- File:Bikram 1 (1).jpg
- File:Rahul001.jpg
- File:Rahul (3).jpg
- File:Rahul (2).jpg
- File:J3.jpg
- File:Rahul (1).jpg
- File:J2d.jpg
- File:J d.jpg
- File:Imagde053.jpg
- File:Imagde045.jpg
- File:Bik (15).jpg
- File:Bik (14).jpg
- File:Bik (13).jpg
- File:Bik (11).jpg
- File:Bik (12).jpg
- File:Bik (10).jpg
- File:Bik (9).jpg
- File:Bik (8).jpg
- File:Bik (7).jpg
- File:Bik (4).jpg
- File:Bik (6).jpg
- File:Bik (1).jpg
- File:Bik (3).jpg
- File:Bik (2).jpg
- File:Bikram Singh.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.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}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eileenschatz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related dewiki-article speedy deleted on upload date 06.09.2013 via [8]. Additional File:EileenSchatzOfficial.jpg grabbed from Facebook.
Gunnex (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Igor Myaskovsky (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparently stamps around the world. All files uploaded in 08.2013. Obviously not own work (as declared) and involving multiple copyright issues, depending on age/country of origin etc. of the stamp(s). Additionally: all files watermarked with "Rossica" most likley grabbed somewhere from http://www.rossica.info (a page dedicated to an International Philatelic Show in Moscow, copyrighted by © National Academy of Philately (NAF) RUSSIA).
- File:MZB5.jpg
- File:MZB4.jpg
- File:MZB3.JPG
- File:MZB2.JPG
- File:MZB1.JPG
- File:GUB5.jpg
- File:GUB-4.jpg
- File:GUB-3.jpg
- File:GUB-2.jpg
- File:GUB-1.jpg
- File:GU-5.JPG
- File:GU-4.JPG
- File:GU-3.jpg
- File:GU-2.JPG
- File:GU-1.JPG
- File:Ros13bur0.JPG
- File:Ros13bur3.JPG
- File:Ros12bur.jpg
- File:Rus13bur2.JPG
- File:Ros13bur1.JPG
- File:Семёнов-Вики.jpg
- File:Колчак-Вики.jpg
- File:Юг России.jpg
- File:ВЗВП.jpg
- File:ОКСА-Вики.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Реммер-1000.jpg
- File:Гербовые марки ЗДА.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Герб.jpg
- File:Свода россии.jpg
- File:ЗДА-надп-2.jpg
- File:ЗДА-надп-1.jpg
- File:Железная дивизия.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Кун.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Реммер.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Реммер-фальшь.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Давыдов-1.jpg
- File:ЗДА-Давыдов.jpg
- File:Реммер-фальшь.jpg
- File:Выпуск Реммера.jpg
- File:Выпуск Куна.jpg
- File:Выпуски Давыдова.jpg
- File:Марки ЗДА.jpg
- File:!!дизайн.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong nomination of all images after the file File:Семёнов-Вики.jpg (with Cyrillic letters in the file names), as they are images of old Russian stamps issued during the Civil War in Russia (1918-1922). They should be marked with PD-old license. Actually the nominator's argument does not cover these Russian stamps, so please do not delete them. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Leonid Dzhepko McZusatz (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. File:Luli Pop Miami.jpg circulating since 2011 via (example) http://mundofans.portalmundos.com/el-misterioso-mensaje-de-luciana-salazar/ = http://exitoina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/lulipop.jpg (last modified: 2011, lower res)
Gunnex (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.schultz (talk · contribs)
[edit]All uploads appear to be copyvios from Flickr and/or other sites (e.g. File:Andrew_McCutchen_2011.jpg is here, File:Desean Jackson 2009.jpg is here, etc.) Already nominated File:Patapsco Valley State Park mtb.jpg, File:Algodones2009.jpg and File:Seneca West Face.jpg as speedies (see file pages for Flickr source), doing rest as convential DR due to volume. No evidence uploader (Mr.schultz) is the Flickr user (most are taken from throwinrocks' stream). OTRS or change of licenses on Flickr would be needed if they're the same person.
- File:San Clemente State Beach.jpg
- File:Seneca1.JPG
- File:Triple S Seneca.jpg
- File:SenecaRocks22.jpg
- File:Seneca East Face.jpg
- File:Roy Gap.jpg
- File:The New River Gorge Bridge.jpg
- File:DeSean Jackson 2008.jpg
- File:Desean jackson 2009.JPG
- File:McCovey Cove 2012.jpg
- File:Hunter Pence 2012.jpg
- File:Brian Roberts 2012.jpg
- File:Adam Jones 2012.jpg
- File:Bryce Harper 2012.jpg
- File:JJ 2012.jpg
- File:Chris Davis 2012.jpg
- File:Jayson Werth 2007.jpg
- File:Byrd 2007.jpg
- File:Spiller 2007.jpg
- File:Tashard Choice.jpg
- File:Lance Ball Terps.jpg
- File:Demaryius Thomas 2007.jpg
- File:Shawne Merriman 2005.jpg
- File:Greivis 2009.jpg
- File:Andrew McCutchen 2011.jpg
- File:Placido Polanco 2011.jpg
- File:Shane Victorino 2011.jpg
- File:Desean Jackson 2009.jpg
- File:Darrius Heyward-Bey 2008.jpg
- File:Torrey Smith Terps.jpg
- File:Brandon Graham 2010.jpg
- File:Reggie Wayne 2010.jpg
- File:Vick 2010.jpg
- File:Ravens Colts Final Play.jpg
- File:Andrew Luck 2013.jpg
- File:Reid TD.jpg
- File:Jamal Lewis 2007.jpg
- File:Ray Lewis 2007.jpg
- File:CJ Brown.jpg
- File:TERPS ODU 2013- 239.jpg
- File:Stefon Diggs vs. ODU.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am the author of all of these photographs, I own the copyright to all of these photos, and I have uploaded them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. http://www.flickr.com/photos/throwinrocks/ is my website. Flickr profile states: "Photos uploaded to wikipedia under username 'Mr.schultz'" http://www.flickr.com/people/throwinrocks/
- I oppose this deletion request.
- Given that the Yahoo terms of service (which cover Flickr) appear to grant a non-exclusive license to Yahoo!, which I interpret to mean that the owner of the photos retains the right to use them elsewhere (including Wikipedia), and
- Given that most (all?) of the photos nominated for deletion are apparently from the "throwinrocks!" user on Flickr, and that the profile for that account includes the phrase: Photos uploaded to wikipedia under username "Mr.schultz" -- who is the uploader of the files in question on Wikipedia,
- It appears that the user Mr.schultz has every right to upload these files to Wikipedia, as he is the rightful owner as mentioned on the "throwinrocks!" Flickr profile.
- I therefore oppose the request to delete these files. I also think that if the Patapsco Valley State Park mtb.jpg, Algodones2009.jpg and Seneca West Face.jpg files were deleted based on the same reasoning as mentioned in this deletion request, that they should be undeleted. Mdak06 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: valid license. McZusatz (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SemiSpicolin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP: 2 other uploads were a cropped youtube-screenshot from a copyrighted AT&T commercial and a cropped CC BY 2.0-Flickrvio claiming false ("own") authorship/license etc.
- File:BeckBennett.png
- File:Kyle as bruce.png
- File:Kyle Mooney at the Upright Citizens Brigade (Los Angeles) performing in Sketch Showdown.jpg
_performing_in_Sketch_Showdown.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Suhas2112 arranged & created the studio atmosphere and pulled the trigger to take all these high professional, advertising (product) images around en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Dog Scotch Whisky (and related photos) which the user is actually trying to force, combined with multiple images grabbed from internet (blogs/Facebook/etc.). The whole traffic of several DRs/copyvios is stored at User talk:Suhas2112. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Bd-fishing-fly.jpg
- File:Black Dog Piano 21yrs Final.jpg
- File:Black Dog Library 18yrs low res.jpg
- File:Bd-logo-new.jpg
- File:Black dog-madonna.jpg
- File:Black-Dog-21yrs.jpg
- File:Black-Dog-18yrs.jpg
- File:Black-Dog-GR.jpg
- File:Black-Dog-BR.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Надежда Ивченкова (talk · contribs)
[edit]All photos of very low resolution: unusable, + possible copyvio.
- File:Фото0207.jpg
- File:Фото0205.jpg
- File:Фото0203.jpg
- File:Фото0202.jpg
- File:Фото0201.jpg
- File:Каблуково.jpg
- File:Фото0200.jpg
A.Savin 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Statues of Konstantin Batyushkov, his Horse and his Gratiae in Vologda
[edit]1987 works by en:Vyacheslav Klykov (d. 2006), no freedom of panorama in Russia. Yes, the horse and the girls are parts of the package. Files (perhaps incomplete list):
- File:Муза wi-fi.JPG
- File:Муза с видом на церковь.JPG
- File:Муза-охранница.JPG
- File:Муза.JPG
- File:Музы Кремлевской площади.JPG
- File:Памятник Батюшкову.JPG
- File:Памятник К.Батюшкову.JPG
- File:Под защитой.JPG
- File:Под музыку муз.JPG
- File:Batyushkov K N.jpg
- File:Batyushkov statue in Vologda.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No educational use. Funny, but that's it. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Gmaxwell (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I replaced the picture with a more recent one, shot by myself with a Sony Cybershot camera on Wed 4 September.
Deleted: replaced, mooting issue Gmaxwell (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mudrauniformsindiaprivatelimited (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotional images
- File:Office Uniforms , corporate Wear , All type of Uniform.jpeg
- File:House Keeping Uniforms.jpg
- File:Value Added Services.jpg
- File:Security Uniforms.jpg
- File:School Uniforms & Accessories.jpg
- File:Safety & Emergency Products.jpg
- File:Promotional & Gift Items.jpg
- File:Office Uniforms 01.jpg
- File:Mudra Uniforms India Private Limited.JPG
INeverCry 17:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional images; unlikely to be used for educational purposes. Gmaxwell (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
La photo n'estpas celle du comédien de Jean-François Boudreau 74.57.175.161 00:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. From a facebook page [9]. Missing OTRS confirmation of author. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no premission Steinsplitter (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is rather a recent mural and thereby copyrighted. Regrettably, Morocco has no freedom-of-panorama exemption, whereby this photo violates the copyright of the painter. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The painter is www.elninodelaspinturas.es, perhaps we can ask him the authorization or add his name in comment --Rais67 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Made by the Algerian government, not by the uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Problem solved if it is the only reason --Vikoula5 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is additionally no evidence that the Algerian government has agreed to license the image under CC-BY-SA. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Stefan4 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Own work? Educational value? 91.66.153.214 14:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: nonsense Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
useless photo that lacks educational content Atsirlin (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Shows the Vologda Kremlin and peep from Vologda. In scope, can be used. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks strangely like the page that appears on en wiki for the same subject. I feel that this page is out of project scope. Flickrworker (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (author). First, let's get it straight - it looks nothing like the Wikipedia page, as anyone can see. Second, the only non-image information it contains is of the type that is directly relevant to understanding the images themselves, such as the dates and other details found in Background, and things like box type, code, recipient and coords found in the table, hence it is a perfectly valid gallery, completely in scope. Ultra7 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I think you need to look again tbf. A list of postboxes but with images, instead of a list and separate photo section. Some stuff about unofficial postboxes and the Irish thing may not be identical but very similar and all sourced. But the thing about Northern Irish athletes in general on here (not a reason to delete) is highly inaccurate as it is about Northern Irish athletes who represented Ireland as some did represent GB. Secondly is does the page really need to explain the first one? (not even on wiki) The Heather Stanning post box? (not even on wiki) Do we really need to write about the type? (note not even on the wiki page) Are their any references in the page for the "background notes?" Answer: Nope. Is this really an appropriate page when Commons is a collection of photographs, logos, artwork and occasionally filmwork? I think not and therefore more in keep with what one finds on wiki. So why don't you Ultra find some refs and improve the wiki page instead of creating stuff which is broadly out of scope (or at least bordering, since you're arguing otherwise.) Flickrworker (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am arguing otherwise. They are totally different. One is an article with general information, a lot of which has nothing to do with the specific boxes, and a table focused more on the recipient and their sport than the box, whereas this gallery only contains text relevant to understanding the images, and a table which is all about allowing people to research and review the images along their different shared visual characteristics (such as type!), or even just identify a box that they only have partial information about. Therefore, it's pretty obvious to anyone who compares the two, that the purpose of this gallery is not 'education through text' (ie duplicating Wikipedia), it is identification of and education about existing or potential images of the boxes, in as many ways as is meaningful to that specific purpose (ie what, why, where, when), which is 100% in line with Commons scope. There is nothing on this page that is redundant to that purpose. And I should know, because it was me who researched and uploaded most of the images of gold boxes now on Commons, so please credit with me with knowing what was and was not important to that task (and please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect). Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is your view point but I have issue with this. please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect. Lets be honest and if Wikipedia was edited properly that would have been removed for OR. Every statement needs a source. Flickrworker (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am arguing otherwise. They are totally different. One is an article with general information, a lot of which has nothing to do with the specific boxes, and a table focused more on the recipient and their sport than the box, whereas this gallery only contains text relevant to understanding the images, and a table which is all about allowing people to research and review the images along their different shared visual characteristics (such as type!), or even just identify a box that they only have partial information about. Therefore, it's pretty obvious to anyone who compares the two, that the purpose of this gallery is not 'education through text' (ie duplicating Wikipedia), it is identification of and education about existing or potential images of the boxes, in as many ways as is meaningful to that specific purpose (ie what, why, where, when), which is 100% in line with Commons scope. There is nothing on this page that is redundant to that purpose. And I should know, because it was me who researched and uploaded most of the images of gold boxes now on Commons, so please credit with me with knowing what was and was not important to that task (and please don't complain about a lack of refs if you can't find anything in it that is actually incorrect). Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I think you need to look again tbf. A list of postboxes but with images, instead of a list and separate photo section. Some stuff about unofficial postboxes and the Irish thing may not be identical but very similar and all sourced. But the thing about Northern Irish athletes in general on here (not a reason to delete) is highly inaccurate as it is about Northern Irish athletes who represented Ireland as some did represent GB. Secondly is does the page really need to explain the first one? (not even on wiki) The Heather Stanning post box? (not even on wiki) Do we really need to write about the type? (note not even on the wiki page) Are their any references in the page for the "background notes?" Answer: Nope. Is this really an appropriate page when Commons is a collection of photographs, logos, artwork and occasionally filmwork? I think not and therefore more in keep with what one finds on wiki. So why don't you Ultra find some refs and improve the wiki page instead of creating stuff which is broadly out of scope (or at least bordering, since you're arguing otherwise.) Flickrworker (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Wiki is for articles, Commons for media. BUT: In this case a sortable table makes more sense rather than having a standard gallery with one image each. Some text removed, I believe the text part could be condensed more. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I am the original author of this page, which originally contained a set of comprehensive explanatory notes that were of use to future re-users/uploaders of this large and complex collection of media. That text has subsequently been deleted by User:Hedwig in Washington after his closure of the original deletion request, and replaced with a brief introductory paragraph. Because his replacement text is both inaccurate and misleading (boxes were not awarded just to Brits, there is not simply one box for "each gold medallist" - that's not how the scheme was implement and nor was that even the original plan, all but 2 boxes were painted by the Royal Mail, and images of the related stamps cannot even be uploaded to Commons), then I request deletion of this gallery on the grounds that because he refuses to fix his replacement text, and has threatened to block me if I attempt to remove the errors myself (calling such attempts vandalism no less), then I am still effectively the "sole author" (one other person has added one image, which is nice but a largely trivial edit in comparison to my efforts), and thus I am entitled to request deletion as such. I do not want my name associated with a gallery which is, without proper explanatory notes, impossible for any future re-users/uploaders to understand - and which actually adds to the confusion by misleading them. For the avoidance of doubt, as I know he will claim otherwise - the explanatory notes were in no way an "article", and the text that was removed was not redundant to Wikipedia for two reasons - the poor state of the current article (it is wholly incomplete, missing details that were only present in those notes), and the likely rejection of many of the notes from a theoretically perfect future Wikipedia article as trivial or ephemeral information. I am pursuing this deletion as the only alternative after my complaints about this to User:Hedwig in Washington merely resulted in me, a Commons contributor with thousands of uploads and edits over 5 years, being simply ignored and even insulted. Ultra7 (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gee. I never threatened to block you if you correct anything. I said just don't make it an article. Instead of doing so, you complained like a little child who's lolly got taken away. Do you want a medal rewarded for your work? Or a golden post box? Or should we create a second set of rules, just for you? May I remind you of this? If you can't work in a team, you're probably in the wrong spot. I offered you a way out of this, you declined. It can only be your way, according to you that is. That is not how it works on Commons.
- Finally: Keep Invalid reason given. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Author request is a valid reason to delete - if you had deleted that text within 7 days, I could have just speedy deleted the whole thing no questions asked. No second set of rules is required - despite the fact you keep repeating it as if it was true, you have not shown that what you removed was an "article" - and how could you, you didn't even read it. What you removed was not an article, and what you replaced it with is utter garbage. Your 'way out' of that situation is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la' when I ask you to explain yourself, and expect me to fix your garbage. Your idea of working in teams is to destroy a gallery that was created by me, then insult me and ignore me, then insult me a bit more, and now lie about not having threatened to block me (if you want to withdraw your statement "Reverting my edit without good reason can be considered an act of vandalism" then go ahead, when you do, I will the proceed to fix the gallery for the "good reason" that you have introduced inaccurate and misleading text into it). You talking here about working in teams after the way you've acted toward me, is frankly a joke. Ultra7 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- In response to this request to withdraw this DR from User:Wsiegmund - my response is as follows: I'll only withdraw it if the gallery is restored either to my original version (after which there can be a proper discussion about how helpful or unhelpful it is for re-users/uploaders to have no explanatory notes), or if it is restored to this version (minus wikilink, in deference to interwikis), which is the only version I am happy to leave it in if, as I suspect, once it closes, nobody is going to make sure that whatever is put in to replace my text is actually accurate. Otherwise, I stand by my rights as sole author to have it deleted - if I am to be denied that right, then another administrator is going to have to put his name to that decision to retain it in the face of objections of the sole author and in full acknowledgement that the current state of the introductory text is inaccurate, and thus not in compliance with Commons policy, whatever the merits of the original version. Ultra7 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Invalid reason given for deletion- it has been released to, edited by, and is now owned collectively by, the Commons community. "Rights as sole author" are a myth and should be disregarded as should purported conditions for keeping. By all means discuss what the content should be, but that belongs on the Talk page thoughtfully provided for the purpose and should be well-mannered. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rights as sole author are most certainly not a myth - read COM:CSD General #7. Sole authors have rights on Commons - they can have their work deleted even after it has been released - so any claims to the contrary are totally false. There is a 7 day limit, but that clearly doesn't refer to any legal time frame after which ownership transfers from the author to 'the community'. It's not "owned" by the community at all in fact, from the second it's released it's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who would probably courtesy delete it tomorrow if I sent them an email detailing how badly I've been treated in return for donating the hundreds of man hours it took to create this gallery. The 7 days is merely an administrative grace period - a recognition that beyond 7 days it's more than likely that others will have put effort into the work and therefore the community is entitled to a say if it's proposed for deletion. In this case however, 'the community' clearly has absolutely no moral claim on the work, and your suggestion it does because it has been "Edited by the community" - a trivial addition of a single image, and a large scale deletion of text - are clearly absurd. So please, don't talk about manners when you're so blatantly advocating a response to my wishes which is as ill-mannered as you can get - not far short of theft really. Ultra7 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- How about you take my comments in the spirit of improving Commons rather than sniping and virtually accusing me of "theft", whatever that means in the context. I'm really surprised your attitude hasn't yet got you blocked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I took your comments in the spirit they appear to be written - and how else is anyone really supposed to take the suggestion that putting 99.99% of the effort into creating a gallery makes it 'community property', especially when coupled with a patently false claim that Commons doesn't respect the rights of sole authors. That's the context of the 'theft' I speak of. I will AGF if you say you simply made a mistake and withdraw/refactor your remarks, it's not unknown after all for people to be unaware of the finer points of COM:CSD or to have not fully examined the contribution history of something. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- How about you take my comments in the spirit of improving Commons rather than sniping and virtually accusing me of "theft", whatever that means in the context. I'm really surprised your attitude hasn't yet got you blocked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool down, Ultra7, please. I understand your feelings; but I think experianced admins like HJ Mitchell and Walter Siegmund already responded to that matter. I don't think "Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content." has much weight here "since no one "owns" any part of any article". More over this page can be easily reproducable by anybody else without violating any copyrights. So I suggest you to withdraw this DR as advised by Walter Siegmund. JKadavoor Jee 02:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't about copyright (CSD G7 after all isn't a copyright clause) and I am not claiming ownership beyond what already underpins the concept of CSD G7, which after all allows sole author deletion even though nobody 'owns' anything they post here from the second it's released. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, good page, maybe can be done even better. Taivo (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Файл заменён новым в формате svg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tomskmuseum_logo.svg) Aos1986 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No deletion of jpg vs svg Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Non-free HTC and Microsoft software visible ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free HTC and Microsoft software visible Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed 
George Miquilena · talk 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File unused (maybe), and I am the author of the file and would like it removed George Miquilena · talk 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 2012 upload. no reason for deletion given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
keine Relevanz erkennbar, Quelle nicht angegeben. Anscheinend handelt es sich um eine pamphletisch gedachte Eigenkreation. Sowas hat hier nix verloren, wie auch die anderen vom User hochgeladenen Bilder in der Kategorie Peer Steinbrück. 87.160.46.181 17:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Attackpage Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
With the information provided it's not possible to assert it's in the public domain. Stromare (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? It was clearly produced for the SS-Wallonie Brigade, part of the Waffen SS and therefore part of the German government...Brigade Piron (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: § 5 Abs.1 UrhG makes it PD Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The painting in File:Guru Nanak Dev.jpg is not currently in the public domain as it was painted in 1969. The source attribution “own work” seems improbable, as the image was uploaded in 2013 and the artist died in 1986. The uploader, User:India4art is a recent newcomer (16 September 2013). India4art also claims to be the copyright holder, but no evidence of that is provided. Apuldram (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work of uploader Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Это фотография церкви с. Знаменка но с Горшечинского р-на Курской области (ошибочно загружена в с. Знаменка Старооскольского р-на Белгородской обл. Fadin Sergej (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Описание исправил. Не нашёл в федеральной базе кода этой церкви - может его там и нет (точнее, не опубликован), может коды перепутаны или район не тот указан. Бывает. Удалять нет повода. // Fixed description, case closed, keep. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Kaluga.2012 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Это фотография церкви с. Знаменка но с Горшечинского р-на Курской области (ошибочно загружена в с. Знаменка Старооскольского р-на Белгородской обл Fadin Sergej (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Описание исправил. Не нашёл в федеральной базе кода этой церкви - может его там и нет (точнее, не опубликован), может коды перепутаны или район не тот указан. Бывает. Удалять нет повода. // Fixed description, case closed, keep. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Kaluga.2012 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Это фотография церкви с. Знаменка но с Горшечинского р-на Курской области (ошибочно загружена в с. Знаменка Старооскольского р-на Белгородской обл Fadin Sergej (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Описание исправил. Не нашёл в федеральной базе кода этой церкви - может его там и нет (точнее, не опубликован), может коды перепутаны или район не тот указан. Бывает. Удалять нет повода. // Fixed description, case closed, keep. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Kaluga.2012 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Это фотография церкви с. Знаменка но с Горшечинского р-на Курской области (ошибочно загружена в с. Знаменка Старооскольского р-на Белгородской обл Fadin Sergej (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Описание исправил. Не нашёл в федеральной базе кода этой церкви - может его там и нет (точнее, не опубликован), может коды перепутаны или район не тот указан. Бывает. Удалять нет повода. // Fixed description, case closed, keep. Kaluga.2012 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Kaluga.2012 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
no FoP in Russia Atsirlin (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Russia Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
modern sculpture, no FoP in Russia. moreover, it looks more like a personal photo Atsirlin (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in Russia Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lakokat as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Attack. The two chinese characters overlaying could be regarded as an insult to the individual. KTo288 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nominate for low quality, of no educational use etc, but not as an attack image, as far as I know dyed head is not an insult.--KTo288 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per KTo288 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Fichero de baja calidad y dimensiones. Existe otro del mismo cuadro de buena calidad: File:ÁlvaroDeBazánRafaelTegeo1828.jpg Raimundo Pastor (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:ÁlvaroDeBazánRafaelTegeo1828.jpg Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
wrong ad
Proper ad uploaded Ooliv (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: (c)vio, not own work Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, bad quality image of coutyard to heritage monument Rudko (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep can't see a reason to delete this image. The courtyard is part of the usage of the de:Langer August building. Holger1959 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Also can't see a reason to delete it. --Reclus (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In scope, quality OK. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I dont know... bad picture of two heritage objects, not completly on the picture... delete or not? Rudko (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep usual detail building picture, can't see a reason to delete it. If image quality should ("bad picture") be the reason, why not start with deleting File:Berlin 06.05.2012 21-07-06.jpg, Rudko? Holger1959 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are more qualitative pictures from both heritage objects now. The another picture what you talking about, from Berlin, isnt used, not a problem to delete it.--Rudko (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The photo shows the dividing line between the two buildings, no reason to delete Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
повтор, ошибка при загрузке FRENG (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
повтор, ошибка при загрузке FRENG (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see a problem with this file. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader; made by the Dutch government. {{PD-NL-Gov}} was found to be invalid. Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Montana government works
[edit]
The copyright tag only tells what a public record is, but it doesn't tell anything about the copyright status of a government work. Unless we can find any evidence that these works are free for some reason, both the template and its sole transclusion need to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Correct, this template needs serious work. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Dubious own work: low res, no exif. Eleassar (t/p) 09:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've notified the apparent original uploader (nl:Gebruiker:Bemoeial) using the wonder (or horror) of Google Translate. Is there some kind of template standardized across Wikipedias to notify people, in the native language, that there is a deletion discussion on Commons? --Closeapple (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for having done this. I don't know of any such template, but you may create one. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- A note in english on my talkpage would have been nice (writing a multi-ligual template isn't that easy) - Bemoeial1 (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for having done this. I don't know of any such template, but you may create one. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep 'dubious own work' How motivating. It was quite a bit of work (10 years ago) to set the image free from my OWN picture with software not knowing of exif - Bemoeial1 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please, don't take it as a criticism of your work. This is a very usable file, however due to the missing exif and low resolution, it also qualifies as a typical file of dubious provenance. We can't keep non-free copyvio files, therefore the DR. To keep it, we have to establish that it was really created by you. It would help in this regard if you provided the original higher-resolution image. Could you put it online or send it together with the standard permission for the nominated image (as described at COM:OTRS) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so that this can be verified? Thank you in advance. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Of course wikimedia should delete files as soon as there is reasonable doubt about the legal status. I might have taken a better picture with a modern camera if only you would have asked instead of issuing RFD... (BTW, OTRS is a no-go). C'est le ton qui fait la musique. - Bemoeial1 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I should have therefore asked you if the image is free and when you said "yes", this should be it... If you're so unwilling to prove your words with an independent evidence, I have no reason to believe you and this image may be deleted as far as I'm concerned. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please, don't take it as a criticism of your work. This is a very usable file, however due to the missing exif and low resolution, it also qualifies as a typical file of dubious provenance. We can't keep non-free copyvio files, therefore the DR. To keep it, we have to establish that it was really created by you. It would help in this regard if you provided the original higher-resolution image. Could you put it online or send it together with the standard permission for the nominated image (as described at COM:OTRS) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so that this can be verified? Thank you in advance. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. This is a too generic picture of an instrument that has been uploaded in 2003 at Dutch Wikipedia and then uploaded to Commons in 2007. Also, the file is widley used, so, can you apply the same criteria for deleting images of guitars, banjos, charangos, etc? Short answer: No. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is a photo of a 3D work. Only photos of public domain 2D works may be seen as free.[10] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Closeup shows some rough edges, I believe Bemoeial1. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is possible. However, an independent confirmation through the OTRS or othewise is absolutely necessary, as the uploader refuses to provide it on shaky grounds. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: probably own work. i.e. per Hedwig FASTILY 09:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The Flickr user obviously didn't create the visa. No evidence of permission from the Australian government. Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid deletion rationale. Flickr did not create it, it is the photo by Sergey Zhaffsky, not to mention it is one of several dozen such images in the Category:Visas by country. How is this one different? Please list all of them then.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that Sergey Zhaffsky is an alternative name for w:Government of Australia? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please work on attitude, we are not in a pub. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that Sergey Zhaffsky is an alternative name for w:Government of Australia? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. Unclear if {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies or not. Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - who is the copyright holder? I just copy/pasted from the same files from the same source that have been on Commons for years. Additionally, I don't see the difference between this file and several dozen files in Category:Passport data pages that were not listed. If you are suggesting that the Lithuanian Government is the copyright holder, then certainly the {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies, there is nothing unclear about it.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies. As I wrote, it's a bit dubious whether it applies to an image like this or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Personal documents fall under the "State symbols" just like the banknotes (marking this part so it is more easily readable as it was missed in the other deletion request) that were given as an example by the lawmaker, while allowing for other similar items to fall under the same category ("and other State symbols").--Twofortnights (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies. As I wrote, it's a bit dubious whether it applies to an image like this or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - who is the copyright holder? I just copy/pasted from the same files from the same source that have been on Commons for years. Additionally, I don't see the difference between this file and several dozen files in Category:Passport data pages that were not listed.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- No they haven't been, please let's not descend to using false information here. For an example this (uploaded 17 March 2008) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Czech_passport_2006_MRZ_data.jpg looks quite similar to http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/en/3815/viewImage_96179.html although I could be wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - who is the copyright holder? I just copy/pasted from the same files from the same source that have been on Commons for years. Additionally, I don't see the difference between this file and several dozen files in Category:Passport data pages that were not listed.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- No they haven't been, please let's not descend to using false information here. For an example this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_passport_biodata_page.png looks quite similar to http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/en/3218/viewImage_75579.html (which is listed as a source anyway) although I could be wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- See for example User talk:Bonus bon for a long list of deletion request where images from that source have been deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- All requests filed by you, all uncontested. I would argue that those deletions were incorrect but in any case there is no discussion to point to, or any arguments, therefore there is very little to see in those deletion requests.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- See for example User talk:Bonus bon for a long list of deletion request where images from that source have been deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- No they haven't been, please let's not descend to using false information here. For an example this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_passport_biodata_page.png looks quite similar to http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/en/3218/viewImage_75579.html (which is listed as a source anyway) although I could be wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. Stefan4 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - who is the copyright holder? I just copy/pasted from the same files from the same source that have been on Commons for years. Additionally, I don't see the difference between this file and several dozen files in Category:Passport data pages that were not listed.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- No they haven't been, please let's not descend to using false information here. For an example this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_passport_biodata_page.png looks quite similar to http://prado.consilium.europa.eu/en/3218/viewImage_75579.html (which is listed as a source anyway) although I could be wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Images from "the same source" have been deleted from Commons for years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Text and coat of arms, nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: 09:54, 30 October 2013 Fastily deleted the page High Contrast (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shinta as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Like to remove this from the public KTo288 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- In use at Polish wiktionary, as far as I can make out the caption reads something like "Hair dyed a chestnut colour" I'm not an expert on dyed female hair, but if we can find a suitable replacement for it this file I see no harm in deletion.--KTo288 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept, free licences are irrevocable. The file has been in Commons 7 years. This is beautiful photo, nothing shameful or even strange happens here. The person is not identifiable. In addition, the file is used more than once. Taivo (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a Canadian passport. Stefan4 (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's unclear to me what elements of this image would meet the threshold of originality so as to be copyrightable. Not the date, or the text references to the Kingdom of Bahrain and to passport control. Possibly the maple leaf background, but on Commons we do not appear to treat the simple Canadian maple leaf as a copyrighted work. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Question Is the passport crown-copyright? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably yes. Apart from the leaf there are also anti-counterfeit measures. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody has yet answered my question as to what elements in this particular excerpt are copyrightable. It's hard to address the concern without first understanding what it is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably yes. Apart from the leaf there are also anti-counterfeit measures. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I suppose the reference above to the leaf and the anti-counterfeit measures is the response to my question. If the leaf is a copyrightable element, then every photo we have on Wikipedia of a Canadian maple leaf (including every photo of the Canadian flag) is a derivative image inconsistent with Wikimedia's licensing policy, and we'd end up deleting all of them - I don't think that's correct (and if it is, we need to have a very serious discussion before we declare it as such in this discussion). I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) we've ever reached that determination before. And aren't the anti-counterfeit measures in this image just lines? A series of lines meets the threshold of originality? Are we talking about the cumulative work involving the maple leaf and the lines? I'm not really convinced. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: All of the above and also that I think the maple leaf is DM here -- it is very hard to make out. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Invalid licence: not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to me like it is own work by uploader.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence for your claim that the uploader is the person employed by the French government for designing ID cards. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK even if we accept your view that the copyright holder is where you claim it is, please provide evidence for your claim that the person employed by the French government for designing ID cards is the copyright holder, and that the rights were not transferred via employment to the French Government. Meanwhile Art. L122-5 of the droit d'auteur says that once a work has been published, the author cannot prevent analyses and short citations justified by the critical, polemical, scientific or pedagogical nature of the work in cases where the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated. So we can amend the file page and indicate the author as French Government and I believe this should end your doubts over the copyright status of this file.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of who the copyright holder is, the uploader is not the copyright holder. Also, the law you quote isn't compliant with COM:FU and probably only applies to text anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that a) the copyright holder must be the uploader here b) the law isn't compliant with COM:FU and explain why this matters c) the law applies to text only.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of who the copyright holder is, the uploader is not the copyright holder. Also, the law you quote isn't compliant with COM:FU and probably only applies to text anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK even if we accept your view that the copyright holder is where you claim it is, please provide evidence for your claim that the person employed by the French government for designing ID cards is the copyright holder, and that the rights were not transferred via employment to the French Government. Meanwhile Art. L122-5 of the droit d'auteur says that once a work has been published, the author cannot prevent analyses and short citations justified by the critical, polemical, scientific or pedagogical nature of the work in cases where the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated. So we can amend the file page and indicate the author as French Government and I believe this should end your doubts over the copyright status of this file.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence for your claim that the uploader is the person employed by the French government for designing ID cards. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: "the author cannot prevent analyses and short citations" covers only fair use applications -- we require a completely free license and certainly commercial use of this is not covered by that quote. As for the rest, Twofortnights has the burden of proof backwards -- it is up to him or her to prove that this is free beyond a significant doubt. That has not happened. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. I'm not sure whether {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies or not. Stefan4 (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-LT-exempt}} applies.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain why it applies. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Personal documents fall under the "State symbols" just like the banknotes that were given as an example by the lawmaker, while allowing for other similar items to fall under the same category ("and other State symbols"). --Twofortnights (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide any evidence that an ID card is a state symbol? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I already have, read my analogy with the banknotes.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide any evidence that an ID card is a state symbol? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Personal documents fall under the "State symbols" just like the banknotes that were given as an example by the lawmaker, while allowing for other similar items to fall under the same category ("and other State symbols"). --Twofortnights (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain why it applies. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlike the French case, this one has actual information on it. We almost always remove personal information from Commons. I might restore this if we had OTRS permission that was clearly traceable to the person described on the card, but only then. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- You clearly have not seen the file history which shows me trying to get the coloring of the scan of my passport correct to the current format. I find it strange that you can tell a Guyanese holder of a Republic of Guyana passport that it isn't his. User:Prez001
- Guyanese passports appeared outside Commons (for example at places where passports are issued) before this file was uploaded. If you claim that you made the passport, then you have to send evidence of that to COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- What do you want me to do? send my passport data page as proof? As far as I'm concerned the file history should offer sufficient proof that's it's mine. This coupled with the last major edits of the Wikipedia page entry on Guyanese Passport, specifically the sections on the validity, passport messages and design of the current passport, edits made by me should be substantial proof. Now you can play around the topic and my response, but you have offered no convincing proof or reason to validate your suspicion that it's not mine. User:Prez001
- A passport data page is not useful as evidence as no one creates his own passport. Passports are created by governments, not by individual Commons uploaders. Permission is therefore needed from the governments. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then your rationale is incorrect and the file should be tagged for permission as the other two files concerning Guyana, rather than not my own work. This applies to the Jamaican passport file also. User:Prez001
- A passport data page is not useful as evidence as no one creates his own passport. Passports are created by governments, not by individual Commons uploaders. Permission is therefore needed from the governments. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- What do you want me to do? send my passport data page as proof? As far as I'm concerned the file history should offer sufficient proof that's it's mine. This coupled with the last major edits of the Wikipedia page entry on Guyanese Passport, specifically the sections on the validity, passport messages and design of the current passport, edits made by me should be substantial proof. Now you can play around the topic and my response, but you have offered no convincing proof or reason to validate your suspicion that it's not mine. User:Prez001
- Guyanese passports appeared outside Commons (for example at places where passports are issued) before this file was uploaded. If you claim that you made the passport, then you have to send evidence of that to COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While the image may be the uploader's work, the underlying passport clearly is not. We have no information on copyright law in Guyana, but, as a former UK colony, it is likely to follow UK precedent and UK passports are copyrighted. Evidence to the countrary would be welcome. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then whose work is it? Do you have proof it's someone else's work. I have the image of the coat of arms I used in my files. User:Prez001
- Jamaican passports appeared outside Commons (for example at places where passports are issued) before this file was uploaded. If you claim that you made the passport, then you have to send evidence of that to COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I believe you are getting very general now. This is your exact reasoning for the Guyana Passport deletion request, yet the files are totally different in nature. The Guyanese passport is a scan of the cover, the Jamaican passport is a rendition of the cover, which is not alien here as I have seen it used for Greek passports. As I have noted I have the image of the coat of arms I used in my files. This particular image did not appear on any pages after I uploaded it. So once again, you have offered no evidence to substantiate your claim. User:Prez001
- Jamaican passports appeared outside Commons (for example at places where passports are issued) before this file was uploaded. If you claim that you made the passport, then you have to send evidence of that to COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While the image may be the uploader's work, the underlying passport clearly is not. Jamaican law is similar to UK law -- there are very limited exemptions from copyright for government works and passports aren't one of them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Not own work by uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Strong keep. Why not? Who else took the picture, in your mind?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The passport was made by the government of Trinidad & Tobago. The uploader is not the government of Trinidad & Tobago. Please also follow the rules at COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed?. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- We have pictures of hundreds of passports at Category:Passports by country. Your point is? If the uploader took the picture, it's his work. Now, seeing as we do have so many passports, do you propose to delete them all, or find more suitable licensing for this one?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on the issuing country. In some countries, there are tags such as {{PD-USGov}} which cover passports. In other countries, passports are copyrighted, and the passports from those countries can't be hosted on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Googled it, found nothing, show me where Trinidad copyrights their passport.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If a government creates a work of art, then it is copyrighted unless there is an exception in the copyright law which says otherwise. If you want to keep this, then you will have to locate an exception in the copyright law which says otherwise, or that the copyright has expired because of age. Trinidad & Tobago is a former British colonies, and former British colonies usually use a copyright law which is similar to that of the United Kingdom. The copyright law of the United Kingdom provides copyright protection for all government works (including passport cover illustrations) for 50 years from the initial publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- In any case, per COM:EVIDENCE, we have to assume that images like this are copyrighted unless we have evidence of the contrary. No such evidence has been presented. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: While the image may be the uploader's work, the underlying passport clearly is not. We have no information on copyright law in Trinidad and Tobago, but, as a former UK colony, it is likely to follow UK precedent and UK passports are copyrighted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Twofortnights (talk · contribs)
[edit]The permission is not from the copyright holder and is therefore invalid. The permission page additionally lists the wrong copyright holder.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - who is the copyright holder? I just copy/pasted from the same files from the same source that have been on Commons for years. Additionally, I don't see the difference between this file and several dozen files in Category:Passport data pages that were not listed.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright holders are the British and Maltese governments. Some of the other files in Category:Passport data pages may also have to be deleted, depending on the laws of the country of issue. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Info (c)notice from the source:
© European Communities, 2008-2012 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the abovementioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.
- The UK-passport certainly is pretty new not PD/PD-old or whatever. I have no clue what the Maltese gov. states, but I think it is save to assume that they don't release their passports into PD. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This passport bio data page is only a specimen that released by the home office in UK. Nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.132.196 (talk • contribs) 2013-10-16T17:01:51 (UTC)
- The uploader didn't create the bio data page. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming these files as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 09:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
PD-status in Italy reached between (original date configured with:"Before 1991 (Photo taken during the iX Legislature of Italy, 1983-1985)") 1983-1985, considering also indicated source http://www.senato.it/leg/09/BGT/Schede/Attsen/00002377.htm (official site of Italian senate), but +20 years, presuming that this is a "simple photography "which I doubt, but that is irrelevant here, on URAA-date 1996 still copyrighted in U.S. Gunnex (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sorry i'dont understand what do you mean for simple photo. I didnt't know URAA-rule date 1996, if i understand the file could be uploaded to commons only if it had been shoot before 1976. Ciao --Giu Pepis (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, at first, this is definitely simple photo and therefore it is in public domain in Italy. Unfortunately it is not in public domain in USA. URAA spoiles a lot of images. As all files in Commons need to be in public domain also in USA, I must delete it. Taivo (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No meaningful description. The photo does not really depict Vologda. It shows some event, but what event is it? When did it happen? Atsirlin (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Categories added. The description could be improved. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope A.Savin 11:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Most likely - considering also the detected copyvios - screenshots from unsourced videos somewhere from http://www.youtube.com/user/benjaminteixeira and/or http://www.saltoquantico.com.br/category/palestras/
- File:Plateia da Palestra de Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar em 25 de agosto.jpg
- File:Roy Estephan Rosseló.jpg
- File:Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gostaria de esclarecer primeiramente que a imagem File:Roy Estephan Rosseló.jpg é um printscreen de um vídeo não publicado que possuo. Logo, não será encontrado em nenhum dos dois links indicados (site ou canal do YouTube) nem em qualquer outro lugar na Internet.
- O segundo ponto é que a imagem File:Plateia da Palestra de Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar em 25 de agosto.jpg até já foi utilizada em outros locais da Internet, porém afirmo que a sua primeira utilização foi aqui na Wikimedia Commons. Eu recebi a imagem do próprio fotógrafo. Ele já entrou em contato com a OTRS enviando a permissão de utilização.
- Por fim, quanto à terceira imagem File:Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar.jpg ela não foi extraída de nenhum desses 2 locais, mas sim deste [[11]] com autorização da pessoa que produziu a imagem. Os sites indicados até têm imagens da pessoa, mas o fato de alguém aparecer num site não implica que todas as imagens dessa pessoa proviriam do mesmo site. Já entrei em contato com o autor da imagem e estou aguardando ele também entrar em contanto com a OTRS.
- First of all, I want to apologize for my poor english.
- I would like to first clarify that the image File: Roy Estephan Rosseló.jpg is a screen shot of a video that I have not published. It will not be found in any of the two links provided (website or YouTube channel) or anywhere else on the Internet.
- The second point is that the image File: Plateia da Palestra de Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar em 25 de agosto.jpg exists elsewhere on other Internet sites, but contend that its first use was in Wikimedia Commons. I received the image of the owm photographer. He has already contacted the OTRS sending permission.
- Finally, on the third image File: Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar.jpg it was not extracted from any of these two sites, but this [12] with the permission of the person who produced the image. The sites listed have pictures of the person, but the fact that someone appears on a website does not imply that all the images of that person would come from the same site. Have I contacted the author of the picture and I'm waiting for him also contact the OTRS.
- Yours sincerely,
- Luidje (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: only the first one, as there is still no permission A.Savin 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Duck_-_The_Spirit_of_'43_(cropped_version).jpg 79.33.148.130 21:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We need to confirm commons acceptance of this file being PD. Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Question : We're not all sysops with tools to view and compare deleted files. Maybe a sysop could describe the significant difference between the currently visible 7 August 2013 file and the four currently deleted and invisible files, and how that difference results in the conclusion that the 7 August 2013 file might be kept but the four other files must be deleted? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have temporarily restored all versions for the purpose of this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're a king. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have temporarily restored all versions for the purpose of this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The single-purpose IP 79.33.148.130 has provided no real rationale for his nomination. Are we supposed to guess why he thinks a discussion about a copyrighted 20th century character of U.S. origin would be relevant about an out of copyright 1865 character of British origin? Is he implying that Dodgson's succession has a subsisting copyright that would apply to this image and to all illustrations of the character? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The original rationale was bogus, as this was not a derivative work of an older cartoon. That said, neither "Alice in Wonderland" nor "Disney" are fun searches on the Copyright database, and we really should be searching that, not assuming that it wasn't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The original Alice character is {{PD-old}}, but we are looking at the Disney version. If you can show that both the first film with Alice and the film from which this image was taken are in the public domain, then I support keeping this image. As far as I have understood, this trailer is the first film with her. The question is then whether it is in the public domain. Considering that Disney submitted individual copyright renewals for every single daily newspaper comic strip since 1937, I doubt that Disney would have missed to renew the copyright to this film. Where can I see the entire film to verify the claim of lack of notice? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The only renewal I can find is RE0000027746 and that is for the the original film, not for the trailer. Moreover, I can't find any registration for the trailer. This page only mentions the film, not the trailer. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: If we leave the message by the IP and instead look at the matter of the copyright of the film or trailer as suggested by the above comments, it looks like the uploaders have not provided a specific source and a way to verify that the image is actually from an uncopyrighted trailer. It is probably not enough to claim "trailer" without any information about it. This omission seems common to other uploads by those uploaders (1, 2). A watermark from a website can be seen on other of their uploads (3). From those clues, it looks like this image could likely come from there (4), which is a screencap from the copyrighted film (5). The trailer claim should be documented. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have located a trailer here. This image appears in that trailer. The Youtube user claims that the trailer is from 1951. I don't see any copyright notice, but I can't tell whether the complete trailer was missing or whether something might be missing. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great find! The two images uploaded 21 May 2010 could have been taken from the trailer. They look like they are the frame just before the white title begins to cover the trailer. The three images uploaded 8 August 2012, 21 December 2012 and 7 August 2013 still look like they're from the screencaps from the full film displayed on the website mentioned above, although a similar result could probably be obtained from a larger copy of the trailer (and if necessary erasing the part of the white title that begins to cover the trailer in this frame, which is after the previous one), which might make this screencap from the film public domain. If the trailer was not copyrighted, should Commons keep the two versions from 2010 and delete the three versions from 2012 and 2013? Or consider that the five versions are public domain and keep them all? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) However, FWIW, a 1974 reissue of the trailer has a notice "copyright 1951". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's worth much. An appropriately timed renewal or not is much more reliable and easy to prove then the lack of this copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great find! The two images uploaded 21 May 2010 could have been taken from the trailer. They look like they are the frame just before the white title begins to cover the trailer. The three images uploaded 8 August 2012, 21 December 2012 and 7 August 2013 still look like they're from the screencaps from the full film displayed on the website mentioned above, although a similar result could probably be obtained from a larger copy of the trailer (and if necessary erasing the part of the white title that begins to cover the trailer in this frame, which is after the previous one), which might make this screencap from the film public domain. If the trailer was not copyrighted, should Commons keep the two versions from 2010 and delete the three versions from 2012 and 2013? Or consider that the five versions are public domain and keep them all? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) However, FWIW, a 1974 reissue of the trailer has a notice "copyright 1951". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have located a trailer here. This image appears in that trailer. The Youtube user claims that the trailer is from 1951. I don't see any copyright notice, but I can't tell whether the complete trailer was missing or whether something might be missing. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Thanks for finding the 1951 Youtube trailer Stefan4. It isn't shortened because the music ends on time. The last credit frame is where the copyright notice normally goes and they didn't place one there. In this case it is PD no notice and we can continue to host it pending Disney contact with WMF which I seriously doubt will happen because they are probably aware that they failed in the proper copyright process. The 1974 trailer notice can't legally override the 1951 failure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Duck_-_The_Spirit_of_'43_(cropped_version).jpg --79.27.138.73 00:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's clearly not relevant, as Alice in Wonderland is a public domain character.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Canoe1967 and 79.27.138.73 have told us explicitly where they stand. Although we all know that DR closings are not votes, we've go some respected people above -- I think it would be helpful to the closing Admin if Asclepias, KoH, Prosfilaes, and Stefan4 put a Delete or Keep here. I'm Keep, but not strongly enough to close it without explicit instructions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would say Keep here, unless anyone is able to prove that an earlier work with this version of Alice in Wonderland exists. This seems to be her earliest appearance and there is no evidence of any copyright notice or renewal. The notice could potentially be missing from Youtube, but I can't find any renewal for anything except for the film. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would say
- Keep Man, I hate treading close to the Mouse, but yeah, I'm not seeing a copyright notice in that trailer, and right at the end, where you would expect one under the title, there's not. I'll take Stefan4's word on the renewals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept per discussion, thank you. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
For the third time of nomination, this is obviously a copyright violation. 2001:448A:11A3:1CF9:A0C1:253D:48EB:8E04 10:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep No new rationale presented. Per COM:DR#Appealing decisions, DRs for kept files "should not be done unless you can add new information or clarification." S5A-0043Talk 11:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The previous two is not nominated 10 ten years ago. This must be deleted due to of this. 2001:448A:11A1:1092:206B:CB4A:D9F3:A445 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I don't see any reason to reargue this; there's no new arguments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This is from the trailer before the film was released. 3df (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- You two, please don't argue me. There will be no fourth nomination of this file, and this file is speedy kept. 2001:448A:11A1:1092:9940:5B5F:1398:515F 02:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 04:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: authored by w:Herman Hertzberger Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Uploader might be the author:User:Leuk2 / Herman Hertzberger and 2009.10.13 Written Permission by Herman Hertzberger for Public Domain --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Same for:
- File:Diagoon 2.Herman Hertzberger.jpg
- File:Diagoon Delft 1.Herman Hertzberger.jpg
- File:Diagoon Delft 2.Herman Hertzberger.jpg
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Am 13.10.2009 hat Prof. Herman Hertzberger die schriftliche Erlaubnis gegeben, alle 4 Zeichnungen der "Diagoon"-Häuser in Delft weltweit zu publizieren bei Wikipedia. Bitte fragen Sie selbst beim architectenbureau Herman Hertzberger in Amsterdam. User:Leuk2
- Question: Wo ist diese schriftliche Erlaubnis? An Commons weitergereicht? Wann und wo? :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Sehr geehrte Frau Hedwig in Washington,
Die Korrespondenz mit Hertzberger in niederländischer Sprache (inkl. Zustimmung für das weltweite Copyright bei Wikipedia) kann ich Ihnen direkt zustellen. Bitte geben Sie eine Email-Adresse für die Sendung. User:Leuk2
- Sorry, not my table. :-) Please refer to OTRS, you'll find all the information you need.
Copyright-Korrespondenz mit Permissions von Prof. Herman Hertzberger an "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" geschickt von allen 4 Diagoon-Zeichnungen (4 Files). Leuk2 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Jetzt heisst es abwarten. :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?)
- I am reading the Dutch messages in OTRS ticket 2013100210007142. The permission is Wikipedia-only. I will reply to the email. Jcb (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Prof. Herman Hertzberger hat das weltweite Copyright gegeben für alle Zeichnungen. Jedermann kann die Zeichnungen frei verwenden. Bitte lesen Sie die Korrespondenz korrekt. Leuk2, 20:00 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- For your information: Dutch is my native language. Jcb (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per JCB, the OTRS ticket allows use only in WP, which is not sufficient. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per new ticket 2014060310014479. --Krd 06:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)