Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Johnny Cash didn't die until 2003, undelete in 2074. russavia (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Välisminister Urmas Paet andis Eesti Kunstimuuseumile üle Eerik Haameri 1968. aastal valminud õlimaali „Kaardimängijad“ (30. mai 2012) (7300507276).jpg
[edit]Eerik Haamer died in 1994, undelete in 2065. russavia (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As part of cleanup russavia (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No possible use without location given. Furthermore absurd overhead. тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete According to w:VP:VPT#File Format Expert, a password-protected 7z archive is included in this file. As we don't know what the 7z archive contains, we shouldn't keep it. If someone hides a 7z archive in a JPG file, then the person is presumably not up to any good. It might be a virus, a copyright violation, child pornography or anything else. If the image is kept for any reason, then it should be reuploaded without the 7z archive and revision deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: spam bot upload McZusatz (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, see Commons:Project scope: no educational value, plate to a not shown "incredible jacket" Miss-Sophie (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Delete as per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:DW of screen ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this by mistake while trying to figure out how to upload an image to a separate wiki site. I don't know how to use wikipedia and am very confused but the image needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryabraham (talk • contribs) 2013-10-01T01:56:34 (UTC)
Deleted: accidental upload JuTa 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this by mistake while trying to figure out how to upload an image to a separate wiki site. I don't know how to use wikipedia and am very confused but the image needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryabraham (talk • contribs) 2013-10-01T01:55:03 (UTC)
Deleted: accidental upload. JuTa 07:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Double Category: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Polák (talk • contribs) 2013-10-01T07:59:22 (UTC)
Deleted: acciential creation. Next time use {{Speedy}} pls. JuTa 06:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Obsolete category, replaced with Category:Slides of rock paintings and petroglyphs of Fondazione Passarè — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiyi (talk • contribs) 2013-09-29T19:47:36 (UTC)
Deleted: allready deleted by User:Fastily. JuTa 07:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
failed upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorieo (talk • contribs) 2013-09-30T11:56:53 (UTC)
Kept: DR withrawn by nominator. The file is OK meanwhile. JuTa 07:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
no educational use --Austriantraveler (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: allready deleted by User:Hedwig in Washington. JuTa 07:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luca Aless as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: The author of the photo (Luca Aless) would like this photo to be deleted because it's crooked, it's quality is low and it's against light --Luca Aless (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- My two cents:
Keep until we have a better one. There are not too many photos of Livorno anyway. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) - Keep Per Hedwig in Washington. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Because it's a bad photoand it's against light Luca Aless (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Didym (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
As recognized by uploader, the images comes from a book scan. Although a coat of arms design is, in Spain, in the public domain, specific realizations aren't. See discussion (in Spanish) here
- File:Flag of Fuentelencina.png
- File:Escudo de Escariche.png
- File:Escudo de Yebes.png
- File:Escudo de Zarzuela de Jadraque.png
- File:Escudo de Valverde de los Arroyos.png
- File:Escudo de Valdefermoso.png
- File:Escudo de Valdeaveruelo.png
- File:Escudo de Valdeavellano.png
- File:Escudo de Rebollosa de Jadraque.png
- File:Escudo de Valdearenas (2).png
- File:Escudo de Valdearenas (1).png
- File:Escudo de Salmerón.png
- File:Escudo de Sacedón (1).png
- File:Escudo de Romanones.png
- File:Escudo de Robledillo de Mohernando.png
- File:Escudo de Riosalido.png
- File:Escudo de Renera.png
- File:Escudo de Quer.png
- File:Escudo de Mazuecos (1).png
- File:Escudo de Pareja.png
- File:Escudo de El Recuenco.png
- File:Escudo de Montarrón.png
- File:Escudo de Molina de Aragón (2).png
- File:Escudo de Molina de Aragón (1).png
- File:Escudo de Mohernando.png
- File:Escudo de Milmarcos.png
- File:Escudo de Membrillera.png
- File:Escudo de Maranchón.png
- File:Escudo de Málaga del Fresno.png
- File:Escudo de Lupiana.png
- File:Escudo de Luzaga.png
- File:Escudo de Illana.png
- File:Escudo de Humanes.png
- File:Escudo de Horche.png
- File:Escudo de Hontoba.png
- File:Escudo de Hijes.png
- File:Escudo de Hiendelaencina.png
- File:Escudo de Heras de Hayuso.png
- File:Escudo de Fontanar.png
- File:Escudo de Escopete (2).png
- File:Escudo de Escopete (1).png
- File:Escudo de Escamilla (2).png
- File:Escudo de Escamilla (1).png
- File:Escudo de Fuencemillan.png
- File:Escudo de Fuentelencina.png
- File:Escudo de El Casar.png
- File:Escudo de Cubillo de Uceda.png
- File:Escudo de Copernal.png
- File:Escudo de Congostrina.png
- File:Escudo de Chiloeches.png
- File:Escudo de Chillarón del Rey.png
- File:Escudo de Centenera.png
- File:Escudo de Castilforte.png
- File:Escudo de Casa de Uceda.png
- File:Escudo de Cañizar.png
- File:Escudo de Cabanillas del Campo.png
- File:Escudo de Pastrana.png
- File:Escudo de Brihuega.png
- File:Escudo de Azuqueca de Henares (1).png
- File:Escudo de Berniches.png
- File:Escudo de Baides.png
- File:Escudo de Atienza.png
- File:Escudo de Atanzón.png
- File:Escudo de Armallones.png
- File:Escudo de Argecilla.png
- File:Escudo de Archilla.png
- File:Escudo de Budia.png
- File:Escudo de Arbancón.png
- File:Escudo de Aranzueque.png
- File:Escudo de Angón.png
- File:Escudo de Alovera.png
- File:Escudo de Alocén.png
- File:Escudo de Almonacid de Zorita.png
- File:Escudo de Almoguera.png
- File:Escudo de Almadrones.png
- File:Escudo de Alhóndiga.png
- File:Escudo de Algora.png
- File:Escudo de Alcocer.png
- File:Escudo de Albares.png
- File:Escudo de Albalate de Zorita.png
- File:Escudo de Alarilla.png
- File:Escudo de Sigüenza-01.jpg
Stromare (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violations Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The artwork in the cigarette packs are obviously copyrighted. The nominated pictures cannot invoke De minimis
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 11.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 10.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 09.JPG
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 08.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 06.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 04.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 03.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 02.jpg
- File:Warning labels on packets of cigarettes in Spain 0b.jpg
Stromare (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Check first deletion debate, now closed.
Totemkin (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be of use with such poor quality. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be of use with such poor quality. --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be of use with such poor quality. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis image. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. Steinsplitter (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis media. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Incredibly low quality penis image. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless thumbnail. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't realise how low quality it was until uploaded. Babydoll0409 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the best quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality penis photo. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: personal unused photo -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a newer version of this chart, see File:SteuerpläneGrüneGrenzsteuersätze.png. No need for two identical charts. Weissbier (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, thanks for deletion req. -- Tim Moritz Hector (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:SteuerpläneGrüneGrenzsteuersätze.png -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant, almost similar to this picture. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and a bit blurred. Almost similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Similar image (less blurred) of the same thing is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (a bit clearer) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
seems not to be own work McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation (see google search) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and reduntant. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Almost similar image (with a bit better quality) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Too blurred and reduntant. A bit clearer night picture of this object is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Almost similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Almost similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
blurred, not useful. holiday shot Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Less blurred night image of this view is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Less blurred night image of this view is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Less blurred night image of this view is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
blurred, no description, not useful for encyclopaedic purpose, COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
blurred, no description, not protected (as mentioned) and COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Almost similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant and blurred. Almost similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost identical to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar and a bit clearer image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image with more light is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Corporate logo for a non-notable store GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment Image is in use on en:W. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. Jimmy's Sgt. Peppers General Store was CSD'd under A7 on April 16, 2010. Care to click through the link and see how right I am?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of image we have no proof of licence for. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is posted on Flickr. There it displays the wiki required creative commons license. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, I wasn't clear. I am not disputing that the photo has a suitable licence on flickr. What I am saying is that the sign the protestor is holding is a derivative work of a photo, and that photo is not sourced, and thus we have no way of knowing if that photo is free. I do not believe that the protestor's sign meets de minimis criteria - if the sign were removed, the photo would not be so useful - and thus the copyright of the sign becomes important. Unless we have proof the sign is free, we must apply the precautionary principle. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Without a location, we have no way of knowing if this violates FoP laws. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not free in the U.S. anyway, no matter where it was located (which in 2006 was in Berlin [1]). (Not freely reproducible in many fop countries either, as it was not permanent). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality. Superseded by dozens of better quality shots from similar angle at Category:Hawa Mahal (Jaipur) ELEKHHT 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It should be deleted, because there are similar images (with better quality) in that category. --Kulmalukko (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Not in scope. Extremeley poor quality, nearly identical with File:Akbar's Tomb 162.jpg. many better alternatives available on Commons. ELEKHHT 07:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar images. There is no sense to keep both of them. --Kulmalukko (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Elekhh. Poor quality picture. Please proceed to delete. Anupamg (Talk) 07:58, 3 October 2013 (IST)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality. Subject not visible. ELEKHHT 08:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Prof Joseph Heller zoologist-malacologist faculty of Science Hebrew University Jerusalem.JPG
[edit]This appears to be a head shop clipped from Prof. Heller's profile at the Israeli National Natural History Collections. Since the head shot was uploaded elsewhere first without evidence of a free license, we need the uploader to send a confirmation to COM:OTRS. But even if they did, the tiny size and lack of EXIF suggests that the uploader is not the photographer, as claimed. —RP88 08:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
failed upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorieo (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks OK to me . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"In my laptop" is not an acceptable source, meaning this is a likely copyvio. It appears here in 2011, previous to the upload date. russavia (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Appears on asian-defence.net in feb 2011 and apr 2011, both prior to the date of upload. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Appears on defenceforumindia.com in october 2010, before the upload date. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per The Fourth Plinth Commission (2005–). It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per The Fourth Plinth Commission (2005–). It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per The Fourth Plinth Commission (2005–). It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork not covered by fop in the UK Oxyman (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the uploader. This is not a permanently installed artwork per Sky Mirror. It seemed that this was a permaently installed artwork when i made the upload. Tm (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
per COM:SCOPE near identical with File:Iglesia de Dalcahue 003.JPG but slightly less centred. ELEKHHT 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar images, this can be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Provence inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Modern text document which could be replaced with wiki markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
the file is missing. if it can not be found, the page should be probably removed Atsirlin (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Looks OK to me . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
not realisticaly useful per COM:SCOPE. Subject mostlly obscured by tree, and better options available at Category:Iglesia de San Francisco, San Fernando ELEKHHT 15:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that this one is not the best image of this bell tower is not a reason to delete it. It can be still usable for educational purposes. If we allowed to delete images just because there is another better one of the same subject, we would end with just one image per category and Commons mission would be heavily undermined.
- Furthermore, you seem to think that the only foreseeable use of this image would be illustrating the church. This is a very poor foreseeing.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the policy states that images to be stored on Commons "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." Please note the word "realistically" in the previous quote. Your allegation that deleting images that are not in scope would harm the project cannot be serious.--ELEKHHT 01:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you checked all realistic educational purposes? Are you sure that nobody can use the image that cross and those trees for an educational purpose? I wouldn't be able to be sure about that.
- Furthermore, this is the only image of the cross and the cupola from this point of view. All images in category are shot from a nearer point (therefore lower angle), except for File:Iglesia de San Francisco, San Fernando (5).JPG that is shot from a different angle. In fact the image you proposed is the only image that clearly shows the details of the cross - please click on the image and zoom to 100% - because it's the only nearly frontal view of the cross at this size.
- I suggest looking to the images instead of just claiming that the people that disagree with you is not serious.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no offence intended. But when you say that "if we allowed to delete images just because there is another better one of the same subject, we would end with just one image per category", I simply find that statement unrealistic.
- The detail of the cross appears more clear in File:La hora de San Fernando..JPG. --ELEKHHT 15:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good finding. I wouldn't dare say which one is more valuable, but both images are complementary, since they show the cross from different points of view and under different lighting. For instance, File:La hora de San Fernando..JPG might be better to draw a frontal view plan but File:Iglesia de San Francisco, San Fernando (4).JPG is better to get the 3D features of the cross. If you wanted to know how is the cross, you would use both. Furthermore, background is quite different.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the policy states that images to be stored on Commons "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." Please note the word "realistically" in the previous quote. Your allegation that deleting images that are not in scope would harm the project cannot be serious.--ELEKHHT 01:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It costs little to keep an image and the contrast between the sky and the building is striking. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Wikipedia screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality GIF (especially thumbnail); replaced by File:Nicolaou's retrosynthesis of epothilone B (1997).png. Leyo 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Good gracious me, yes! Well done, User:Georginho! DMacks (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and similarly File:Epoth Retrosyth III.gif (unused) and File:Epoth Retrosyth II.gif (in use, so would need to be redrawn or removed). ChemNerd (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Published after 1923 so not PD-US, no proof that copyright was not renewed. Wizardman 15:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep — Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty was published in 1926 by Pillar of Fire Church with a copyright date of 1926. Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, to look for renewals you have to check the the copyright records for the original copyright date plus 27 years or 28 years (also 29 years since there are a few periods in the past where the Copyright Office was slow in processing renewals). I did a manual search of the renewal records in the copyright records for 1953, 1954, and 1955. There is no renewal record for Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty, it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}. —RP88 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No proof of when the logo was in use, so we can't just assume it's before 1923, ergo it's not necessarily PD-US Wizardman 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - The image is also {{Pd-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does it pass the threshold of originality for the US though? For the UK I'm sure it would but for the US I'm not so sure. Wizardman 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD TEXT . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No proof of when it was published. The source notes dates for other images and the text in the late 1920s and early 1930s, so we can't just assume that this is PD-US which it is likely not. Wizardman 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of when the image was published. While before 1923 is likely, Johnson fought in several matches after 1923, so this could be before one of them, making it not PD. Wizardman 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this is PD-US. Subject died in 1952 so we have a 30 year gap this could have been taken where it would not be PD. Wizardman 16:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This is item UW2807 in the Portraits Database from the University of Washington Libraries's Digital Collections. The catalog entry for the item indicates that it is ca. 1899. The photographer is unknown. The really important fact that we need to establish whether this image is PD or not is when it was first published. If this is an unpublished work then it isn't PD, since the term for unpublished anonymous works is 120 years from date of creation (i.e. we could undelete on January 1, 2020). If, however, we can locate an early publication of this photo, then it may indeed be PD. —RP88 17:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: without first publication information, we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
unused photo, out of scope, uploaded again after prior deletion. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bobby in the far east.JPG). Warfieldian (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- uploader pointed out that the photo is used on a page in Wikimedia project and is therefore not unused. I withdraw the nomination and support keeping it. Warfieldian (talk)
Deleted: Not in use. Personal image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
recent public artwork in South Africa. No freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
recent public 3d artwork in South Africa. no freedom of panorama there. Warfieldian (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a 3D object Stromare (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
landmark architectural photo in South Africa. No freedom of panorama. Warfieldian (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
museum architecture photo. no freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
museum architecture photo. no freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
recent public 3d artwork, no freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
recent public 3d artwork, no freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
recent public 3d artwork, no freedom of panorama in South Africa. Warfieldian (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork (Forth plinth series) not covered by fop in the uk Oxyman (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporary artwork (Forth plinth series) not covered by fop in the uk Oxyman (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that the fire station is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Built in 1928 by the comunity.[2] --Sporti (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Someone had to draw the plan, and he was not anonymous in that community. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
failed upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorieo (talk • contribs) 2013-09-30T21:24:28 (UTC)
Kept: Looks OK to me . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of scope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austriantraveler (talk • contribs) 2013-09-28T19:11:17 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE? Non-notable person. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:SCOPE Non-notable person. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
File is badly named incomplete early version of another file on commons. File:MV Princess Elizabeth general arrangement plan.png · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Misspelled file name. — Ineuw 18:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete -- please use {{Rename}} . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted emblem of extant political party, fair but not free use Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i dont own this photo, i fond it on froums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohhamd (talk • contribs)
- If this image was created in Yemen in 1937 as stated, the license {{PD-Yemen}} looks valid. Then Keep. --JuTa 08:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
it is in year 1972
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
fair use Lial25 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
A quick look at the copyright law of Samoa suggests that coins are protected for life+75 years. As this is less than 75 years old, the engraver can impossibly have been dead for at least 75 years. Stefan4 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you got a link to the copyright law? (Samoa isn't listed at Commons:Currency). StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a link at w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights. That page also links to the copyright laws of most other countries (although some links are dead). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality image of unknown person, most likely of personal interest only, but unused on Commons, as per all three uploads at Special:Contributions/Cami_Peona Ubcule (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Image of unknown person, assumed personal image, but not used anywhere, as per all three uploads at Special:Contributions/Cami_Peona Ubcule (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Image of unknown person, assumed personal image, but not used anywhere, as per all three uploads at Special:Contributions/Cami_Peona Ubcule (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparent selfie, personal image, not used, low quality. Ubcule (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Image of unknown person, assumed personal but unused anywhere Ubcule (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be derived from Indie Records promotional shoot, no indication of "own work" Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Very low resolution image that really doesn't appear to show much. Is this worth keeping? Ubcule (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Urbandweller as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Franz Šedivý (1864-1945), not 70 years PMA Stefan4 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is the source for the artist credit? The artist's name doesn't appear to be in the linked article. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The linked article is about the area Kongens Enghave in Copenhagen, not the artist. The artist is described in da:Franz Šedivý (tegner). Franz Šedivý drawn several panoramas of Copenhagen and judging by the style this is indeed a part of a larger panorama drawn by him. But then it is still protected until the end of 2015. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
i uploaded pdf instead of the intended jpg... Hirs666 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Because this was my old profile picture for my wikipedia page.I have uploaded a new one. Now I don't want this anymore on wikipedia or wikimedia. Shuja Marwat (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, now out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't open a Deletion Request for your own uploads. If you uploaded the worng image, simply upload teh correct verson. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: user request Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Le fichier n'est pas utilisable à des fins éducatives. Sont inclus dans cette catégorie par exemple : Les collections de photos privées - par exemple une photo de vous-même ou de vos amis. Il existe beaucoup d'autres sites sur Internet qui peuvent être utilisés pour héberger vos photos, par exemple Flickr. De telles collections de photos privées ne peuvent pas acquérir un caractère éducatif même si elles sont affichées dans une galerie sur votre page utilisateur Commons ou ailleurs. Thomas1313 (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by P199 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Recreation of content previously deleted, see here.
Not the same image, but a possible copyvio as this is small with no EXIF and own work is doubtful since the subject appears to be looking at somebody as they take the photo INeverCry 07:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as unused personal photo, out of scope. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, per nom. --Krd 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Stara wersja pliku blokuje mi dodanie następnego. Niechcący dodałem dwa różne zdjęcia o tych samych nazwach, więc jeden zaliczyło mi jako poprzednią wersję, teraz kiedy chcę dodać następne pojawia się błąd "Jest już inny plik o tej samej zawartości: . Błąd pojawia się nawet wtedy kiedy zmienię nazwę pliku. Napoleon7777777 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Source can't be verified. Doubtful CC-claim. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I found that this image has copyright Latashabg (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Found in several places online dating back to 2011, probable copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, possible copyvio here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Privat mein Eigentum Frenchy77772 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/719255 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/29/719255.jpg = last modified: 29.11.2007, see also file path = http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/314514/0/hermanos/detectives/fortunato/) as it was published on the same day via (example) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/11/29/television/1196372797.html = http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2007/11/29/1196372797_0.jpg (given credits to "Foto: Telecinco") or previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/paul-loustau/ (31.08.2007, © 2004 - 2013) = http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/1500/1563.jpg (credits: "Telecinco"). Obs.: On 29.11.2007 the related actor died. Gunnex (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/863466 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/03/863466.jpg = last modified: 03.09.2008, see also file path) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/hospital-central-nuevos-fichajes/ (22.04.2008, © 2004 - 2013) = (higher res, not blurry) http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/3700/3719.jpg, given credits to "David Vega". Gunnex (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/863466 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/03/863466.jpg = last modified: 03.09.2008, see also file path) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/hospital-central-nuevos-fichajes/ (22.04.2008, © 2004 - 2013) = (higher res, not blurry) http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/3700/3719.jpg, given credits to "David Vega". Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casablanc.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Near identical with File:Dada Harir Stepwell - Ahmedabad.JPG ELEKHHT 08:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE A.Savin 08:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
clear copyvio DGtal (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fastily Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/864434 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/05/864434.jpg = last modified: 05.09.2008, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") as it was previously published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/264497/0/Carlos/Moya/Cerezuela/ (25.07.2007) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/07/25/658788.jpg, given credits to " ©Korpa (Korpa)", which contradicts http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/ = "Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por 20 minutos procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a agencias de información (Reuters, EFE, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP...), (...)" (my underline/bold). See also same credit to "Korpa" via http://www.gazzetta.it/Sport_Vari/Tennis/Primo_Piano/2007/07_Luglio/25/moya_2507.shtml, published on the same day at 25.07.2007. Gunnex (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Stevie May.jpg Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Billinghurst Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Probable screencapture; likely non-free. NiciVampireHeart 08:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith only goes so far when the editor has a history of uploading non-free images and copyright violations. NiciVampireHeart 08:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. I didn’t (and probably should have) check the user’s upload history. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith only goes so far when the editor has a history of uploading non-free images and copyright violations. NiciVampireHeart 08:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: probably (c)vio, Com:PCP Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There is some copyrighted work on the building. ComputerHotline (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Dang no FOP in France Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Please delete the history of my user account Copyleft (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per request Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The first version of this image (before being cropped and straightened) was uploaded elsewhere without evidence of a free license before it was uploaded to Commons. The uploader needs to send a confirmation to COM:OTRS. But even if they did, the fact that it was uploaded elsewhere several weeks before the claimed date of the photo and the lack of EXIF suggests that the uploader is not the photographer, as claimed. —RP88 09:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: (c)vio. no need to bug OTRS with this. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/817868 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/05/26/817868.jpg = last modified: 26.05.2008, see also file path) as it was previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/carmen-machi-aida/ (30.11.2007, © 2004 - 2013, credits: "Teresa Peyri". Gunnex (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Gunnex High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Long-unused file, advertising service for creation chats. 83.149.48.79 14:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Senator2029 19:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/824197 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/06/824197.jpg = last modified: 06.06.2008, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") and previously published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/385452/0/serrano/nueva/temporada/ (05.06.2008) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/03/822445.jpg (last modified: 03.06.2008, here credited with "TELECINCO"). On same day published also via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/los-ultimos-fichajes/ = http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/4200/4286.jpg (credits: "Telecinco"). Gunnex (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Gunnex High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/875084 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/09/30/875084.jpg = last modified: 30.09.2008, see also file path) as it was previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/maria-teresa-campos-vuelve-a-telecinco/ (27.09.2007, © 2004-2013, credits given to "Carlos Serrano") or http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/09/27/television/1190905908.html (27.09.2007, credits: "Fotos: TELECINCO") Gunnex (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom High Contrast (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/957528 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/05/06/957528.jpg = last modified: 06.05.2009, see also file path) as it was previously published via (currently only cached versions available: got 504-error) vanitatis.com (= cache from http://www.vanitatis.com/cache/2008/10/14/imagenes_27_estrellas_francia.html, dated with 26.07.2009, but per file path most likely 14.10.2008) = image. Per file path http://www.vanitatis.com/fotos/enimagenes/2008101431foto2_g.jpg apparently uploaded there in 14.10.2008. The file is embedded in the source code of vanitatis.com and credited with "Efe" (see also source code: "firma-foto"). "Efe" indicates to en:EFE, a Spanish international news agency.
In 2011 (2 years later) the file appears again on 20minutos.es (http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/989958/0/twitter/miguel-angel-munoz/eduardo-casanova/ = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img2/recortes/2011/03/15/12751-615-267.jpg), this time credited with "AGENCIAS" = (news) agencies. Gunnex (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Gunnex High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether this is photoshopped or genuine, it's out of scope. Not in personal use anywhere. Ubcule (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: In scope, as it illustrates an example of the popularity of Pikachu as a cultural icon. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It might be within the scope, but: Copyright violation: higher resoluted versions of this image can be found on the internet: [3] and [4] for instance High Contrast (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
lo coloque donde no era Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
me equivoqué de lugar y la coloque en el monumento y codigo equivocado Karinacarrillo92 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Correct the file page, then, or rename the photo, if necessary, to match the uploaded image — don’t file in frivolous DRs. And especially do not file in
eigth (!)four DRs for the same image. It is useless, annoying, and makes you look slightly less than stellar. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Description / file name not updated. Deleted per uploader request Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/812915 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/05/16/812915.jpg = last modified: 16.05.2008, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") as it was previously published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/376163/0/risto/ot/insultos/ (07.05.2008) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/05/06/807526.jpg (last modified: 06.05.2008, here credited with "ARCHIVO") and posterior published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/394827/0/ot/risto/ingles/ (02.07.2008) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/05/06/807526.jpg (last modified: 06.05.2008, here credited also with "ARCHIVO"). Per COM:PRP, considering mass deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" + Commons talk:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO" = (summary) "It was proven numerous times that "ARCHIVO" pictures from 20minutos.es are NOT created by 20minutos.es. See previous DRs." Gunnex (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Gunnex High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/825230 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/09/825230.jpg = last modified: 09.06.2008, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES") and previously published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/386711/0/bea/guapa/telecinco/ (08.06.2008) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2008/06/07/824638.jpg (last modified: 07.06.2008, here credited with "TELECINCO"). On same day published also via (example) http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/genteytelevision/2008/06/07/00031212829044450712841.htm (07.06.2008, credited with " telecinco.es", see gallery on the right, click on "siguiente") = http://media.lavozdegalicia.es/default/2008/06/07/00121212829764484109974/Foto/bea2.jpg. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yo Soy Bea.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per Gunnex High Contrast (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Hobbit
[edit]No FOP in Australia for temporary installations.
russavia (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Hobbit
[edit]The two first editions are copyrighted as the copyright was restored following the URAA. While the pages might not be complex, the user's images of the title pages does not supersede the copyright of the books. Undelete in either 2033 or 2034 depending on how we classify by UK or US publication.
And I don't think the 1982 video game is public domain. Don't know much about it, but doubt the game is the work of that uploader. Of which they have had materials deleted in the past.
- File:HMCoFirstEdSecondPrintTitle.jpg
- File:The Hobbit (1982).png
- File:The Hobbit - title page of first American print.jpg
SDudley (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- If there is nothing copyrightable copied, then there is no problem even if the text of the books is still under copyright. The parts I would be a bit concerned with would be the illustrations partly visible on the left -- would be better to crop those out or blur them a bit. The second part would be the small drawings on the title page itself. The one from the second edition looks familiar -- if other books from before 1929 had the same drawing, or one close enough such that changes weren't copyrightable (such as this one), it may be fine. The one from the first edition I don't recognize offhand, but again if it was used in pre-1929 books it would also be OK, but we may need to find it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here are similar logos for the 2nd edition from Commons. 1909 and 1921
- I also found this 1928 mark for the publisher. This isn't the best version of it, but it is a wholly different design. So it seems the one present in the 1938 printings was at least based on older versions as shared above.
- Thanks for the notes on the title page. I always appreciate getting to learn more from you. And I agree that the illustrations likely need to be removed until 2044 since that is 70 years after the death of Tolkein. SDudley (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The title page has nothing copyrightable. The Houghton Mifflin logo is out of copyright. You can trim out the de minimus image on the left. --RAN (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: I've revdelled the versions of the title page with illustrations and have marked the deleted versions for undeletion in 2044. The 1982 video game file was already deleted, and that probably won't be restored until at least 2078. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused tables which could be replaced with wiki markup.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused tables which could be replaced with wiki markup. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Stadio national Pekin.jpg
- File:Básquet masculino.jpg
- File:Stadio national Pekin noche.jpg
- File:Beijing Mascota Hockey.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No free license at www.emac.pk (to the contrary: Copyright © 2013 EMAC. All Rights Reserved.). Would need OTRS to confirm uploader (EMAC) is an agent authorized to license the photos. May also be a COM:SCOPE issue (e.g. non-notable person: File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 060.jpg). We are not a personal webhost.
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 088.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 086.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 087.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 085.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 083.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 082.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 084.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 080.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 081.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 079.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 078.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 077.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 076.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 075.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 073.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 074.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 072.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 071.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 070.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 067.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 069.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 068.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 066.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 064.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 065.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 063.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 061.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 062.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 060.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 058.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 059.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 056.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 057.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 055.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 054.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 052.jpg
- File:EMAC Paragliding in Karachi 051.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maurya1951 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Nice sharp photos of the floor marred by a penis in the way.
-mattbuck (Talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Discuss about 'user nominate objects' is worthless, an arguments or appeal does not accept by administrator anyhow. Administrator always do as their own desired. To invite user for discussion is little formality for authorities. No value of user after all. 'master is always true'. Thank you! Yours sincerely--Maurya1951 (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not the highest quality here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete + COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It should have to compare with all of
"erect penis" category.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_penis
many hundreds of poor quality images lying in wiki collection unattended by the administration. Listed here :
File:Penile Subincision.jpg File:Human Retracted Foreskin.jpeg File:Human penis maxii.jpg File:Circumcised penis frontal view.JPG
File:Penis3.JPG File:Penis4.JPG File:Penis5.JPG File:Penis6.JPG File:Fully erect penis.JPG File:Phase 2 erection.jpg File:Pollaasdaasda.JPG File:PollaSemiEreccion.JPG File:Semi-erect male penis.JPG File:Tumblr mo2ex105Ll1sqqn31o1 1280.jpg
File:Young male penis2.jpg File:Young male penis4.jpg File:Young male penis5.jpg
File:仮性包茎勃起時反転.JPG File:通常時仮性包茎.JPG File:Erect Completely Shaved Penis-Wet.jpg File:Circumcised penis frontal view.JPG File:Fully erect penis.JPG File:Semi-erect male penis.JPG File:Foreskin of Circumcised Penis.jpeg
File:Human penis.jpg File:Penis with cockring.jpg File:Laaghangende zaadballen.jpg File:Limp penis.JPG File:Penis; leicht erigiert; da enge Vorhaut auch leicht zurückgeschoben 2013-08-06 09-16.jpg File:Penis; leicht erigiert; da enge Vorhaut leicht zurückgeschoben 2013-08-06 09-18.jpg File:图片1.jpg File:图片2.jpg File:Pubic hair unshaved.JPG File:Close up penis.JPG File:Semi-erect human circumcised penis.jpg File:Semi erect penis.JPG File:Penile erection.JPG
Look above image of penis, nothing any newly or no use for wiki.
There is LONG LIST yet.
Kindly to attend to clean all that poor quality images.
--Maurya1951 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggest more : File:A male cock.jpg File:Human Penis.jpeg File:Male nude study cb0-0 720 960-2.jpg File:Nude young man1.jpg File:Observacion Externa..jpg File:Observacion Externa.jpg File:Penis lipstick.jpg File:Penis3.JPG File:Penis4.JPG File:Penis5.JPG File:Penis7 uplByMs65876.jpg File:Pricasso-5.jpg File:SAM 0225.jpg File:Cropped Penis des Menschen.jpg File:Erect penis (human male, white, uncircumcised, 7in) 1.JPG File:Erected penis.jpg File:Errigierter Penis mit zurückgezogener Vorhaut.JPG File:HQ SAM F.jpg File:HQ SAM F2.jpg File:Hugh's Shaved Penis.jpg File:Human Flaccid Penis.jpg File:Human male reproductional organ.JPG File:Human penis flaccid.jpg File:4.75 inch erection.jpg File:BPXD free erect.JPG File:BPXD Over Stretched.JPG File:Circumcised erect penis.jpg File:Erección.jpg File:Erect Circumcised Penis Viewed From Above.jpeg File:Erect full view0002.JPG File:Erect grower penis.jpg File:Erect penis of Mmacbeth.jpg File:Erect penis.jpg Commons is not an amateur porn site File:Ereksiyon 2013-08-20 13-41.jpg File:Errigierter Penis mit zurückgezogener Vorhaut.JPG File:Freundin Erektion.jpg File:Fully erect penis.JPG File:Hard uncut penis top view.jpg File:Hard uncut penis side view.jpg File:Human penis anatomy.jpg File:Young male penis2.jpg File:Male erection.jpg File:My penis1.jpg File:Normaler penis.jpg File:Член с максимальной эрекцией..JPG File:仮性包茎勃起時反転.JPG File:图片1.jpg File:通常時仮性包茎反転.JPG File:阴茎头全貌.jpg File:Normal erect penis 3.JPG File:Normal erect penis 2.JPG
All the above listed is few from uploaded in 2012-2013. Many are lying since 2010-2011-2012. Older than 2010 is not counted. Almost 460 Nos. erect human penis- erect penis- and other sub categorized images are useless for wiki out of 660 (calculated on 11th October 2013). There is LONG LIST yet. Kindly to attend to clean all that poor quality images. Which is totally useless for wiki media commons. By the way -non educational usage for wiki. --Maurya1951 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per mattbuck High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maurya1951 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:00.A fully erect8.png
- File:00.A fully erect9.png
- File:00.A fully erect7.png
- File:00.A fully erect6.jpg
- File:00.A fully erect4.png
- File:00.A fully erect5.png
- File:00.A fully erect1.png
- File:00.A fully erect3.png
- File:00.A fully erect2.png
- File:Erect penis25.png
- File:Erect penis26.png
- File:Erect penis22.png
- File:Erect penis23.png
- File:Erect penis24.png
- File:Erect penis21.png
- File:Erect penis20.png
- File:Erect Penis16.png
- File:Erect Penis15.png
- File:Erect Penis11.png
- File:Erect Penis14.png
- File:Erect Penis10.png
- File:Erect Penis9.png
- File:Erect Penis7.png
- File:Erect Penis8.png
- File:Erect Penis6.png
- File:Erect penis5.png
Blurred Lines 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I accept these are not likely to get rated as quality images, and we could probably stand to lose some of these, but given how caucasian the average commons penis is, these are more valuable than others. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not understand COM:PORN. Wikimedia commons accepted previously uploaded files from this users of this categories. Please do not justify all for the deletion uploaded by Maurya1951. You are angry mood & hunger to delete that all older than three months, this is not fair reason as you believe as COM:PORN. Please kind to attend user value. User already knowing that Wikimedia is not as porn website. User uploaded erect penis images are useful for those who want to know more about human body function in various way. Wikimedia have many images of human penis, If those are useful than these all are also for the same purpose. Please calm down. Please do not make decision in hurry & worry. --Maurya1951 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. mattbuck, You have try to justify. I highly value & appreciate you to understand user meaning. Sometime user contribution may be in fault but not always. You have judged properly. Yours sincerely --Maurya1951 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I honestly think that the user "mattbuck" is supporting this because it cares more about the quality of the images, and didn't even care to read or mind COM:PORN. --Blurred Lines 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I DR new penis pictures that I think are bad quality, if I didn't DR these it means I thought they weren't that bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- That said, I now notice many of these were DRed before I checked them, so there may be some which are low quality, however I don't think all of them should be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I DR new penis pictures that I think are bad quality, if I didn't DR these it means I thought they weren't that bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that only part of them may be deleted only if there are similar images. For example a bit blurred image File:Erect penis20.png may be deleted, and keep the better quality image of the same penis from the same view angle File:Erect penis21.png. --Kulmalukko (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The vast influx of sole porn images (COM:PORN) is obvious. Do the images provide any NEW crucial information we donna already have? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- We don't require images to impart new information. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. If you want to, try to fill a real gap in our collection.. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- We don't require images to impart new information. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for Mattbuck. JKadavoor Jee 02:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Mattbuck is on right way.
nothing reason to delete.
wikimedia collections have many penis images, also may have different kind more. We do not means that these all are as like sole porn images(COM:PORN).
porn images means that from porn star.
I think and marked that these photos have taken from common male person from our common society, not from porn star. its not commercial or professional. or not from porn web site.
Also You may have marked that is not from porn star.
I think nothing fair reason to delete.
The objects are depends on administration, as vision and decision.
Please Keep it all.--Limbani (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Sock puppet: It is not about porn star images, but about porn images. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Yikrazuul, Salutation to you for your better wisdom and your great contribution to the Wikimedia. I think worthless or useless arguments against wise man. As per mine sense and limitation to the Wikimedia I don't make word war. The objects are depends on administration either keep or not. [Personal information has been redacted as a precaution Fæ (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)] --Limbani (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- That message you putted in was just a personal attack by insulting my age, and by the way, you have been reported for COM:SOCK. Blurred Lines 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have taken the precaution of redacting some personal information above which does not appear to have been published on Wikimedia Commons, even if on other projects. I suggest an admin reviews this DR to assess if this information should be restored or revdel-ed. Blurred Lines, you may wish to avoid being drawn into discussing personal information any further. --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Blurred Lines, I apologizing. I am really sorry if I have insulting you personally. I don't have mean to state and attack your personally insult. I state generally about teenagers who are always aggressive mood. Please don't misunderstand also that maurya1951 and my self is same ID, or I sockpuppet of Maurya1951. Also please don't understand me as identified to be controlled by the user maurya1951. I am sorry again if I hurt your self insulting by me. --Limbani (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment
Wikimedia have various topics about human life. Sexuality in human is the one part of human nature.
All these images are in classified category of 'erect human penis'. 'Erect penis' always in passion position, just it looks hunger of sex (we are used to means it as 'PORN').
All above disputes are between different thinking for the said images.
Wiki have many images in this category but have to such kind more of erect penis. Regret to say that if deletion is sure, Wikimedia will lost the images of better and healthy penis.
--117.208.56.56 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 07:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedessam010407 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I have already deleted File:Mexico355.jpg for being a rip-off of this photo. I am inclined to simply nuke the rest of the images as well, but the uploader can explain themselves here I think.
- File:شواطئ المكسيك.jpg
- File:حضارة الأزتيك.jpg
- File:قرطبة ومسجدها.jpg
- File:مسجد الساير القبلي.jpg
- File:Plitics888.jpg
- File:عمر المختار.jpg
- File:Khalaba333.jpg
- File:Mexico155.jpg
- File:Landscape77.jpg
- File:Protests in damietta.jpg
- File:Landscape4.jpg
- File:Zarka5.jpg
- File:Zarka4.jpg
- File:Zarka1.jpg
- File:Zarka3.jpg
- File:Zarka2.jpg
- File:غلاف كتاب مسرحية هاملت.jpg
- File:Wael Kfouri.3.jpg
- File:Soliman al Issa poet.jpg
- File:Clara Petacci.jpg
- File:مظاهرات دمياط يوم 30 يونيو.jpg
- File:جرافيتى ألتراس أهلاوي.jpg
russavia (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
All files are claimed as own work, with some files being found on other websites before the upload date, etc. COM:PRP needs to apply to all of these images.
- File:Mumbai monorail trial run.PNG
- File:Swadesh Chatterjee.jpg
- File:HAL ALH-WSI.PNG
- File:P A Sangma.jpg
- File:IRNSS COVERAGE.png
- File:IRNSS Architecture.PNG
- File:GAGAN COVERAGE FROM 82 Deg.E.PNG
- File:Agni Missile Range comparison.png
- File:Agni Missiles Range comparison.jpg
- File:6,000 km Range from India.JPG
- File:Purported Range of AGNI VI missile.JPG
- File:Nibhay Cruise Missile.png
- File:K-X Missile Series.jpg
- File:UCAV-AURA.png
- File:French Navy Mistral.jpg
- File:An AMPHIBIOUS SHIP.JPG
russavia (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to File:Joachim Cuntz.jpg, I say Keep. Unlike the claim of the nominator, this file is not claimed as the work of the uploader. The source is the Oberwolfach Photo Collection, and their copyright policy says "The Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach gGmbH (MFO) owns the copyright to most of the images used on this website. Those images labelled with "Copyright: MFO" can be used on the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany." The source for File:Joachim Cuntz.jpg, does, in fact say "Copyright: MFO", so it is correctly sourced and licensed. —RP88 13:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- On that basis I have kept this file and removed it from this nomination. Thanks for your info. russavia (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:French Navy Mistral.jpg is from this fr gov site with the original photo here. So that's most probably a copyvio.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to File:Mumbai monorail trial run.PNG, I say Delete. After careful examination, it appears to be a cropped screen shot from a youtube video titled "Mumbai Mono Rail's Test Run" (at about 41 seconds into the video). The video was uploaded months before File:Mumbai monorail trial run.PNG was upload to Commons. —RP88 14:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to File:Swadesh Chatterjee.jpg, I say Delete. A bit-for-bit identical version of this image was hosted by CalcuttaWeb without a free license as far back as 2003, years before it was uploaded to Commons. —RP88 14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:HAL ALH-WSI.PNG is from this page dated 04-09-11, much before the upload date of July 2012.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ThakurShivaJadaun (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is not private photo album. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by هشام عبد القادر بدر (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons is not private photo album. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons required licensing terms and Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses:Comons acceptable licenses, for a media to be allowed on Commons, it must "specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose" (including "free reuse for any purpose" and "creation of derivative works"), hence "simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient". The source file doesn't exist any more, but current license is actually a "the material may be used freely by anyone". It may have been written differently back then (I doubt though), but per COM:EVIDENCE I'll leave it for the uploader to prove that information. BTW I think that in 2006 the photos were all non-commercially licensed. heb [T C E] 09:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:The Elizabeth Cross MOD 45152211.jpg Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like advertising which is out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/688913 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/10/09/688913.jpg = last modified: 09.10.2007, see also file path) and later published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1298248/0/cameos/christian-galvez-futbolista-joaquin/aida/ (2012) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img2/recortes/2012/02/04/47230-917-550.jpg (credited with "ARCHIVO") as it was previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/christian-galvez/ (13.07.2007, © 2004 - 2013, credits: "Telecinco"). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO". Gunnex (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Es gibt dieses Bild bereits unter dem Namen GMCamillo5.JPG (Datei) in einer besseren Qualität und der Namen dient zur besseren Unterscheidung Hamilkar1893 (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/945342 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/03/26/945342.jpg = last modified: 26.03.2009, see also file path) and later published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1172291/0/consejo-rtve/poderes/limitados/ (2011) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img2/recortes/2011/03/14/12619-404-550.jpg (credited with "ARCHIVO") as it was previously published via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/torrespana/ (29.08.2008, © 2004 - 2013, credits: "RTVE"). On 29.08.2009 RTVE announced a new corporate strategy. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO". Gunnex (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
penis selfie Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
There seems no reason to presume that a photo with permission given as the Polish Ministry of National Defense copyright may be used freely. No source link has been given to verify the release. Fæ (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Прошу удалить, по желанию загрузившего этот файл. УмныйПёс (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/921707 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/01/23/921707.jpg = last modified: 23.01.2009, see also file path, original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/445243/0/audiencia/gran/hermano/) as it was published on the same day via http://www.formulatv.com/fotos/ivan-madrazo-gran-hermano/ (23.01.2009) = http://www.formulatv.com/images/fgaleria/6800/6875.jpg, given credits to "Carlos Serrano". This is most likely an agency photo published by Telecinco which produced/broadcasted the show ca:Gran Hermano (Espanya), a Spanish version of Big Brother (and Iván Madrazo was the winner of 10th edition which ended on 22.01.2009). Gunnex (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:U5h2M4O0J1w.jpg Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Possible privacy violation. See also en:User:Kingbobbeth05 (should probably also be deleted). Trijnsteltalk 13:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/713113 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/11/20/713113.jpg = last modified: 20.11.2007, see also file path) and previously published via http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/244118/0/personalidades/valoradas/2007/ (06.06.2007) = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2007/06/06/604559.jpg (credited with "ARCHIVO") as it was published before 06.2007 via (example) http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-06-04-2003/abc/Comunicacion/matias-prats-presentador-de-los-servicios-informativos-de-antena-3-la-guerra-me-deja-tocado_172674.html (2003, Copyright © DIARIO ABC, S.L., image slow loading) = http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/imagenes/abc//06042003/comunicacion/web_34.jpg (last modified: 2003, not the full frame). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures from 20minutos.es with byline "ARCHIVO". Gunnex (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient source information to verify whether the {{PD-old-100}} claim is correct. The linked website doesn't tell where the image comes from, so there is no way to verify the claim that the photographer died before 1913. The website also doesn't tell whether the website got the photo from a newspaper or a book where the photographer was named (meaning that we need to make sure that the photographer has been dead for at least 80 years) or whether the photographer never disclosed his identity. Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Missing legal info. See watermark Fixertool (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ik ga een betere versie in de plaats zetten Jaguaragd (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
copied from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=533973443341458&set=a.139329272805879.30116.139329159472557&type=1&theater Vigyani (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Ik ga een beter bestand in de plaats zetten voor een artikel over Jean droit Jaguaragd (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
There is zero evidence that this photo has been made available by the family of the person pictured under a free licence. The Flickr stream has other similar photos of other individuals as well. russavia (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence this architecture would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
So if the author is unknown we cannot assume that the file is in the PD, as Commons is based on proofs and not assumptions. Moreover, if the soviet army (pretty vague term anyways) is supposingly an author, why Ukraine-PD then? Masur (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/532347 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2006/11/20/532347.jpg = last modified: 20.11.2006, see also file path, no credits given: normally "Foto: 20minutos.es", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/174180/0/adosados/villanueva/resano, also no credits given) as it was previously published via (example) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/11/17/comunicacion/1163774642.html (17.11.2006, updated 20.11.2006, credits: "Foto: La Sexta", a nationwide broadcast television station in Spain) = http://estaticos02.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2006/11/17/1163774642_0.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Question What about COM:FOP#Ukraine? How old is this? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Question What about COM:FOP#Ukraine? How old is this? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence this bridge would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It couldn't be more plain. --Sporti (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are protected in Slovenia, and there is no evidence of any threshold of originality. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- All the legislation work on the principle of commons sense, which you just don't understand. So someone will just have tons of work reviewing your DRs and undeleting all these fee files ones, I don't have time for this. --Sporti (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The court decisions may differ from what you think is "common sense", and without the evidence in the sense of court cases, we can't just keep images based on our own interpretation of the law. Actually, this bridge is not at all so plain: you may compare it e.g. to File:11-MostObSotocjuLjubljanic1.JPG. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No copyrightable architecture visible (AKA special design element which would make the bridge more unique) Denniss (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted architecture; no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep no copyrightable architecture seen on the photo. --Sporti (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should look better. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No rationale why this interior architecture would be dm. If here is anything dm, it is the mountains in the background. Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Funny, when buildings are in the background, they are not DM. I (still) don't think glass and tables are copyrightable. --Sporti (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- The glass and the tables form an architectural design. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and Louvre is about to buy it. --Sporti (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, quality is not important in determining whether the work is copyrightable or not. But I do question the assumption that tables are part of the design, leaving the question of what exactly is copyrightable here. — Yerpo Eh? 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- First, we do not know whether the tables are part of the design or not. Second, the wall itself is a creative work: creative choices were made in designing it. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No copyrightable arcitecture visible in this image. And please refrain from opening this DR again just because you don't get what you want. --Denniss (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Not in scope as not realistically eductaional composition: randomly obscured and cropped subject. Have better versions at Category:Church of San Vicente Mártir in Vitoria-Gasteiz. ELEKHHT 13:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe there are better versions of this bell tower, but there are too worse versions. What is the point here? The tree leaves in foreground? --Enfo (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that the image does not add to the educational value of the image collection on Commons, per COM:SCOPE. That means that is unrealistic to expect to have any use on Wikimedia projects, and is likely to hinder the search for useful images. Images with artistic or personal value are not in scope here but are welcome on flickr, panoramio and other sites. --ELEKHHT 13:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see why the inclination of the object diminishes its educational value, because all the architectural and ornamental details of the bell tower are shown very clearly... Maybe it's not the image that you would use in the main article of this church, but why not in a picture gallery? --Enfo (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The inclination is very distracting, and that's why (considering the policy of neutral point of view and due weight) I would not use it in Wikipedia. But besides that, the view is also randomly obstructed by the leaves. For a detailed presentation of the tower I would rather use File:Vitoria - San Vicente 26.JPG or a cropped+rotated+cleaned version of File:0004 S. Vicente i S. Miguel entre banderoles.JPG. --ELEKHHT 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know that this is more an artistic point of view of the tower than a merely descriptive one, but I don't see the reason to delete it and don't keep it. I will be away until Friday 11th, and then it's difficult to continue the discussion because I won't be online. --Enfo (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The inclination is very distracting, and that's why (considering the policy of neutral point of view and due weight) I would not use it in Wikipedia. But besides that, the view is also randomly obstructed by the leaves. For a detailed presentation of the tower I would rather use File:Vitoria - San Vicente 26.JPG or a cropped+rotated+cleaned version of File:0004 S. Vicente i S. Miguel entre banderoles.JPG. --ELEKHHT 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see why the inclination of the object diminishes its educational value, because all the architectural and ornamental details of the bell tower are shown very clearly... Maybe it's not the image that you would use in the main article of this church, but why not in a picture gallery? --Enfo (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that the image does not add to the educational value of the image collection on Commons, per COM:SCOPE. That means that is unrealistic to expect to have any use on Wikimedia projects, and is likely to hinder the search for useful images. Images with artistic or personal value are not in scope here but are welcome on flickr, panoramio and other sites. --ELEKHHT 13:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that this one is not the best image of this bell tower is not a reason to delete it. It can be still usable for educational purposes. If we allowed to delete images just because there is another better one of the same subject, we would end with just one image per category and Commons mission would be heavily undermined.
- Furthermore, Commons'scope includes any realistic educational use. You seem to take in account only usage in a Wikipedia article about the church, but please notice that this one is just ONE realistic educational use, not ANY realistic educational use.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons that proposed by Pere --Kippelboy (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not enough reason to delete a good image. There are several millions of worse pictures in Commons. Don't waste time with this one.--amador (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons that proposed by Pere.-- Bertrand GRONDIN
→ (Talk) 18:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC) - Keep Same reasons that proposed by Pere. --Judesba (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This image can be rotated and cropped to a good resolution and good lighting. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Private gründe bitte respektiert das Frenchy77772 (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Private Gründe bitte respektiert das Frenchy77772 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sag mal, hast du sie noch alle, Respekt zu verlangen und gleichzeitig eine URV[5] hochzuladen.
- Ansonsten gilt dasselbe wie hier: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apadravya 1.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Private Gründe bitte respektiert das Frenchy77772 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Privat mein Eigentum Frenchy77772 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
del request by uploader --D-Kuru (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that we need evidence that the Flickr account (now deleted) indeed did belong to the magazine. Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will send a OTRS email for then, and ask a "evidence", but, for the next time, do not send things to deletion, talk with me, because I can solve this issues. Alias, I do not need to do this because, if I remember, I'm one of the volunteers that checks if volunteers correctly had inserted content from Flickr, then should you at least trust. But I will. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission received Denniss (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Imagen de mala calidad. Hay otras similares en Commons de mejor calidad visual y técnica. Raimundo Pastor (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I don't think so. There's no any other Tango icon for pills. Besides this, you can upload a higher resolution. --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Otras imágenes similares de mayor calidad: File:Pill.svg y File:Pill Symbol.png Un cordial saludo: --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- They have a different shadow. It's not the Unicode character "pill" 💊, where only the code is supposed to matter. --AVRS (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although the picture as it is is probably not very useful, it may be an inspiration for derivatives of those better ones. --AVRS (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could someone recreate this in SVG? --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I see no reason to delete it, other have different shape or colors Denniss (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that the fountain would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 19:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a generic "fountain" with drinking water. --Sporti (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe a "generic fountain" exists. Works of architecture are protected in Slovenia, and there is no evidence of any threshold of originality. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: FoP argument stretched too far Denniss (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
per COM:SCOPE does not add to the Commons collection as near-identical with File:Fatehpur Sikri 09.JPG but less good framing and dust spots. Massive image manipulation significantly reduced educational content for both versions. ELEKHHT 13:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Slightly different framing and point of view, that might make those different images fit better different educational uses.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of how the dust spot and the ca.0.1% rotation add educational value? Have you read COM:SCOPE yet? --ELEKHHT 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Those pictures are too similar. --Kulmalukko (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Pere prlpz. This and many other images can be used for educational uses. Kulmalukko, kindly refrain your self by saying Redundant, and nominating for mass deletion. I agree on the part, if images are blurred / not good quality, such to be deleted.--Anupamg (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2013 (IST)
Deleted, they are too similar. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not in scope as does not add (bad lighting and crop) to the collection of images about this building on Commons. ELEKHHT 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not a bad image - and in fact different from all other images in the category. Useful on an image repository like Commons - e.g. usable potentially useful for reusers in educational purposes.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but your statements such as "in fact different from all other images in the category" and "usable potentially useful for reusers" cannot be serious. --ELEKHHT 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe my grammar sucks, but I'm serious.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind grammar. You're saying that this image is "different from all other images in the category". Now look at the gallery below. Do all seven images have distinct educational use? -ELEKHHT 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe my grammar sucks, but I'm serious.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but your statements such as "in fact different from all other images in the category" and "usable potentially useful for reusers" cannot be serious. --ELEKHHT 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-
a. Bottom cropped, overexposure, side obscured -
b. Bottom cropped, overexposure
-
c. Bottom cropped, overexposure -
d. Bottom cropped, overexposure -
e. Bottom cropped, overexposure -
f. Bottom cropped, overexposure
-
g. Full building - without overexposure
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(7300507276).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(7300507276).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(7300507276).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://treinadorbancada.com/wp-content/uploads/cute_pikachu_cat_wallpaper.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- For the first one, it shows a different side of the building. This is the most clear instance of an image that can't be substituted by another one.
- Other images have a similar point of view, but in addition to aesthetic differences, some emphasize the old building and others clearly show the new building beyond. For example, in the proposed picture, the new building is not distracting, while in picture you tagged as "Full building - without overexposure" the new building appear to intrude in the space of the old one. Different images can fit better different usages, and it's up to reusers to decide which one they want.
- Btw. if you want to help users to chose the best image for every building, you could nominate it as valued image for the building instead of nominating the other images for deletion.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been doing both kind of stuff (check out my activity on Commons), but the problem is that both processes are flawed. Further to that, generally speaking it is 100x easier to upload a shit picture than to delete a shit picture, so Commons is headed to become a giant trash-bin celebrated each time when it grows by another million whatever files, rather than a nice collection of educational media. The future for many will be to upload images to Wikipedia directly, and add a "do not transfer to Commons" tag. --ELEKHHT 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that we should make easier for users to find the best images about a given subject. For example, Flickr or even Google images often outperfom Commons search engine, and we could learn from them to improve Commons. Maybe the new categories that have been announced will help.
- Anyway, having a lot of pictures of each subject is often useful, too - we can learn this from Flickr and Google Images, too. For example, to understand an specially obscure statement in a book of Barcelona cathedral, I was lucky to find a few views that showed a certain part of interior. Those were a lot more images than the strictly necessary to illustrate the article on its current state of that time, but they were useful for an educative purpose (educate me and let me improve the article).
- Therefore, I agree that Commons needs improving, but deleting images just because you don't find them useful isn't a way to improve it - and it's against commons:scope.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been doing both kind of stuff (check out my activity on Commons), but the problem is that both processes are flawed. Further to that, generally speaking it is 100x easier to upload a shit picture than to delete a shit picture, so Commons is headed to become a giant trash-bin celebrated each time when it grows by another million whatever files, rather than a nice collection of educational media. The future for many will be to upload images to Wikipedia directly, and add a "do not transfer to Commons" tag. --ELEKHHT 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It can be deleted, because similar pictures exist. (For example this is with almost same view, but better quality.) --Kulmalukko (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please notice that the claimed same view image is taken from a different point of view several meters apart, and that the portion of right side façade of old and new building shown in the image is very different.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment All these pictures have been taking during a Wiki Takes picture marathon. I'd rather keep them (because of the position of the building it will be difficult to obtain a non-flawed picture, or one without important shadows). The only thing I'd ask you is to wait until the marathon jury has made a decision about which pictures are the best and the marathon prizes have been given. Thanks. ESM (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, per Kulmalukko. Argument "It is difficult to take a photo about this building" is not good, because there is better alternatives in Commons. Also, quality is very bad. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
per COM:SCOPE does not add to the educational value of the collection at Category:Bara Imambara as extremely poor quality (low resolution, random crop and rotation, weak lighting, etc) ELEKHHT 14:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that quality is poor, but I can't find any equivalent image in the category. As far as I can see, this is the only one image from this point of view with visitors. Furthermore the global feeling about this monument is very different from the other images in the category: here it's no so beatifull, gardens aren't so tidy and visitors don't seem to behave so politely. I don't know which one is the real Gate of Imam Bara, but this one adds and interesting point of view to the collection.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you really looked to the images in the category? There are at least five better images of the gate with visitors. --ELEKHHT 01:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please point which images are taken from this point of view, with so many visitors, with visitors clearly visible, with visitors walking in the grass, and with visitors dressed in such a non-european way. The place I can see in this image is more crowded and disordered than in any other image of the category.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have you really looked to the images in the category? There are at least five better images of the gate with visitors. --ELEKHHT 01:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality. --Danrok (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, The quality is bad. There is 126 photos in Category:Bara Imambara, including some with many visitors in grass (File:The Imambara.JPG and File:Barra Imambara, from footsteps of hazaar duari.jpg). Taivo (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
