Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/ফুরফুরা_শরীফ_(Furfura_sharif).pdf Masud 1 (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: useless file Denniss (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The particular files listed here for deletion discussion do not add anything educationally distinct to the collection of penis pictures already hosted by Commons. As such, they are not realistically useful for an educational purpose, and are out of scope. Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. odder (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this years ago and I want to delete that photo to update it and second reason most important I want to delete the description that is a biography and I want to get it out quickly as possible. I appreciate the full deletion of this photo and specially the description this photo has. Thanks. Warner Music And Video 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete this description fully cause it's not valid. Second the description is not valid cause it's a biography and I don't want it and the information in there some or most is not valid. Warner Music And Video 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete, it's unused and anyway not of good technical quality. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded this years ago and I want to delete that photo to update it and second reason most important I want to delete the description that is a biography and I want to get it out quickly as possible. I appreciate the full deletion of this photo and specially the description this photo has. Thanks. Warner Music And Video 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete this description fully cause it's not valid. Second the description is not valid cause it's a biography and I don't want it and the information in there some or most is not valid. Warner Music And Video 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, it's unused and anyway not of good technical quality. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a misnamed duplicate of Institution:York_Art_Gallery. I have removed the link from the only file that pointed here. Thanks! PatHadley (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I changed it to a redirect. Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted before see User:Carlos Antonio Cifuentes Pérez history and uploaded without uneleting request Motopark (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy delete of upload that violates Commons rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo. Maybe not usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism. Picture used by a banned user in eswiki, and some puppets, to denigrate a person. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism Alan (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
vandalism in spanish Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism-only account Alan (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As the name shows, we have this in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. --Taichi (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all JuTa 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As the name shows, we have this in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. --Taichi (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 20:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
porque no es de el 190.117.197.62 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
porque no es mio GL 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
porque no es mio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guisetlv (talk • contribs) 2013-10-25T18:21:02 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request next day after uploading. Unused file, quite bad quality. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope and probably copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of 20minutos.es (sourced with http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/949755 = http://cdn.20minutos.es/img/2009/04/09/949755.jpg = last modified: 09.04.2009, see also file path, credited with "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES", original news: http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/462256/0/miguel/angel/silvestre/) as it was previously published via https://plus.google.com/photos/105782205257423521949/albums/5396729719411599617?banner=pwa (gallery of Miguel Ángel Silvestre related photos = https://plus.google.com/photos/105782205257423521949/albums/5396729719411599617/5396729893842488754?banner=pwa&pid=5396729893842488754&oid=105782205257423521949 (03.09.2008, exif available, see also Picasa), watermarked with Miguel Ángel Silvestre´ website http://www.miguelangelsilvestre.com and most likely taken from this site.
In the past Miguel Ángel Silvestre documented on his site almost every press contact with text and images (see archive). Identical watermarked images are still available via Google search.
Concerning the credit "Foto: 20minutos.es" it is widely known that 20minutos.es is cheating massively copyrights configuring copyrighted images from numerous sources with a free license and tagging this images falsely with "Foto: 20 minutos". The whole bandwith of copyright problems concerning 20minutos.es is available via Category:20minutos.es related deletion requests. Gunnex (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: again, copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Small, poor quality, unlikely "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: probably copyvio, and not really usable by the way PierreSelim (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Biography - believe this is out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Unused (out of scope?), badJPG. Leyo 12:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, del. on DE Nolispanmo 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
out of scope, del. on DE Nolispanmo 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is part of a hoax that was inserted into Wikipedia. See this magazine report. — Scott • talk 21:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly out of COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, has no legitimate purpose being on Wikimedia now that the hoax is exposed. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep, has a legitimate purpose in an article about the hoax itself, should one be written either on-Wiki or off-Wiki. If no such article is known to exist within a month or two, I will gladly change to "delete." Davidwr (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Since this off-Wiki article already uses its own copy of the image in an educational way, the image itself presumably is within scope. Furthermore, it is important to keep public record that this image is freely-licensed.Do update the image's description. Davidwr (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)I have updated the file description page and added relevant information to the talk page. Davidwr (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)- Well, as the uploader obviously lied about the symbol and its source, how can we assume that he could have legitimately licensed the image? It is likely not old and thereby still copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the lengths this hoax went to, I think it's reasonable to assume the image was designed as part of the hoax and we can believe it is his work. However, if you want to slap a "permissions" tag on it, that will almost certainly result in deletion unless he goes through OTRS. Davidwr (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Re "Since this off-Wiki article already uses its own copy of the image in an educational way, the image itself presumably is within scope" - if you keep the image on that basis, you are basically issuing a license for future hoaxers to have their images hosted on Commons forever. Don't set that precedent. — Scott • talk 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the lengths this hoax went to, I think it's reasonable to assume the image was designed as part of the hoax and we can believe it is his work. However, if you want to slap a "permissions" tag on it, that will almost certainly result in deletion unless he goes through OTRS. Davidwr (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as the uploader obviously lied about the symbol and its source, how can we assume that he could have legitimately licensed the image? It is likely not old and thereby still copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not within the scope of Commons, also copyright status is not clear. Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
At best unwise exposure of a minor child's picture to internet misuse. Almost certainly out of scope, using Commons as a personal webs site Timtrent (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
File:The reason I have life---The reason I strive---The reason I am furthering my education---A mother && A child---I can help another parent understand how to be a MITHER ! 2013-10-24 16-13.jpg
[edit]Low quality personal image. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This file is not intended for use with the Creative Commons license Gtvnetwork (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This file is not intended for use with the Creative Commons license Gtvnetwork (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation See http://ghbraddock.dadeschools.net/images/assets/slider/05.jpg Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation See http://ghbraddock.dadeschools.net/123/images/assets/slider/01.jpg Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Kristen Gille helps load items belonging to her co-worker, Victoria Manning, and Manning's husband, U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Manning, into a rental truck May 25, 2013, in Moore, Okla 130525-Z-BI488-123.jpg
[edit]I realise that all US military images are PD but don't see how this has any educational value Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Can be used to illustrate the after effects of the Moore tornado as well as for general illustration of house moves, truck rental, packing and so forth. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Some people might suggest that the most mundane occurrences don't merit recording -- are beneath notice. This is a mistake, as time passes those things that people think are beneath notice turn into great mysteries. I once attended a talk, at a conference, where the speaker first talked about how there were vast holes in what we knew about the lives of common people during the middle ages -- their lives were seen as beneath notice. Then he spoke how useful his discovery of some transcripts from the Inquisition were. Inquisitors, seeking to stamp out a local heresy, invaded a village, tortured everyone, and the transcripts of those torture sessions recorded all kinds of details that had been considered beneath notice by everyone else.
Images of ordinary individuals doing ordinary things, like moving are worth documenting and have educational value. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - Commons is not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. as above. Yann (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - Commons is not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, visible in image Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, visible in image Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-logo. Yann (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, not own work Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-logo. Yann (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, if owner as claimed, need OTRS Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-logo. Yann (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to be copyrighted here, we can't see the building. Yann (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The facade is a copyrightable architectural element. Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing new in this DR. What could be copyrightable here? Are there any cases from Slovenia that says that a photo of a window/dor or a small part of a wall is a violation of slovenian law? --MGA73 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is a photo of the entrance, consisting of several architectural elements (the windows, the door, the canopy) made from different materials and with a specific and recognisable design. As such, it qualifies as an individual intellectual work, i.e. copyrightable per the Slovene copyright act. Parts of architectural works (this article cites facades, roofs, doors, staircases, corridors, cupolas etc.) are as much copyrighted as entire works. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 00:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:ElektrarnaBrestanica.JPG: non-free architecture; there is only non-commercial freedom of panorama in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 12:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - don't think anything can be copyrighted here. --Sporti (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per Trampuž, technical structures are copyrighted too. The architecture of this power plant is very recognisable. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any source for "architecture of this power plant is very recognisable", looks like just a common power plant to me. --Sporti (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was for a long time the only such power plant in Yugoslavia.[1] Per [2], the architectural design of this power plant has a symbolic meaning for such power plants. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find a single reference to the "very recognisable architecture". --Sporti (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: there is no difference between 'symbolic' and 'very recognisable'. Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Symbolic in your links is referring to the tehnology, not outside architecture. --Sporti (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It is specifically discussing the architecture: "The upper part of the cooling tower will be preserved as part of the architectural image [emphasis mine] of the thermal power plant, in the sense of a symbolic significance for such power plants." --Eleassar (t/p) 10:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- It only means part of the cooling tower will be preserved to represent the original plant. --Sporti (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but as part of the architectural image of the (entire) power plant. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it is quite usual to leave part of the original building at renovation. But you didn't find anything on the cooling tower or any other part being important in respects of its architecture. --Sporti (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, architectural image [...] in the sense of symbolic significance refers to the architectural aspect. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, of course, it is quite typical power plant, but this is nevertheless protected with copyright. Quite typical residental buildings are also copyrighted and quite typical schools also. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal photograph / typical for private issues but not for he Commons 178.10.104.87 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Single upload account's orphaned logo to promote an event or day. Not sure what the educational value of this is, but won't be heartbroken if it stays on Commons. Sarah (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a modern photo, so the claim that the photo was published before 1923 is dubious. Stefan4 (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not a private photo at all. It's an official photo for press release, made by a professional photographer as you can see in the metadatas. Although it is a new picture it has already been used in brochures and in newspapers. (example: Hauptstadtmagazin Oktober 2013 )
Deleted: Needs a permission. Yann (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly lifted from cosmopolitanglass.com at some point. Seems unlikely that someone calling themselves "Engeneering Expert" has permission to release the website's assets into the public domain. McGeddon (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
wrong photo was uploaded Celebritylife (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A portrait of the uploader's boyfriend? (not used) 91.66.153.214 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It is a copyrighted book cover. If you represent the publisher Wiley brand please emaill us to confirm that you really are releasing this under an open license. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs permission. Yann (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted. I do not think {{PD-simple}} applies here. McZusatz (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Small (140x105px), poor quality, not useful, unlikely to be "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: asabove. Yann (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like low-quality self-potrait. Not used, maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope and orphaned. Use a wikitable if need be. Leyo 09:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, replaced by File:Hippuric acid.png. Leyo 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Very poor quality, orphaned/replaced. Leyo 22:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Very poor quality, orphaned/replaced. Leyo 22:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Very poor quality, orphaned/replaced. Leyo 22:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Please delete it, it's not free 178.2.63.210 18:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral It would have been better to add a no permission tag so the uploader could have a chance to send a email to the OTRS. --Blurred Lines 18:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
File:The best basketball player to ever live! Averaged 4 points for North Union high schools JV team! And an impressive 18% from behind the arc! Has a nasty step back jumper that never fails to take your breathe away- Can ge 2013-06-03 23-41.jpg
[edit]Out of scope - commons not a photo album - low quality seflie Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Florin Damsa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:1404505 547994551951236 2032646623 o.jpg
- File:1277631 526626384088053 1495251406 o.jpg
- File:1239279 533911763359515 1234759317 o.jpg
- File:1271345 545830568834301 742250635 o.jpg
- File:1277057 533911756692849 1863447343 o.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moderna.agenda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots and logos of software with questionable notability.
- File:Xml final.jpg
- File:Xml carregado.jpg
- File:Arquivo recebido.jpg
- File:Abrir xml.jpg
- File:Msg PROCESS AUTOR.jpg
- File:IMP TISS AUTOR.jpg
- File:IMP TISS PESQ PREST.jpg
- File:IMPRIME TISS.jpg
- File:Digitar autorizacao.jpg
- File:Autorizar procedimentos.jpg
- File:Elegibilidade.jpg
- File:Demonst pagto.jpg
- File:Internet prest.jpg
- File:Tel prest.jpg
- File:Cad prest.jpg
- File:FATURAR AUTO.jpg
- File:CANCEL AUTO.jpg
- File:Enviar XML.jpg
- File:Log.mod.jpg
- File:Logao.jpg
- File:Loguinho.jpg
- File:Moderna.jpg
- File:Logo LOGO.jpg
- File:Mensagem ag @.jpg
- File:Mensagem agenda OK.jpg
- File:CANCELADO SUCESSO.jpg
- File:Branco moderna.png
- File:BOTAO CANCELAR.jpg
- File:Msg consulta.jpg
- File:Motivo cancelamento.jpg
- File:Cancela agenda.jpg
- File:Hist pac2.jpg
- File:Historico pact.jpg
- File:Logo TIPO.jpg
- File:Confirm.jpg
- File:Confirmacao.jpg
- File:Per agENDA.jpg
- File:Pacient.jpg
- File:Gridy.png
- File:Agperiod.jpg
- File:Periodo agenda.jpg
- File:Filtros agenda.jpg
- File:Pac.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Reaganfarmer27 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyfraud or Copyrightviolation. (Doubtful authorship)
- File:Citroën Dispatch.jpg
- File:Fiat 500X.jpg
- File:Kia Picanto.jpg
- File:Renault Clio Campus.jpg
- File:Mercedes CLS Shooting Brake.jpg
- File:BMW 7 Series.jpg
McZusatz (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios (files were grabbed from different sources on the internet) PierreSelim (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Omotola Jalade's Portrait by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:The V.C(Prof. Kayode Makinde) of Babcock university by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:Wizkid's potrait by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:C.B.N Gov of Negeria By Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:Beyonce's portrait by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:Micheal Jackson.jpg
- File:Artpiece by seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:An artpiece Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:An artwork by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
- File:A pencil work by Seglaw's Art Studio.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Modern art. P ainter permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album and file storage. Not used.
out of scope - unused private art and promotional material
- File:Tooth.jpg
- File:Three (480x640).jpg
- File:Mj.jpg
- File:Lamido sanusi - Copy.jpg
- File:Jackson - Copy.jpg
- File:Geneviv - Copy.jpg
- File:Ghanian actress - Copy.jpg
- File:Seglaw's newsletter for Nov2013 2013-11-17 06-52.jpg
- File:Seglaw's blog! 2013-11-17 06-51.jpg
- File:Seglaw's sashay to white hall in Babcock university! 2013-11-17 06-49.jpg
- File:Seglaw's sashay to white hall at Babcock university- 2013-11-17 06-48.jpg
INeverCry 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/file storage. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
File:USMC fry in the sky laserbeam -- supposed to burn a bad guys clothes off their body -b.jpg
[edit]No evidence provided for this image being a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee 178.10.104.87 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Image came from here. No evidence for a PD-USGOV license there and unlikely to fall under this license High Contrast (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PedromartinsR (talk · contribs)
[edit]Varying resolution (although mostly web resolution) and age and no EXIF. Unlikely own work. Some potentially PD-old. One image has a watermark suggesting it comes from UNICEF.
- File:Romerorodrigues.jpg
- File:Ciropossepp.jpg
- File:Josébarbosa.jpg
- File:Mircolescampos.jpg
- File:Marlossampaio.jpg
- File:OsmarJunior.jpg
- File:Alfredogentil.jpg
- File:Ferdinandfreitas.jpg
- File:Robertfreitas.jpg
- File:Freitasneto.jpg
- File:Cirofilho.jpg
- File:Felipemendes.jpg
- File:Silviomendes.jpg
- File:Firmino2.gif
Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Cidgomes.jpg
- File:Sarney-com-Prisco-Marchezan-Portella-e-Passarinho.jpg
- File:Albertosilva.jpeg
- File:Wilsonmartins.jpg
- File:Maosanta10.jpg
- File:Luiseduardomorte.jpg
- File:LuisEduardo.jpg
- File:Wallferraz.jpg
- File:Castro-1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Fabio faria agencia camara.jpg
- File:Anthonygarotinho1.jpg
- File:Deocleciodantas.jpg
- File:Deoclecio dantas.jpg
- File:Jacob-Manoel-Gayoso-e-Almendra.jpg
- File:Chagas rodrigues cassado.jpg
- File:Euripedesaguiar.jpg
- File:Pedro Freitas.jpg
- File:HugoN.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joycemaxiner (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos of subject with no apparent notability, presumably uploaded for use on the deleted out-of-scope self-promotional English Wikipedia article en:Joyce Kirkconnell of Kirkconnell Scotland. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Furthermore, the uploader is presumably the subject of the photos, and the photos do not appear to be self-portraits, so the claims of the uploader being the author and copyright holder of the photos are likely false.
- File:Baptism of Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:Redbook by Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:259292 205336122845024 7424999 o.jpg
And the following files uploaded using the sockpuppet Kirkconnell (talk · contribs), included in the deletion nomination for the same reasons as above:
- File:Palm Springs Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:Olympics Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:Roman Goddess Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:Lighting Candle Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg
- File:United Nation's Joyce Kirkconnell.jpg (this one might actually be a self-portrait)
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
por que lo subi por error Vivianzacarreras (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request next day after uploading. Taivo (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Roy Pologne inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Brian Hartline chased by Tyvon Branch and Joselio Hanson.jpg, which has a more descriptive file name. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not an own work, only a variation of another guy's work 91.66.153.214 07:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's a derivative and not covered by FOP-Germany as it is not permanent. --Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dieses Foto wurde von mir gemacht und ist vom Übertragungsschirm währendi der Veranstaltung der Stadtwette! VG. ----Martin1009 -the Seeker 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Das genügt leider nicht. Das Bild auf dem Bildschirm ist als Einzelbild aus einem sog. Laufbild (§ 95 UrhG) ein Lichtbild i.S.d. § 72 UrhG und aus diesem Grund geschützt. Als Fotograf kannst du dich zugleich auch nicht auf die sog. "Panoramafreiheit" (§ 59 UrhG) berufen, weil das abgebildete Lichtbild offensichtlich nicht bleibend dort befindlich ist. // The image on the screen is a screenshot from a Laufbild (s. 95 UrhG) and, as such, enjoys protection as a Lichtbild within the meaning of s. 72 UrhG. The photographer also cannot invoke FOP for the shown Lichtbild is obviously not permanently situated at a public place. Hence, Delete. Regards, — Pajz (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- O.k. - Danke für deine Nachricht! Dieses File:J. M. Andresen (10).JPG und auch File:J. M. Andresen (12).JPG können gelöscht werden, daran hatte ich nicht gedacht -sorry! VG. ----Martin1009 -the Seeker 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Das genügt leider nicht. Das Bild auf dem Bildschirm ist als Einzelbild aus einem sog. Laufbild (§ 95 UrhG) ein Lichtbild i.S.d. § 72 UrhG und aus diesem Grund geschützt. Als Fotograf kannst du dich zugleich auch nicht auf die sog. "Panoramafreiheit" (§ 59 UrhG) berufen, weil das abgebildete Lichtbild offensichtlich nicht bleibend dort befindlich ist. // The image on the screen is a screenshot from a Laufbild (s. 95 UrhG) and, as such, enjoys protection as a Lichtbild within the meaning of s. 72 UrhG. The photographer also cannot invoke FOP for the shown Lichtbild is obviously not permanently situated at a public place. Hence,
- Dieses Foto wurde von mir gemacht und ist vom Übertragungsschirm währendi der Veranstaltung der Stadtwette! VG. ----Martin1009 -the Seeker 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Roy Ècossais inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
There are better photos and this one is not used. Josebalch (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request 3 years after uploading, but still unused. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Rohan inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Primary source is missing, if it's from australian government it's most likely copyrighted. Image came via Flickr collector account. Denniss (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: "Credit: Department of Environment and Climate Change" therefore under copyright . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It uses a licence that requires the author to have been dead for 70 years, but the author is unknown, and therefore the date of death of the author is also unknown. It is not unreasonable to think the author could have been 20 at the time of taking the photograph, and could have lived to be 70 (1965 or so), and 70 years after that would be 2035. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Generally 1885 is a good date for assuming the author is dead for 70 years beyond a significant doubt. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar less blurred image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 172.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant and a bit blurred. Similar is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 52.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar (a bit less blurred) image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 50.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Less blurred similar picture is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 48.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar view (maybe less blurred) is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 46.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 42.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Either heavily photoshopped or culled from some other web site, this is most unlikely to be the uploader's own copyright. If the uploader says it is so then OTRS must be used to assert the right to upload it here. Timtrent (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It is probably a non-free image of a stand-up comedian Kapil Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Transit (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar, clearer image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 42.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar, a bit less blurred image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 39.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 27.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 23.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (better straightened) is File:Itimad-ud-Daula’s Tomb 02.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This file and all by user Rafirafi in Category:Media needing categories as of 2 June 2013 - out of scope - Commons is not a photo album. Looks like family snaps Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image, maybe better straightened is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 31.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image, maybe better straightened is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 31.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 26.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 26.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant and a bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 23.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image, better straightened is File:Akbar's Tomb 1001 06.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark and redundant. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 926.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundat. Similar, less blurred image is File:Akbar's Tomb 62.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is File:Akbar's Tomb 62.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is File:Akbar's Tomb 62.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably a selfportrait of the uploader, unused. 91.66.153.214 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit blurred. Similar image (better straightened and less blurred) is File:Akbar's Tomb 62.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with a bit more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 323.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 318.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (a bit better straightened) is File:Akbar's Tomb 308.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Similar image with much better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 301.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark and redundant. Similar image with a bit more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 370.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 366.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with a bit more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 366.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (maybe better straightened) is File:Akbar's Tomb 363.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image is File:Akbar's Tomb 360.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Better straightened image of this object is File:Akbar's Tomb 360.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaaced by more precise File:Du Roi inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark ring. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 357.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Akbar's Tomb 353.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark ring. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 353.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Akbar's Tomb 350.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 270.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark ring. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 270.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This and all files by user Bomtanviet in Media needing categories as of 3 June 2013 - with a phone number on the photo it is unusable and looks like an advert Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Royal inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with a bit more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 270.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 270.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is cropped version of the photo from the Uruguayan presidency web site. There is no evidence the photo is free. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Object is dark. Similar image with better light is File:Akbar's Tomb 270.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks way too professional to be own work Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 12:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is work by M. Loboda (1938–2024). --TadejM (t/p) 03:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Mr Bergman stated that he is not the author of this photograph, attribution given by the source website is incorrect. (ticket:2013102210020474) Unknown author and copyright status. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Image looks like a capture from video or TV. Copyright seems questionable for me. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Soissonnais inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dubious copyright status. It says that the uploader, who uploaded the image in 2013, died before 1943. The uploader can't have died before 1943 as he was obviously still alive in 2013. The same image was also uploaded to w:File:Hectorbizerklogo.jpg where it is sourced to someone other than the uploader. Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dubious own work: previously published elsewhere in different colours and lower resolution. Stefan4 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Touraine inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Toulouse inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark ring and redundant. Similar (a bit clearer) image is File:Akbar's Tomb 663.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Found at http://sapadoresdecoimbra.no.sapo.pt/index1.html, where it has a file timestamp of 2003-01-19 on the server, and according to archive.org, it was actually there as early as 2001-10-26. That's nearly six and a half years before it was uploaded to Commons and more than six years before the uploader claims to have created it. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
É natural que a imagem se encontre no site! O objectivo é replicar a informação existente no site referido acima para a Wikipédia!!!
Logo as informações contidas no site (incluindo as imagens) podem ser usadas na Wikipédia dado que o assunto é rigorosamente o mesmo. Aliás, até o Historial, e está bem mencionado, é replicado do tal site porque, repito, o objectivo foi criar na Wiki um artigo sobre o mesmo assunto!~
Mais: o site acima referido está como ligação externa neste artigo...
A restante informação existente é da minha autoria porque conheço o Corpo de Bombeiros.
Pergunta: a TAP tem um site e uma página na Wiki... por acaso houve algum problema por o logo da empresa se encontrar nos 2 sitios (ou até outras imagens)?
Mais: a imagem consta da página da Wikipédia desde que o artigo foi criado e ninguém levantou, na altura, problema nenhum! Só agora, 6 anos depois (!?), é que reparam?
Se não querem mais contributos para este artigo digam... provavelmente não terá mais nenhuma actualização porque sou a única pessoa que está interessada em fazê-lo!
Basta verem o histórico. LuisMocho (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC) LuisMocho (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) LuisMocho (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisMocho (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you or did you not design this badge yourself? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
1º agradecia que me respondessem às minhas perguntas: porque é que só ao fim de 6 anos reparam que o logo existe no outro site dos Bombeiros sapadores e porque é que se eu a usei no site não a posso usar aqui???
A imagem foi digitalizada de propósito para o site referido! E se é a heráldica oficial não percebo porque não pode ser usada aqui... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisMocho (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not "own work" as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
david kanavaro 41.200.127.233 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
SIngle use account upload that is orphaned. Perhaps education in nature, but, we're not a place just to house some graphics. Sarah (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No reason is stated why this 1932 image should be PD-US. Rosenzweig τ 19:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or is it even from 1932? There is an appalling lack of information. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not the uploaders own work - clearly shows the architect firm logo that drew up the plans Uviolet (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The man with the yellow cap is from [[4]] which is no simpel geometry and it has no compateble license Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality, subject hardly visible. We have much better images of the building from the same angle now, for example File:Fallingwater 2007.jpg and File:FallingwaterWright.jpg. ELEKHHT 23:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark pics of Akbar's Tomb
[edit]- File:Akbar's Tomb 667.jpg
- File:Akbar's Tomb 670.jpg
- File:Akbar's Tomb 671.jpg
- File:Akbar's Tomb 672.jpg
Dark images. These images are similar with File:Akbar's Tomb 669.jpg, which may be kept because it is maybe a bit less dark. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and dark. Similar image with more light and less blurred is File:Akbar's Tomb 152.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 155.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 170.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Too dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 252.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 256.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 260.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is File:Akbar's Tomb 669.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Dark. Similar (with a bit more light) is File:Akbar's Tomb 674.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with more light is File:Akbar's Tomb 676.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Akbar's Tomb 676.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Jiggythakor (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given. Proably PD-text. Probably notable . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir,I the owner of Jigar Studio considerd that the file was uploaded by me before some time and I uploaded this file as free by mistake so I want to delete this file and want to upload this file again as non free work. so please sir delete this file. Jiggythakor (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept The license is irrevocable. As a rule, we do not remove files at the uploader's request after a week or two. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a logo from a Ha*Ash album (it doesn’t even have the same typeface – click here for images of the actual logos). It’s a just low-quality image created with Paint. As it’s not representative of any true logo, I don’t see why it would be useful for Wikimedia to keep it. Fitoschido (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
El archivo contiene información FALSA que se ha corregido en el nuevo archivo File:Parroquias del concejo de Morcín.svg
Deleted: FASTILY 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Low resolution version of this omage: [[5]]. I doubt that it is below the threashold of originality Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Опечатка в названии, загружу корректное название Парушкин Михаил (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jakopič Promenade
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: The promenade has been described as an author's work ("an authorially designed park feature [...] one of the most important Plečnik's works", referring to J. Plečnik, d. 1957) in this article.
- File:20130528 Ljubljana 148.jpg
- File:Jakopič Promenade.jpg
- File:Jakopičev drevored.jpg
- File:Park Tivoli - Ljubljana (2).jpg (de minimis – Taivo)
- File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Tivoli Park at night (2).jpg (no copyrightable details are seen – Taivo)
- File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Tivoli Park at night.jpg (no copyrightable details are seen – Taivo)
- File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Tivoli Park.jpg (small picture, I opened in full size and still no copyrightable details are seen – Taivo)
- File:Promenada v Tivoliju 1933.jpg (not de minimis – Taivo)
- File:Tivoli park.jpg (I opened the photo in full size and statues were well seen – Taivo)
- File:Park Tivoli - pometanje 1961.jpg (not de minimis – Taivo)
Eleassar (t/p) 07:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Important does not neccesarly mean copyrighted. It is still just an avenue with a single line of street lights in the middle. The whole text you cited only partially says "Široka peščena površina z nizom betonskih svetilk na sredini je ena najpomembnejših Plečnikovih del" = "Wide sand area with a line of concrete lights in the middle is one of the most important Plečnik's works". --Sporti (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- And the first sentence states "Plečnik Promenade is an authorially designed park feature..." --Eleassar (t/p) 08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you have already stated that in the opening, but this feature is too simple to be copyrighted or every road and avanue suddenly becomes copyrighted. --Sporti (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per the Slovene copyright act, it is a work of architecture, and there is no evidence of a threshold of originality. This is not just "some random avenue", otherwise it would not be called "one of the most important Plečnik's works". We have had such (or similar) cases already; see e.g. [6][7][8]. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it is an avenue and not copyrighted whoever made it (law is the same for everyone) - it is still a strait path with a single line of lights in the middle. Important yes, copyrighted no. --Sporti (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Avenues that are called "authorially designed park feature" are copyrightable just as anything else (parks, streets, cemeteries, squares etc.).[9] --Eleassar (t/p) 07:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah this is just your amateur law OR conclusion as usually. --Sporti (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't actually know what's your point. It has been described as an "authorially designed park feature", which is enough for me. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Every avenue or road or path is authorially designed by someone to be build so this doesn't mean anything if it is just a strait avenue with lights down the middle. --Sporti (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now this is amateur lawyering. It has been stated n-times that there is no evidence of any threshold of originality in regard to architecture in Slovenia, and particularly not in cases described as "one of the most important architect's works". Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? --Eleassar (t/p) 08:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm arguing because you are creating more and more far-fetched DRs. Now here is a special avenue that looks like any other avenue, but this one is protected, because you say so. --Sporti (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't remember any avenue like this one, and I've read that it is an "authorially designed park feature" and "one of the most important architect's works". It has been protected as a cultural monument of national significance. That's why I don't believe it is free, but perhaps the concluding administrator will agree with you. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, but 4 kept. Taivo (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jakopič Promenade
[edit]Outside the scope of Commons, which provides only free-for-any use materials. The architecture will enter public domain in 2028, 70+1 years after the death of Jože Plečnik, the architect. See COM:FOP Slovenia.
- File:Ljubljana (34974080054).jpg
- File:Ljubljana (40169802232).jpg
- File:Ljubljana X - The park (32206670398).jpg
- File:Ljubljana, Eslovènia (agost 2013) - panoramio (4).jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Logoezazanap.jpg
- File:01illes.jpg
- File:Ezazanap2012-841423.jpg
- File:23pintée.jpg
- File:EzAzaNap2013-3520.jpg
- File:012tim.jpg
- File:Lz7.jpg
- File:2013-1000FŐS.jpg
- File:2012-Matt Redman.jpg
- File:2012-Pintér Béla.jpg
- File:2012-Gateway.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bumbu Doina (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Ian Lisnevschi interviu06.JPG
- File:7 aprilie 14.JPG
- File:7 aprilie 16.JPG
- File:7 aprilie 49.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 005.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 015.JPG
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 016.JPG
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 008.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 009.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 007.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 012.JPG
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 011.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 003.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 010.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 002.jpg
- File:Ian Lisnevschi 006.jpg
- File:Lisnevschi ian.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dereck Camacho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Rodolfo Piza 2.jpg
- File:DRRHG.jpg
- File:LGS CR.jpg
- File:Manuel mora valverde.png
- File:Johnny araya.jpg
- File:Carlos m castillo.png
- File:Aniceto Esquivel Sáenz.jpg
- File:José trejos escalante.png
- File:Jorge gonzalez marten.png
- File:Sandra garcía.jpg
- File:Oreamuno bonilla.png
- File:Jm corrales.png
- File:Abel pacheco.jpg
- File:Juancarlosmendoza.jpg
- File:Rolando araya monge.jpg
- File:Ottoguevara.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I own the rights of all of this pictures or I took a picture from a picture wich is more than 50 years old and thus its copyright has expire. All this pictures are free domain and have no copyright violation. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I deleted the old ones, because fifty years is very much to young to be out of copyright. In most countries copyright extends for 70 years after the photographer's death, so any image after 1885 may be under copyright. The new small ones -- if they are really your work, please upload full size images. Several of the larger ones I deleted because they had no description and no categories and are therefore not useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dereck Camacho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Jose Miguel Corrales cropped.jpg
- File:Luis Alberto Monge cropped.jpg
- File:Mercedes Peñas cropped.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dereck Camacho (talk · contribs)
[edit]No COM:FOP in Costa Rica. Please explain why sculptures are public domain.
- File:Estatua de Julio Acosta, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Estatua de Julio Acosta, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Busto de Francisco Morazán, Parque Morazán 2.jpg
- File:Busto de Francisco Morazán, Parque Morazán.jpg
- File:Estatua conmemorativa tratado Arias-Calderón, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Estatua conmemorativa tratado Arias-Calderón, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Bust of Bernardo O'Higgins, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Bust of Bernardo O'Higgins, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Bust of Carlos Luis Collado Martínez, Parque Morazan (placa).jpg
- File:Bust of Carlos Luis Collado Martínez, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Bust of Carlos Luis Collado Martínez, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Estatua de Juan Vasquez de Coronado, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Estatua de Juan Vasquez de Coronado, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Estatua Vazquez de Coronado, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Busto de Ricardo Jimenez Oreamuno, Parque Morazan 3.jpg
- File:Busto de Ricardo Jimenez Oreamuno, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Busto de Ricardo Jimenez Oreamuno, Parque Morazan.jpg
- File:Bust of Tomas Soley Güell, Parque Morazan 3.jpg
- File:Bust of Tomas Soley Güell, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
- File:Busto de Tomás Soley Güell, Parque Morazan.jpg
* File:Busto de Rafael Barroeta, Parque Morazan 3.jpg
* File:Busto de Rafael Barroeta, Parque Morazan 2.jpg
* File:Busto de Rafael Barroeta, Parque Morazan.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Because as explained in the licence the author is over 70 years old dead. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Dereck Camacho: Rafael Barroeta is dead more than 70 years ago. But the other scupltors? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well after making some research I found out this (I though were all around the same time, my mistake)
- Public domain:
- Busto de Francisco Morazán, inaugurated in '1887 by Francisco Durini Vassalli. I don't know the exact death date but if he made the bust in 1887 should have much more than 70 years old dead. His son died in 1970 at the age of 90.
- Estatua de Julio Acosta, made by Leone Tommasi (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leone_Tommasi) who died in 1965, he doesn't have 70 years of dead but he does have more than 50 which is what is established to be in public domain by Costa Rica's law.
- Estatua conmemorativa tratado Arias-Calderón was made in may of 1944
- Busto de Tomás Soley Güell made by Bonilla in 1918 https://es.thefreedictionary.com/Instituto+Nacional+de+Seguros
- Apparently not in public domain:
- Estatua de Juan Vasquez de Coronado made by José Antonio Marquez is still alive
- Busto de Bernardo O'Higgins was made by Luis Umaña (who died in 2011)
- Busto de Carlos Luis Collado, the author is still alive
- Busto de Ricardo Jiménez Oremauno, made by Juan Rafael Chacón who died in 1982 --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Closed; some deleted, some kept per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by I.E.T. Bruxelles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. No evidence of permissions for logos.
- File:I.E.T..jpg
- File:Etudiants IET.jpg
- File:Vies-consacrees.jpg
- File:Nouvelle-revue-theologique.jpg
- File:Lessius.jpg
- File:Albert-chapelle.jpg
- File:Christof-schonborn.jpg
- File:Etudiants.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Alex Ferguson in his first home game agains QPR on November 22nd,1986.png
- File:Thiago while in Sloboda.png
- File:Ljubisa Stamenkovic in 2013.png
- File:Thiago playing for Sloboda in 2012.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: The Alex Ferguson image is a crop from this image, which looks almost certainly to be a press photo. The others also look like they may have been lifted from copyrighted sources (small size, no EXIF as stated above).--Ianmacm (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Response
[edit]The first two photos are press photos and i apologise,but the other two aren't.Both pictures are on my computer,and were taken from a camera.I accept deletion and all the consequences. Milosgr97 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2013 (CET)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:BL 21 - first Automatic Systems barriers - 1969.jpg
- File:BL 21 - Automatic Systems first barrier 1969.pdf
- File:Automatic rising barrier mechanism with crankshaft - rod device.jpg
- File:Principle of crankshaft - rod.jpg
- File:TGH800 Metro de Lyon Dir Perrache 2.JPG
- File:TGH802 Milano Italy 23.jpg
- File:PNG New Jersey Transit 4.JPG
- File:POR Singapour.JPG
- File:QBG Eurostar BXL 017.jpg
- File:Produit Piéton SmartLane.PNG
- File:Produit Passager PNG New Jersey Transit 8.JPG
- File:Produit Véhicule BL 29.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mywikieditbh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Laung lata (2).jpg
- File:Laktho1.jpg
- File:Chandrakala.jpg
- File:Anarsa.jpg
- File:Sweet-Khurma-520x390.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shimanshu28 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Torresfelo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art and promo photos. I think painter/photographer identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Texture d’une expérience.jpg
- File:Duda de la Percepción.jpg
- File:Blanche Lumière des Images.jpg
- File:Rafael torres Correa.jpg
- File:Rafael torres correa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
File:US Navy 090813-N-5207L-087 Information Systems Technician 1st Class James Paisley assigned to Command Logistics Group Western Pacific, works with Republic of Singapore Navy Capt. K.C. Teo.jpg
[edit]I recognize the use of images from .gov/.mil sites due to them being in the public domain, but I am requesting this file be considered for deletion. I am the person identified in the photograph, and was not aware the photos would be posted online and searchable. I am researching an avenue of requesting it be removed from the .mil source due to personal privacy concerns. In addition to concerns of privacy, I feel this image is trivial and has no real benefit to being on Commons. For one, it is not linked from anywhere and is only found when searching my name via Google. Additionally, the uniform in the picture has not been in service for a few years, nor was the event depicted in the photo of any obvious historical merit. If there was a need to visually represent the annual exercise where this photo originated, then it would be more appropriate to show an updated photo with current uniforms, personnel and information. Finally, the source tag which links to the .mil source actually leads to a 404 page not found error. Again, I understand and fully support the use of public domain. However, due to me being personally identifiable in the image/information and my privacy concerns, I respectfully request consideration for deletion. Thank you. Spawnwitch (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment The source seems to have been deleted http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=75147 --Pere prlpz (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)As noted by Ww2censor, the Navy has just moved the link to http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=75147 --Pere prlpz (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Please don't take the following the wrong way. While I appreciate everything you state, the image is actually very easily searchable on the Navy's own website. It just took me the time to type your name to find the correct current source page at http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=75147 assuming you are James Paisley. There are many image that don't show current uniforms but that is no reason to delete. If it was a case that the image was defamatory or in some degraded you I would see a justifiable reason to consider deletion. As you obviously know, once an image has been released into the public domain it is pretty much guaranteed to be there forever and even if we are to delete it here it likely exists elsewhere under the same free licence under which it was uploaded here and even today can be downloaded by anyone from the Navy website freely. Regarding your identification, many military images specifically identify the subject of the image, so you are in the same boat as all other identified military personnel. There are many such images freely available from US military websites and I doubt they will remove the images of you there, so I wonder why should we delete them. Ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I see no reason not to comply with this request COM:IDENT specifically enables such requests. The image as the person requesting suggests isnt significant nor does it provide any information that could not be demonstrated by another photograph, primarily the image just shows co-operation between US Navy and Singapore Navy there are other photographs within the Category:Southeast Asia Cooperation Against Terrorism 2009 from the same event that also can illustrate co-operation. While one person may be wearing a uniform that has changed since then, if that aspect had significance the image would be utilised. Finally the image was uploaded using a bot we are unable to discuss with an individual had a specific use or saw any significant value at that time. As an admin I would have complied with this request immediately had it not already been responded to. I suggest that when the image is deleted that this discussion also be deleted as courtesy. Gnangarra 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete technically i agree with all of Ww2censor's points. But as the image is not in use and of very limited use for Commons, i don't see why it shouldn't be deleted as courtesy
(as noted the original source seems to have been removed aswell). GermanJoe (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)- Please notice that the source hasn't actually removed the image.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Reasons:
- Image still viewable and free in the source, which is a governmental agency.
- No proof of identity of the depicted person shown (the proof should be sent to OTRS). Please notice that if the source had been asked to remove the image they could have easily verified identity in order to honour the claim.
- This image isn't found by Google by searching "James Paisley". At least, it isn't shown in the first pages.
- If we still have concerns over privacy ("is only found when searching my name via Google"), we can remove James Paisley's name from image title and description, although US Navy keeps it in its page.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not familiar with the OTRS. If someone can explain, I can provide proof of identification. Additionally, if you Google my name with the service affiliation, it's the first image to pop up. The image is still viewable, but I am trying to find out how, if it's possible, to request the image be removed. Unfortunately things in the .mil aren't as easy as simply emailing a point of contact and tend to have a lot more regulations and procedures for addressing certain issues. Honestly, I may never be able to have it deleted, but I would still respectfully ask it be considered for deletion as courtesy. Thank you. --Spawnwitch (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- About e-mail contact, you can see Commons:Contact us/Problems.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As noted by Pere prlpz, if it's decided not to delete the image. Can the removal of my name from the information and title be considered? --Spawnwitch (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, I notice that the image is already elsewhere at DVIDS and on the PACOM account on Flickr (though their claim of All right reserved is clearly false), so deleting it here is a rather pointless exercise in my opinion as it is easily available on the net with all the name data still intact. If the consensus is to delete then so be it, but I am still inclined to prefer to keep it. It may still get used. From an admin perspective, I know they can rename the image and deleted the original name, but can we also edit the metadata without the original remaining in the history? I wonder do US military personnel have any say, or rights, to refuse to allow their images to be taken and published by the service they are in or by any other US agency. If they have no rights there, then why should we comply with the request, except out of courtesy. That could lead to a slippery slope that other service personnel may use to get their images deleted too. Ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sysops can hide previous versions from history. Anyway, since previous version are not searchable in Google, deleting the name from description and moving the image might solve the privacy concerns expressed.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment We have a clear precedent in Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 110916-N-RC734-057 Chief Information Systems Technician Shantishra Williams stands at attention as Chief Boatswain's Mate Dale Kintz dons h.jpg. The image was just removed, description was edited and redirect was deleted, apparently being satisfied everybody involved.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's been 7 days since the nomination was submitted. When is a determination usually made? Spawnwitch (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Keep per other, but remove name. Tm (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
File has been renamed to remove identifying names from titles -FASTILY 11:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 12.181.197.100 as Copyvio (copyvio) Dschwen (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Although the artist's name is the same as the uploader's, we will need a formal license from the artist using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. We do this to protect the artist -- anyone can open an account in any name, so we don't know whether or not they are the same person.. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Although the artist's name is the same as the uploader's, we will need a formal license from the artist using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. We do this to protect the artist -- anyone can open an account in any name, so we don't know whether or not they are the same person.. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This image is 33 years old. I doubt that it is "own work" as claimed. Most, perhaps all, of this uploader's contributions have been deleted as copyvios. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This publication contains a number of photos with unclear license status including ones with quite clear copyright violations. More specifically:
- Page 38 contains a photo that was already deleted from Commons as File:Zamok_grafiv_Shenborniv_01.jpg. The source: http://ukrtur.in.ua/zamki-zakarpattya/ The very photo: http://ukrtur.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/Zamok-SHenborn.jpg
- Page 58 (on the top) contains a photo uploaded as File:Прес-конференція Вікімедіа Україна 07.JPG. It licensed as {{PD-self}} even though it is mentioned that the author is unknown.
- Page 58 (on the bottom) contains a photo posted first at the web-site of the conference "Usability Ukraine 2010". The source: https://web.archive.org/web/20101114055450/http://usability.ua/fotootchet The very photo: https://web.archive.org/web/20101130075429/http://usability.ua/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/XM3W0876.jpg
- And so on. I believe that either all photos from this book should be uploaded separately with proper license information or this information should be in the description to File:Wlm 2012 Ukraine.pdf
P.S. If copyright violations are proven, we've got a serious problem. This is a book that was published offline by Wikimedia Ukraine and was funded by grant from Wikimedia Foundation... DixonD (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- As a one of last year's WLM organisers, I can state that the situation with File:Zamok_grafiv_Shenborniv_01.jpg is just unfortunate: this file was deemed as an own work by uploader, it successfully passed the review by the jury, but only this year (2013) we found out that this WLM 2012 finalist is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, we have already published it, so we are unable to remove this photo from the printed version, although we are thinking of publishing an erratum in this year's edition
- Concerning images on pages from 58 on, I did not participate in preparation of these pages, I just asked those responsible for it to provide proper attribution. I leave them prepare the answer — NickK (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, the right thing would be to provide licenses for all used images explicitly. Also, even if the copyright violation was by accident, the pdf file with copyright violations still should be removed from Commons. Alternatively one can upload a new version of the pdf file where images with copyright violations are blanked or substituted with text "the image here was removed due to copyright violation" (even better). First we should deal with consequences and only then find out what the cause was. --DixonD (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot unfortunately avoid mentioning the fact that this photo was indeed in the album, although in fact it was used without permission. We could keep it as nothing happened, but we decided to be honest and remove it (and we have acted so this year as well). I will add descriptions for all pictures used in the album to the description page — NickK (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is easier just to provide a list of all photos with names on Commons (with uploading those that are missing). In this case you will kill two birds with one stone - provide free reusable images and required information for justifying the status of this specific pdf. But do what you prefer. --DixonD (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot unfortunately avoid mentioning the fact that this photo was indeed in the album, although in fact it was used without permission. We could keep it as nothing happened, but we decided to be honest and remove it (and we have acted so this year as well). I will add descriptions for all pictures used in the album to the description page — NickK (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, the right thing would be to provide licenses for all used images explicitly. Also, even if the copyright violation was by accident, the pdf file with copyright violations still should be removed from Commons. Alternatively one can upload a new version of the pdf file where images with copyright violations are blanked or substituted with text "the image here was removed due to copyright violation" (even better). First we should deal with consequences and only then find out what the cause was. --DixonD (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This file contains many other images, and it is DW. So you should provide information about all original images: authors, licenses, sources (like here). Otherwise we do not know full copyright status of this file. And about File:Прес-конференція Вікімедіа Україна 07.JPG: it cannot be PD-self because Perohanych (uploader) is pictured on the photo, and cannot be the author.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I added the information about all images used in the album, however, I failed to find some of them. Concerning File:Прес-конференція Вікімедіа Україна 07.JPG, as long as this file exists on Commons, I see no problem using it — NickK (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, let see what we have:
- page 4: unknown photo of uploader;
- page 5: questionable photo of Perohanych (author of photo and pictured person is the same person);
- page 38: deleted File:Zamok grafiv Shenborniv 01.jpg (as copyvio, see on top);
- pages 48-50: two questionable photos: File:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 awards in Ukraine 07.JPG, [[::File:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 awards in Ukraine 29.JPG]] (I do not see permission from Andrii Arkhangelskyi) and two unknown photos (p.49 on bottom, p.50 on top);
- page 57: questionable photo File:Sokil-2012.JPG (uploader User:Григорий Ганзбург is pictured on the photo);
- page 58: three questionable photos: one made by pictured person, second was found in different site (see above), third may violate COM:DW;
- page 60: questionable photo File:Wiki Loves Monuments presentation in Kiev-01.jpg (uploader is pictured on the photo. I am pictured on that photo too; but I do not remember now, who made that photo. It was 1.5 years ago);
- page 61: three photos with unknown sources and authors;
- page 64: non-free logos.
Assuming of above: 6 photos with unknown sources and authors, 8 questionable photos and 1 deleted copyvio. I think this is enough for Delete. --Anatoliy (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree that copyright status of some images is unknown at the moment, thus I will contact the WLM-2012 organisers who worked on these sections.
- Being pictured and author at the same time is not that impossible, there are many options of doing that, tripod is the major one, asking a person "just to press the button", having done all the creative part before and having received the waiver from the one who pressed the button is another one. Thus I do not see these pictures as problematic, if you have any comments concerning specific images, this should be discussed separately
- As far as I remember, Andrii Arkhangelskyi sent all photos together with permission in the same file, which was uploaded by Jbuket. I believe there should not be any problem there, as long as there was no other option to get those unpublished photos then contacting the author directly.
- Concerning logos, I believe they can be considered DM: in this low-resolution version they are barely distinguishible. Moreover, some logos are {{PD-ineligible}} as text-only, others are {{PD-UA}} as logos of Ukrainian organisations, some are not in PD but are in so low quality that no details can be seen — NickK (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- So far it's
Done for photos on pages 4 and 58 (bottom right), pending permission on photo on page 38. Please wait with proceeding this nomination, we are still seeking permissions from respective authors — NickK (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) - Meanwhile, File:Прес-конференція Вікімедіа Україна 07.JPG was deleted too. So now we have two deleted files used in this book. --DixonD (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- This was restored as File:Прес-конференція Вікімедіа Україна 07.jpg with a relevant permission — NickK (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted for now as contianing many, many non-free images. This can, and should be re-uploaded once someone has put together a version where all the non-free images have been replaced FASTILY 07:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Found at http://sapadoresdecoimbra.no.sapo.pt/Instalacoes.htm, where it has a file timestamp of 2003-01-19 on the server, and according to archive.org, it was actually there as early as 2002-04-09. That's nearly six years before it was uploaded to Commons and more than five years before the uploader claims to have created it. Also note that a file by the same name, also uploaded by LuisMocho was previously deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims. Found at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14987091, and while that was uploaded the year after the file was added to Commons, it is of much higher quality. A version with only slightly higher resolution than the Commons version can be found at http://www.meteopt.com/forum/portugal/fotos-trancoso-sincelo-491-2.html#post17677, published more than three months before this low-resolution version was uploaded to Commons. This is LuisMocho's only upload with metadata from a Fujifilm Finepix A303. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
No description, unknown people 91.66.153.214 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Source says 1927 and all rights reserved. Uploader said 1920, unknown author, pd as life plus 70 has expired. However this is assuming that the unknown photographer died within 36 years of the photo being taken. For an unknown photographer this is not a cautious assumption. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
We have this in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned company logo used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
copyrighted logo Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like PD-simple. Plus, it has OTRS permission -FASTILY 07:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DUROMAC(M) SDN BHD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:35, 25 November 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)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=684875675#File:Elektrarna_Brestanica.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_of_Babcock_university_by_Seglaw%27s_Art_Studio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&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&action=edit&redlink=1){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){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Park_slovenske_reformacije_%283%29.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
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)