Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![121 File:"Маугли" (1978 г.). Скульптура Макушиной И.В..jpg](#File:"Маугли"_(1978_г.)._Скульптура_Макушиной_И.В..jpg){kind=link}
![124 File:Monument "Love your city".JPG](#File:Monument_"Love_your_city".JPG){kind=link}
_-_Komsomolsk.JPG){kind=link}
![138 File:Monument in the center of Mykolieb at the main shoping street "Sovietskaja".JPG](#File:Monument_in_the_center_of_Mykolieb_at_the_main_shoping_street_"Sovietskaja".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Michael Jackson Wiki? What is it? Maybe it is copyvio? Need OTRS-ticket. Iluvatar (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I am pretty sure I got it from Michael Jackson Wiki. And I think this should be kept because this is Michael's primary, legendary trademark: The white, shiny glove. So please keep it on Commons and Wikipedia as it would be perfect as the main photo on the Michael Jackson articles. -- TheSitcomLover 9:46, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded 26 files (imdb and etc)... Please, delete this all and explain licensing rules on user Talk page (I don't know English language).--Iluvatar (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I added the OTRS ticket on the file. Can you now keep it please? -- TheSitcomLover 10:12, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
- It's copyvio from Getty Images - see http://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotografie-di-cronaca/singer-songwriter-michael-jackson-photographed-fotografie-di-cronaca/89218482 , I'm pretty sure that whoever uploaded it to a MJ wiki didn't respect copyright. Wanting a nice picture isn't a good enough reason for keeping it, unfortunately. — Yerpo Eh? 06:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I now put the link to the source of the file. Can you guys please keep it? Not just because I want it to be, but because I feel it is reliable for Wikipedia to use in all Michael Jackson articles. Please keep it, okay? -- TheSitcomLover 11:37, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
Where do I ask for permission to keep all the Michael Jackson and Siegfried & Roy files I uploaded? Please tell me, otherwise they might be deleted in a week. -- TheSitcomLover 12:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Did you read Iluvatar's link to OTRS-ticket above? --Malyacko (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedydeleted: Copyright violation, used for crosswiki-spamming, user blocked on enwiki for sockpupetry -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This photo on Flickr has this license, which is not allowed on Commons. Blurred Lines 03:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is our policy when the image's owner changes its license?--Lê (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - CC-licenses (atleast the one, we commonly use) are irrevocable. The image had originally a free license, see the archived version. I added Template:Flickr-change-of-license to the image summary for clarity. GermanJoe (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- @nominator, please check the image's history in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn per GermanJoe. Blurred Lines 12:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
it can't be author's own work, as the the people in the picture are much older and probably deceased, as I know the uploader. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- When I take a photograph of existing picture, its my own work! రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand, it won't be valid for copyrighted works. If the copyright has expired, the work becomes public domain and then the given license will be invalid. If you can give more details of the source for this work and when it is published, it will help establish proper copyright. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: See COM:DW. "Own work" doesn't mean "I copied someone else's picture" Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I previously marked this file as a copyright violation because this image is an All Rights Reserved Flickr image and Wikimedia Commons won't accept All Rights Reserved and here is the link to the image on Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevonhaywood/5841750581/ 172.12.81.237 19:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Again, the Flickr photo is a copyvio of the Commons image - http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevonhaywood/5841750581/sizes/l/ - small resolution, no EXIF data, a taken date of 2011, etc show that the copyvio is on Flickr, not the other way around russavia (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This image is an All Rights Reserved Flickr image and Wikimedia Commons won't accept All Rights Reserved and here is the link to the image on Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevonhaywood/5842293820/ 172.12.81.237 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: The Flickr image is a copyvio of the image from Commons - http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevonhaywood/5842293820/sizes/l/ -- small resolution, nil EXIF data, and a taken date of 2011 - the commons image is the obvious original and the flickr image is the obvious copyvio russavia (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Russ! --Dschwen (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (better straightened) is File:Tour Eiffel 17 2012-06-28.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Tour Eiffel 8 2012-06-28.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Reduntant. Similar, better straightened image is File:Tour Eiffel 65 2012-06-28.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like personal image, in which the face is underexposed. On the other hand we have many good pictures of the tower. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation JuTa 20:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
user requested deletion of recently-uploaded file Australiannewsmakers (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Good photo about notable person, but ... uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
OS is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, after seeing uploader's name Yoyoyoyoyyiyou and description "huhuhuhuhuhu" (this is in Spanish, for your information), I understood, that must delete it. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Image for vandalism (https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Кличко%2C_Виталий_Владимирович&diff=59107671&oldid=59047328) Torin (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
poor quality, doesnt provide information on subject Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, licence as own work and categorised into Category:Books. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This and all files uploaded by user:Johntaylor1351 in Category:Media needing categories as of 25 October 2013 - look like he's merely copied them from the internet Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Denniss. Taivo (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Topless selfie - out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, blurry. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Topless selfie - out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, blurry. Taivo (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 07:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - commons is not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, description "We are the real idiots" is not true. Taivo (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, big letters "holy shit dude" on image. Taivo (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
NO NO NO gbawden is not part of wiki they are just trying to start trouble leave my freedom alone LOL LIL
Deleted, if you want to upload porn, next time make bigger files with better composition. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry tourist shot, we have a lot of better photos of the fountain as well as the monument Category:Hochstrahlbrunnen and Category:Heldendenkmal der Roten Armee. Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry tourist shot without description, not usable, COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
album cover, copy vio http://www.amazon.com/Back-2-Life-Sean-Kingston/dp/B008CQCBRE/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1382698670&sr=1-4&keywords=sean+kingston Mjrmtg (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Album cover. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Не нравится 95.135.55.43 20:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Butko, although I do not understand, why. "I do not like it" does not sound a good reason. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
uploaded incorrectly Hsiesel (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Túrelio, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Overexposed & blurred. Almost similar (clearer, less light) is File:2013. Крым 732.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Butko. Taivo (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded incorrectly; incorrect file Hsiesel (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Túrelio with reason: "Copyright © 2011 The Frick Collection. All Rights Reserved." (Also, uploader's request on uploading day.)Taivo (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - Commons not a photo album - low quality selfie Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, it is used in user pages in 8 wikis. Everybody is allowed to have some private photos. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please delete. Thanks. Simeon Dahl (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, not used anymore, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - commons is not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, but the file description was really good. I enjoyed that. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation Berthold Werner (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, artistic shot about Katy Perry, watermark in corner, the uploader's only contribution ... What else is needed? Taivo (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of a non-free depiction of Tartini. Eleassar (t/p) 08:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted photograph of a copyrighted object. 80.28.217.151 09:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, big "© www.ambbrescia.com" in corner. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 10:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
"Own work". In fact:Copyright-Tom Stockill-All Rights Reserved.(01753 862508/07831 815511)This image must not be syndicated or transferred to other systems or third parties, and storage or archiving is not permitted.Any unauthorised use or reproduction of this image will constitute a violation of copyright. 91.66.153.214 10:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, metadata consists real author's name with prohibition messages and threats. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, and blurry also. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, small and blurry. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It can be strange nomination, but there is no freedom of panorama in Macedonia and this is plaque from 1951. Taivo (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, sorry, COM:FOP says, that there is freedom of panorama in Macedonia for architectural or sculptural works permanently located in public places. This not Slovenia ... Taivo (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality image, with insufficient detail to give it any context. Unlikely to be used in any Wiki article Nthep (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently some kid's football team, description "After A Game In July.". Taivo (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, without description was difficult to recognize penis. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
low-quality penis image - more than sufficient higher quality images available at Commons Denniss (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note how the original photo looks. It's a portion crop work. When showing in article size it actually looks acceptable. OK for me if photo with such situation should be deleted. Bebop7 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete since uploader agrees with deletion. There are too many penis images, I think, here. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted, then. odder (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:20RIEu1762.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Eu inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Roy Marine inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Dauphin inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Dauphiné inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Dauphiné inf 1740.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Fersen inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Roy Cantabres inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Poitou inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, 216x162 px is not enough. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
bereits vergebener Dateiname RDA (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, very good photo, but uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replaced by more precise File:Gondrin inf 1734.png L' empereur Charles (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there have been a lot of such deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a wrong picture. It has been replaced by a correct. I am sorry Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a wrong picture. It has been replaced by a correct. I am sorry Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit blurred and redundant. Similar, clearer is File:2013. Крым 415.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 523.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, there are more cactuses on other photo. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image (maybe better focused to flower) is File:2013. Крым 561.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the photo 562 is overall sharper and photo 561 is deleted instead. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar (maybe a bit better straightend) is File:2013. Крым 600.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (maybe with brighter colors) is File:2013. Крым 618.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant and much of light. Similar with a bit less light is File:2013. Крым 629.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical exists: File:2013. Крым 646.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Dark and redundant. Similar with more light is File:2013. Крым 659.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the other has much better colors. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 667.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Almost similar image with better light (and less blurred) is File:2013. Крым 686.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the other has better light. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Better focused image is File:2013. Крым 769.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark. Similar image with better light is File:2013. Крым 776.jpg, which is maybe a bit better straightened. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the other has much better colors. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit dark and redundant. Similar image with more light is File:2013. Крым 794.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image with a bit brighter colors is File:2013. Крым 794.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 801.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 802.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, I liked photo 803 more and photo 802 is deleted instead. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation (picture is from http://ensembleavecvous.fr/un-maire-pour-aix-lettre-aux-aixois/) Superbenjamin (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bad request: a request for Copyright violation has been made instead. --Superbenjamin (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Useless without a description 91.66.153.214 11:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image, the uploader's only remaining uploaded file. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: work by Олег Рябо (born 1955). Eleassar (t/p) 11:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- File:Wise owl, Komsomolsk.JPG
- File:Plumber and the puppet.JPG
- File:Bench of lovers, Komsomolsk.JPG
- File:Cat Leopold with mice, Komsomolsk.JPG
- File:Monument to childhood, , Komsomolsk.JPG
- File:Monument to the ppig, Komsomolsk.JPG
--Eleassar (t/p) 11:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
And also:
- File:Puss in Boots.JPG
- File:Snowwite.JPG
- File:Zmiy Horynych.JPG
- File:Baba Yaga - O. Ryabo.JPG
- File:Svyatogor.JPG
--Eleassar (t/p) 18:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:44, 30 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)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Alinea as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio, Matisse died 1954 russavia (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. russavia (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
KFZ-Kennzeichen sichtbar. Datei wird neu ohne Kennzeichen hochgeladen Naum303 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 808.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred and redundant. Similar, clearer image is File:2013. Крым 808.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Too blurred. Similar view with better quality is File:2013. Крым 808.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, by Butko. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Blurred. Similar image (less blurred) is File:2013. Крым 810.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical image is File:2013. Крым 817.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Dark. Almost similar image with more light is File:2013. Крым 819.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
identical SVG-Version File:Adsorbimento_-_layout_rigenerazione.svg ScotXW (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, unused and superseded by .svg. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, maybe self-potrait. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad looking. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like personal photo. Not used. Maybe not notable persons. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader's only contribution. I hope, that they are or will become notable, that case the file will be undeleted. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like low quality self-potrait. Not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
one source image of this collage had been deleted in 2010 (!), it needs to be blanked or replaced. Denniss (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image (better straightened) is File:Montmartre Paris Aug 2006 007.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost identical picture of this object is File:Tour Eiffel pic10.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead deleting it. Was probably a mistake from my part.
Regards, Alfvanbeem (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a book cover owned by someone else, thus a copyright infringement? Timtrent (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, not a trivial book cover. Taivo (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality. We have many good pictures of this tower from the same direction in this category. Kulmalukko (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: work by Андрей Карнабед (1927-2005). Eleassar (t/p) 12:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly not the original work of the uploader, as Frank Land died in 1959. This photo of Land sitting behind a desk is widely available on DeMolay websites (here, for example), but there is no indication is is released under a free license. Senator2029 01:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no reason why a 1959 image cannot be the work of the uploader -- I have one such image among my uploads. However, it does raise questions, which are clearly correct here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Council of DeMolay for the Federal Republic of Brazil (SCODRFB) (or related organization) is the owner of these emblems. The uploader has not standing to claim authorship or release them under CC-BY-SA.
- File:Emblema DeMolay.png
- File:Bandeira de Espera Feliz.jpg
- File:Brasao ef.JPG
- File:Espera-feliz2.jpg
- File:Brasão do Capítulo Espera Feliz.png
- File:Selo DeMolay Original.png
- File:Supremo.png
- File:Cavalaria.svg
- File:Brasao DeMolay.svg
Senator2029 01:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I do not understand, why didn't you include File:Bandeira DeMolay.svg. Taivo (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Claimed own work, but both description and title "and me" imply the uploader was in the photo Jonathunder (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: ; . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure PD because it's a public broadcast is invalid. That said, I'm not sure if there's some alternative acceptable licensing justification under which this is okay. (i.e., might pd-ineligible work? I think no, but I could be wrong) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - was previously deleted Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, I delete the file third time. Is it worth protecting? I do not protect yet. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Self-promotion Fixertool (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Deleted again and now protected, this seems to attract too much crap. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication before 1923; this Life Magazine source from Google Books suggests a 1940 publication date. EricEnfermero (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Life has been copyrighted and renewed from its first issue in 1936. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Es sensiblemente distinto al utilizado oficialmente (fundamentalmente el águila bicéfala) Villanuevadecordoba (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Es distinto porque NO ES una copia del diseño que usa el ayuntamiento de forma oficial. Está basado en su descripción (blasón) y por ello, ni es mejor ni es peor que los demás modelos que pudiera haber, simplemente distinto, siempre que se ajuste a lo descrito. Hay que tener en cuenta que en heráldica no existen los "diseños oficiales", no son logotipos, solo es oficial el blasón. Otra cosa es que se use de forma tradicional un determinado modelo, pero eso no invalida a los demás.--Erlenmeyer (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
File has been superseded. Does not meet style guidelines. Testem (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment The file is used 7 times in 3 wikis and must be substituted at first. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
superseeded, violates style guide (better: File:Methyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate 200.svg) Kopiersperre (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
acetate_200.svg){kind=link}
Keep The file is still in use, albeit now only on WP:HE. It cannot be deleted for these reasons while in use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now it's not used anymore--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in use anymore. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I like this image because only one wedge drawn but indicates R,R stereochemistry.
Does not meet style guidelines. Has been superseded. (Racemic) notation should be made redundant with correct drawing. Testem (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The file is used 6 times in 5 wikis and must be substituted at first. Taivo (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Stereochemical mistakes. There are *2* chiral centers, only one of which is indicated; the "racemic" would be opposite of both, but this diagram suggests only the one marked would switch (that would be diastereomer) or that the other one is ambiguous (but the title compound is not a diastereomeric mixture). Needs to be replaced on wikibooks with something from Category:Methylphenidate before deletion (I can't edit there easily). DMacks (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment That may be the case, but since it is in use in two places, policy forbids its deletion for the reason given. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Chem folks have a long track record of seeing these open DRs as a request to make the replacement; someone likely will within a few days... DMacks (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nominating a file for deletion when you know that policy prevents its deletion because of use elsewhere is not helpful. Please don't do it again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Orphaned. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, as an active admin, you are supposed to know the deletion policy that reads as follows: If it is agreed that the image should be deleted after the normal time for discussion at Deletion Requests has passed you will need to replace all instances where the image is used with the superior file. You can find where the image is being used via GlobalUsage. After all replacements have been made an admin will delete the image. --Leyo 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know the policy, but perhaps we read it differently. When I made the comment above, the image was in use. It would be foolish for me to replace it -- since I am not an expert in chemistry, I should not be the one who finds "something from Category:Methylphenidate". It seems to me that if someone expert in the field requests deletion, that first he should do the replacement -- otherwise he is just wasting other people's time on a DR that cannot happen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree: 1. decision, 2. replacement, 3. deletion. The 2nd step is nothing a non-chemist admin needs to do. --Leyo 23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I know the policy, but perhaps we read it differently. When I made the comment above, the image was in use. It would be foolish for me to replace it -- since I am not an expert in chemistry, I should not be the one who finds "something from Category:Methylphenidate". It seems to me that if someone expert in the field requests deletion, that first he should do the replacement -- otherwise he is just wasting other people's time on a DR that cannot happen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Since the file has been replaced but Jim is a hundred percent correct. First replace them, than nominate them for deletion since Commons-admins don't decide which version the local projects have to use. Natuur12 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, this is not what the text (that was last changed before both of you joined Commons) says. The decision may be taken without performing the deletion at the same time. --Leyo 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- True, but not helpful. It is just silly for a user trained in a technical field to nominate an in-use image for deletion and say that it should be replaced "with something from Category:Methylphenidate before deletion". What are we supposed to do -- guess at which image to use as a replacement? Simply delete the image and not replace it? The only satisfactory way for this to be done is for the user with the knowledge to replace the use before coming here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- During a discussion, many may participate, including others helping to decide how to proceed and/or help each other in the several steps along the way. Per COM:DR header, "This is for requests which require [...] community discussion prior to eventual deletion." "It's in use" is a strong policy against deletion, but instantly resolvable by other participants in the typical week they run when they become aware of that situation (you'll note I did specifically request help from others). Chemistry in particular seems to have a strong record of handling these sorts of details. It has its own subset of transcluded open DRs specifically to facilitate others who are interested and able to handle them. It seems to work. There are admins as well as "mere editors" who are often active via that route (both for discussion and final administrative tasks), so you're welcome to refrain from handling them (now that you know others will). DMacks (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- True, but not helpful. It is just silly for a user trained in a technical field to nominate an in-use image for deletion and say that it should be replaced "with something from Category:Methylphenidate before deletion". What are we supposed to do -- guess at which image to use as a replacement? Simply delete the image and not replace it? The only satisfactory way for this to be done is for the user with the knowledge to replace the use before coming here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-free train depictions on these tickets. Eleassar (t/p) 08:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There has recently been a deletion discussion about rail tickets and it was decided not to delete. That time is was about the printed background. If I look at the existing images, the small train company logo's are accepted. (You cannot have train tickets, without logo's) The stylized train (locomotieve) logo's are a very minor part of the whole composition. We do accept small logo's and other trademarks in street images if they are not prominent. (To take a typical steet image without any commercial logo's is nearly imposible)Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The logos are an important and recognisable part of the visual design of the ticket. They're not unimportant parts that have been included by chance and without the intent. It is certainly possible to have train tickets without a logo, see e.g. Category:Rail tickets of Hungary, which this image is part of. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is posible without a logo, but Hungary has one File:Diákjegy Nyugati pályaudvar 2003-08-21.jpg. Furthermore I have looked at European countries and the following countries have images with train company logo's: France, Belgium, Croatia, Austria, Belarus, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Czech Republic. Some are with train and tram picture logo's. Several years ago where several deletes of tickets with SNCF logo, but nowadays they are accepted. If these delete policies are to be changed this can only be done after a broad public discussion as this is not a small change. Most uploaders look as what there is already for what is allowed. The rules are complicated and open for discussion. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Similar stuff exists is not an argument to keep an image. For example, Category:Monuments in Vladivostok and a number of others contain images of non-free statues, but this does not mean these are acceptable and COM:FOP does not apply. I'd have to see a discussion that would show these logos are accepted. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree in principle it cant be used as an argument. However the community strives to apply the rules consistently. When a lot of similar images exist for a long time, it implies that there is a consencus/jurisprudence in the community. This can be changed if there are good arguments, but this change has to be accepted by the community and a good discussion is essential, before a mass deletion. It cannot be decided by an discussion for an individual case, whereby a limited number of people participate in the discussion.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- We currently host a number of unfree images of monuments from non-FOP countries, but this does not mean there is a consensus to keep them. Eventually we'll have to delete them. We can't keep any file about which there is significant doubt that it is free. Also in regard to images of tickets, I don't think any such consensus exists. Some have already been deleted. However, you may start an RFC, and if it turns out that they should be regarded as free, we can eventually undelete them. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as small logos are De Minimis. The main subject of the picture is clearly described in the tittle: handwritten tickets. If the logos are not considered as COM:DM despite their small size compared to the whole picture, it is possible to crop or blur them, the picture would still be useful. Jeriby (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have nothing against cropping/blurring them, but don't see how can an integral part of a ticket be de minimis, if the ticket is the object of interest. In my opinion, the entire ticket is the object of interest, not only the textual part. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is an individual judgement, where there will be difference appreciations. (the same discussion as what is art, what is usefull, etc). The logo's can also be considered as mere background. The combination of tickets makes the "handwritten part" the main subject. If a single ticket was shown the argument would have more relevance. For most readers and users, the content is the most important part.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't agree with you that the content is the only thing of interest, particularly because much of the text is hardly readable or unreadable. This image is useful also or particularly due to the copyrighted overall visual design, consisting of logos, drawings, and layout. You yourself have stated that these should be regarded as copyrightable.[1] --Eleassar (t/p) 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have nothing against cropping/blurring them, but don't see how can an integral part of a ticket be de minimis, if the ticket is the object of interest. In my opinion, the entire ticket is the object of interest, not only the textual part. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the image is small. Even in full size the logos are unclear. This must be de minimis. If the image would be, say, 4000x3000 px, I would delete the image, because the logo would be clear. Taivo (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Die abgebildete Person nutzt dieses Bild selbst für einen Twitteraccount: https://twitter.com/nicoladebrun Urheberschaft daher unklar Offenbacherjung (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- you could find the photo also here: http://www.feiyr.com/Klaus+Bruengel/artist/10048443.html , but there is no indication is is released under a free license.--Offenbacherjung (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Wox-globe-trotter
[edit]User Wox-globe-trotter has uploaded these images:
- File:Armore.svg (What is it? Description "?", unused.)
- File:Albert Lebrun.png
- File:Henri Guillemin signature.png
- File:Logo du ministère français de la Justice.png
- File:Logo du Ministère français de la Justice.png
- File:Photographie présidentielle de Paul Doumer.png
Other photos (except first) have no author and no source, some erroneously claimed own work. All can be public domain, but without source and author it is difficult to prove that. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep government logos, derivative of PD logo as work of the French Government.
- Nuke the rest. Fry1989 eh? 20:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted all, work of the French Government is not PD especially the logos PierreSelim (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional content Taivo (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This is "default" food, I can not see any promotion. (File should of course be renamed). --McZusatz (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: THe image is small and of poor quality. MOre important, it is all over the Web with no indication of a free license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Test upload, not in use. McZusatz (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture; cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bus stops in Ljubljana. Eleassar (t/p) 11:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Any proof for this or is this just your expert opinion again? I guess only Slovenia has special copyrighed avenues benches, anywhere else these are just common ulitarian objects. Not everything is copyrighted - this is just too simple. --Sporti (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is more simple than the bus stations that have been deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes that is another deletion of free files you have caused. --Sporti (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is more simple than the bus stations that have been deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you think these were free, you should discuss this with User:Jameslwoodward, who deleted them, or open a request at COM:UDR. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Structures such as this have been used since the stone age so copyright (should it actually exsist) ran out. --Sporti (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think park pavilions were built in the Stone Age. Where have you read this? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- See also meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US: "The law defines architectural works as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.”[8] Federal regulations further specify that the term ‘building’ “means humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.” This makes it clear that pavilions are copyrighted in the United States, and there is no reason to assume that they are not protected in Slovenia with its broad and explicit copyright on architecture. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Structures such as this have been used since the stone age so copyright (should it actually exsist) ran out. --Sporti (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you think these were free, you should discuss this with User:Jameslwoodward, who deleted them, or open a request at COM:UDR. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It has a traditional straw covered roof (not copyrighed in Slovenia). --Sporti (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This image depicts the entire pavilion with the roof, the benches, the pilars, and the ground, not only the roof. This part of park has been designed by an architect. It's like saying that a building can't be copyrighted because its windows are not . --Eleassar (t/p) 07:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The roof is the main feature, everything else is trivial. --Sporti (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't see why it would be trivial. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The roof is the main feature, everything else is trivial. --Sporti (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, no proof is given, that such buildings have been built earlier. Only words are not convincing. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The design of the bench and the carousel is original and qualifies as a "work of applied arts and industrial design" per Art. 10 of the Slovene copyright act. Eleassar (t/p) 11:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Any proof for this or is this just your expert opinion again? I guess only Slovenia has special copyrighed avenues and benches, anywhere else they are just common ulitarian objects. --Sporti (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No direct proof for the bench, but there is a mention of chairs as copyrighted in Trampuž (1997) and the book states "Copyrighted are also creations of utilitarian purpose. [...] The shaping that is directly determined only by the utilitarian purpose and therefore there is no possibility of creativity is not protected." There is no reason why the bench and the carousel should be shaped like this; there is a possiblity of creativity and their shape is not determined only by their utilitarian purpose. This thesis mentions 15 types of benches just in Ljubljana. Here is a court case from Slovenia according to which a selling stand or any other object (e.g. a table, a bed, a cupboard etc.) that has some individual creative characteristics should be considered copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- These are most plain bench and carousel you can find so all your law amateurism is a waste of time. --Sporti (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not according to the cited source that dedicates an entire page to its technical description. Your claims about these objects being "too simple" have also already been dicussed and rejected at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Street furniture in Ljubljana. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thise were deemed "Seems too complex to qualify as a utilitarian object", these are clearly not. I guess we will just have to wait how these seem to the closing admin. --Sporti (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- If anything at all, these two objects are more complex than those depicted in the deleted images. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thats a lie, the deleted ones had decorative elements. --Sporti (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Every administrator can check for himself that there were no decorative elements in at least some of the deleted images (e.g. [2], [3]). --Eleassar (t/p) 07:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mestna_oprema_%283%29.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mestna_oprema_%284%29.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination per this court case: In Slovenia, the level of individuality in regard to works of applied arts is higher than in the field of fine arts. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
._%D0%A1%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%98.%D0%92..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._%D0%A1%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%98.%D0%92..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: non-free copyrighted sculpture (1978). Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Russia: non-free sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: non-free monument from 1981.[4] Eleassar (t/p) 11:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this monument is free; seems recent. Eleassar (t/p) 11:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
![11:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/25#c-Eleassar-2013-10-25T11:37:00.000Z-File:Monument_"Love_your_city".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, not a simple monument. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
![09:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/10/25#c-Taivo-2013-11-01T09:48:00.000Z-File:Monument_"Love_your_city".JPG){kind=link}
No evidence this logo from Ukraine is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No evidence this logo from Ukraine is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this model of a sewing machine is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you are interested in the sewing machine, it is a Singer sewing machine. In any case, it is not a copyright violation to picture a sewing machine per COM:UA — NickK (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is an interesting information. In regard to copyright, if a model of a snail can be copyrighted,[5] so can a model of a sewing machine. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a different thing. One part is the copyright on the object: if a sewing machine is an utilitary object of a very standardised shape, snail is not and requires some creativity of the author (like a monument to any living creature, say, a frog or a cat). Another part is the copyright on the creative work of the author. While depicting a snail definitely requires a minimum of creative work, making an accurate model of a sewing machine is definitely less creative. The only point to discuss, in my opinion, is whether making this model required some creative work from the sculptor — NickK (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is an interesting information. In regard to copyright, if a model of a snail can be copyrighted,[5] so can a model of a sewing machine. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vi%C5%A1nja_Gora_snail_monument.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, I am not able to make copy of Singer sewer machine, so I do not consider this a simple statue. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
_-_Komsomolsk.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Komsomolsk.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this church is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
_-_Komsomolsk.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
_-_Komsomolsk.JPG){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this mosaic is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, mosaic is not de minimis here. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this architecture is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No evidence these photos are in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: the monument was unveiled in 2003.[6] Eleassar (t/p) 11:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence the monument is in the public domain; seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence the monument is in the public domain; seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Subject has repeatedly requested that this snapshot not be used to illustrate the Wikipedia page concerning him. Better CC-licensed images of the subject are available. 177.69.213.67 12:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: We have only two images of the subject (and a crop). We do not generally delete images at the request of the subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: 1957 work by Шота Микотадзе. Eleassar (t/p) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Old picture grabbed from the web, unlikely to be the uploader's own work. El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: 1989 monument.[7] Eleassar (t/p) 12:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this monument is in the public domain; seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: 1990 monument.[8] Eleassar (t/p) 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence this monument is in the public domain; seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: 1982 monument.[9] Eleassar (t/p) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM: this is a photo of a notable geological natural monument (the description states: Zelenyj island on the Ros river (geological natural monument), This is a photo of a natural heritage site in Ukraine, id: Cherk-369). It is impossible to picture this island without picturing the monument as the monument is in the very center of the island. However, as this image was uploaded during Wiki Loves Earth contest and focuses on a notable natural monument and the monument takes a very small part of the image, I suggest keeping it per COM:DM similarly to the case of Louvre and louvre pyramide — NickK (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does this mean you are withdrawing this nomination? — NickK (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure, so I'd appreciate a comment by a third user. I've notified User:Jameslwoodward in regard to this. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Difficult one. The resolution of the image is so good that the statue is clearly visible. I think it lies right on the edge of DM. I could go either way on any given day, but today I'll say Keep. Anyone who thinks that the choices we make are an exact science should look at this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the resolution is good is linked to the fact that this is one of top-12 images of Wiki Loves Earth. Had it been uploaded in lower resolution, it could probably be eliminated by the jury because of low resolution. The presence of the statue on the island should not mean that no pictures of this island would be accepted, exactly like pictures of Louvre in high resolution are accepted despite the presence of the pyramid — NickK (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The general rule has been, when in doubt, delete. I tend to agree that it is de minimis per our standards, however a) Louvre is a French case and should not be used to judge Ukrainian photos; b) I can't find anything about de minimis in the Ukrainian copyright act.[10] Why should we assume that it is free in Ukraine then? This monument has also been taken during Wiki Loves Earth, so I would also not put too much emphasis on this. As a byside, the publisher of this reusage of the contest photos should be notified that any reusage demands a proper attribution of the photographer and the cite of the license. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do you advice to announce that no photo of this island is allowed because the statue is in the middle of it? This would be identical to the interdiction to upload any panorama of Dubai because some of skyscrapers are copyrighted. Here we have an image that illustrates a geological monument and is focused on geological features for which it is protected, I do not see any reason why it should be deleted. This case is completely different from the abovementioned monument which was uploaded to illustrate a hydrological protected area and thus is obviously irrelevant. Ukrainian copyright law is quite badly written, and it hardly works in practice (e.g. heirs of a very known writer were systematically told that his works are in PD until we asked them to provide an OTRS permission), so we are currently working on amending it to allow FOP in Ukraine (this have not been studied by Ukrainian parliament yet however). Concerning the usage in media, the source of this publication made an attribution by providing links to original images, then Ukrainian Pravda just copied photos without links. Although we are constantly reminding media of the need of attribution, it is quite rare for online media in Ukraine to attribute photos correctly, while printed media are more likely to provide the correct attribution — NickK (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know, this is the same problem elsewhere too. As to the photo of this island, probably one really can't copyright an island by putting his statue on it. This is different than e.g. this image. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 07:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The general rule has been, when in doubt, delete. I tend to agree that it is de minimis per our standards, however a) Louvre is a French case and should not be used to judge Ukrainian photos; b) I can't find anything about de minimis in the Ukrainian copyright act.[10] Why should we assume that it is free in Ukraine then? This monument has also been taken during Wiki Loves Earth, so I would also not put too much emphasis on this. As a byside, the publisher of this reusage of the contest photos should be notified that any reusage demands a proper attribution of the photographer and the cite of the license. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the resolution is good is linked to the fact that this is one of top-12 images of Wiki Loves Earth. Had it been uploaded in lower resolution, it could probably be eliminated by the jury because of low resolution. The presence of the statue on the island should not mean that no pictures of this island would be accepted, exactly like pictures of Louvre in high resolution are accepted despite the presence of the pyramid — NickK (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Difficult one. The resolution of the image is so good that the statue is clearly visible. I think it lies right on the edge of DM. I could go either way on any given day, but today I'll say
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no evidence the monument is in the public domain, seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: 1980s monument. Eleassar (t/p) 12:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Dubious own work. Eleassar (t/p) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. See Stargate and Pozemské vesmírné lodě ve Hvězdné bráně.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
worse copy of File:Senneville.PNG Taivo (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So small photos are worthless Taivo (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- And a higher-resolution version of the photo appears on this LP cover, so like most files uploaded by this user, we can't keep it without a verified permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe own work and this is not a simple logo. Suspected copyright violation Taivo (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Romania and this seems quite a modern building. Taivo (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Romania and this seems quite a modern building. Taivo (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files of User:Beta16
[edit]User Beta16 has uploaded these photos:
- File:Omero-Ancona.jpg
- File:Palaindoor-Ancona.jpg
- File:Marche-Ancona 1.jpg
- File:Marche-Ancona 2.jpg
- File:Marche-Ancona 3.jpg
- File:Sperimentale-Ancona.jpg
- File:Palarossini-Ancona.jpg
- File:Ospedale vecchio (AN).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, but they all look quite modern buildings. Taivo (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:CAVN
[edit]User CAVN uploaded these images:
They are both unused photos about non-notable people. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Santoan31
[edit]Here are all images, uploaded by User Santoan31 and not yet presented for deletion:
- File:Distraida preocupación.jpeg (description says "Portrait", but whose portrait? Unused.)
- File:SERVIDO EN LA DESPEDIDA.jpeg
- File:Monotonia; 0 ----Amor;- 1.jpeg
- File:CARTA EN LLANTO DE LA LUNA.jpeg
- File:BÚSCAME EN TÚ CORAZÓN.jpeg
- File:TU AMANTE Y MI QUERER.jpeg
- File:A TUS ABUELOS.jpeg
These are all unused files. I do not understand Spanish, but they seem all to be out of scope. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: Out of scope - none of those images was used and none of them seem to be able for an educational use High Contrast (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Computer R&R
[edit]Here are all images, uploaded by User:Computer R&R and not yet presented for deletion:
- File:Ligne directrice sur les tests écologiquement rationnels, remise à neuf & réparation de matériel informatique usagé.pdf
- File:Guideline on Environmentally Sound Testing, Refurbishment, & Repair of Used Computing Equipment.pdf
- File:Figure 1 Guideline on Computer R&R.jpg
- File:Figure 2 Guideline on Computer R&R.jpg
- File:Chinese (simplified) with request-P 为 ARTNERSHIP A 关于操作 C OMPUTING E 设备.pdf
- File:Japanese with request-P トナーシップ A いいます C OMPUTING E 機器.pdf
- File:Arabic with request- P أرتنيرشيب عن A كشن على ج أومبوتينج ه كويبمينت.pdf
- File:German with request-P Artnerschaft für A Ktion auf C OMPUTING E QUIPMENT.pdf
- File:Russian with request-P ARTNERSHIP для A ВОДИТЕЛЯМ на C OMPUTING E Оборудования.pdf
- File:Spanish with request- P ARTNERSHIP para A CCIÓN en C OMPUTING E QUIPMENT.pdf
- File:Partnership para Acción en Computing Equipment.pdf
- File:Partnerschaft für A Ktion auf Computing Equipment.pdf
- File:P トナーシップ A いいます COMPUTING E 機器.pdf
- File:P 为 ARTNERSHIP A 关于操作 C OMPUTING E 设备.pdf
- File:Partnership для a ВОДИТЕЛЯМ на Computing EОборудования.pdf
- File:Partnership per a Zione su C Fili E Trifasi.pdf
Mister Computer invented business plan, how to get free translations from English: at first, make Google translation, at second, upload Google-translated files into Commons with request to translate correctly and e-mail back. Of course, free of charge. I'm against such business plan. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
File:A penis is what a girls want they think its hot and the think it feels nice when ot get in her--From Sperm you can get children 2013-10-23 20-10.jpg
[edit]
Uploader posting pictures of his own genitalia Myr (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: at last the title shows the meaning of the upload - worthless. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, bad quality also. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anthony78840 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Mairie ablis.jpg
- File:Monument commémoratif à Freneuse.jpg
- File:Eglise 1 200x0.jpg
- File:Mairie01.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 1
[edit]Collection of advertisement and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:02 Gerry.jpg
- File:Banner 03.png
- File:Gerry @ Online Crib Office.png
- File:Online Crib Operations.png
- File:Vicentpix.jpg
- File:Online crib.png
- File:Ger04.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 2
[edit]Promotion. See also w:User:Gobautista.
Juggler2005 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion Blatant copyvios as well as spam. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 3
[edit]Likely not own works, images readily found on Internet. Uploader has a history of copyright violations.
- File:Maqueda Channel Bicol.jpg
- File:PAGASA Doppler radar Station.jpg
- File:Virac Airport.jpg
- File:CSU Main Building.jpg
- File:CSU Wall of Topnotchers.jpg
- File:CSU.jpg
- File:Catanduanes State University CSU.jpg
- File:Barangay Banlic.jpg
- File:WalterMart Cabuyao City.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 4
[edit]Not own works: screengrabs, already published on the internet prior to upload date. Persistent copyright violator.
- File:Municipal Hall of Viga.jpg
- File:Catanduanes capitol.jpg
- File:Abaca Festival Dance Competition.jpg
- File:Catanduanes Abaka Festival.png
- File:Abaka Festival.jpg
- File:Catanduanes - Binurong POint.jpg
- File:Catanduanes - PAGASA Doppler Radar Station.jpg
- File:Caramoran, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:San Miguel, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Pandan, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:San Andres, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Panganiban (Payo), Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Gigmoto, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Bagamanoc, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Baras, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:Bato, Catanduanes Official Seal.png
- File:New Virac Airport Airside.jpg
- File:New Virac Airport Landside.jpg
- File:Ph seal Virac Catanduanes.png
- File:Rizal Viga Seal.png
- File:Catandungan festival Logo.jpg
- File:Lolong Point Lighthouse - Panay Island.jpg
- File:Palumbanes.jpg
- File:Palumbanes Islands.jpg
- File:Palumbanes Catanduanes.jpg
,_Catanduanes_Official_Seal.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 5
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
- File:CSU - University Seal.png
- File:Brgy Rizal, Viga Official Seal.png
- File:LGU-VIGA Catanduanes PHL Official Seal.png
- File:San Jose Oco, Viga Official Seal.png
- File:Burgos, Viga Seal-official-final.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 6
[edit]Metadata indicates these as sourced from "www.gobautista.net". While the website may be operated by the uploader himself, it is no longer accessible today, and it is unsure if his website is licensed under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or PD licensing (some rights reserved or no rights reserved). If his website was licensed under "all rights reserved", then it is unfree (meaning these cannot be reused commercially, thus incompatible with COM:Licensing).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gobautista 7
[edit]Likely another set of problematic uploads. Uploader has been warned multiple times about uploading either not own work images (copyvios) or, images previously published somewhere even if those are his own photos (user seems to avoid uploading original photos).
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused screenshots of software with questionable copyrights status and notability.
- File:0 ManualTeste.png
- File:5 ManualTeste.png
- File:4 ManualTeste.png
- File:1 ManualTeste.png
- File:2 ManualTeste.png
- File:3 ManualTeste.png
- File:Servicos 350x316 93bf7025a541eec2572171813d350edb.jpg
- File:Drex module 1 1 6 image 1.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Simply a colored version of File:Picrocrocin.png (with false author claim and) of low quality (badJPG). Leyo 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I dont think there is false author claim?. File:Picrocrocin.png is PD. Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, incomplete author claim and copyfraud. The rationale for deletion is, however, the poor quality. --Leyo 19:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
OS is copyright. Fry1989 eh? 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely an Own work created in 2011. Leyo 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Useless animation, i think. Igor523 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, better png or svg. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like personal picture. Not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: In Category:Facial expressions, there are only very few mosaics like this, showing the same person staging different facial expressions of emotions in a comparable fashion. I suggest also renaming the file and redacting its description to avoid needless complications over personality rights. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Author unknown Rita N (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I found out the author (Richard Kangro), so it's no longer necessary to delete it. Rita N (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I don't understand -- knowing the author is not enough -- we also will have to have a license from him or his heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Sellest on vähe, et autor on teada, autori luba peab ka olema. Kui see luba saadakse, siis on võimalik foto taastada. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Author unknown Rita N (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Logo is not PD, possibly released under CC because user didn't know what else to do. New version of logo uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
see no evidence, that Uploader and Photographer are the same person Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like too photoshopped personal image. Maybe not usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Also, I present for deletion smaller copy of this file File:Estuvook.jpg. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Picasa-user randomly collects images from all kinds of sources. But he doesn't seem to be the photographer. And he does not seem to have the rights to add a cc-by-sa licence to the picture Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- For proof see this, where he realases 148 images of mostly film posters under CC-BY-SA, which he obviously doesn't own. HueSatLum (talk | contribs) 23:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment No copyrighted details are seen. But ... maybe virus is copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably enough text here for a literary copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The image is a derivative work of the copyright in the puzzle. There is no evidence of permission from the creator. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, sorry -- there are two requirements for FOP to apply -- "artistic craftsmanship" is certainly one, but the other is that it must be on permanent display in a public place. That's true in almost all countries where FOP applies, and there is no evidence that it is true here.
- Also:
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: only the file which had a FfD template, and the uploader was notified. I will now notified the uploader for the two files nominated by Taivo. Other files have never technically been nominated, and the renomination is necessary. Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete OK. That case I add here
- I deliberately left these two out of the list above. I think they both are mostly "tables" and not "artistic craftsmanship", so they fail to have copyrights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looking for these tables feet, I think, that they are definitely artistic craftsmanship. I have never seen such tablefeet. Taivo (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I deliberately left these two out of the list above. I think they both are mostly "tables" and not "artistic craftsmanship", so they fail to have copyrights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
DW of the art. There is no evidence of permission from the artist. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand. The website says all own artwork is CC-BY-SA. This is own artwork. What do you see here as problematic? I do not quite understand who the photographer was, but this is normally not our problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Hmm. Seems pretty clear that either I completely blew it, or, much less likely, the web site license changed. IN either case it should be kept. Sorry. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently nobody wants to close this. I am not a specialist, I simply believe Matt. Taivo (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently nobody wants to close that. I am not a specialist, but I simply believe Matt. Taivo (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
