Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/04/27
 |
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}
![10 File:Woman in a so called "sexy nurse outfit".JPG](#File:Woman_in_a_so_called_"sexy_nurse_outfit".JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_2014-04-25_13-45.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![42 File:Call me "Sari Ozons" - 2014-04-17 17-16.jpg](#File:Call_me_"Sari_Ozons"_-_2014-04-17_17-16.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-04-18_03-41.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
----------_2014-04-17_20-34.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Commemorative_Postal_Stamp_-_1971.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Deletion requests/File:MrsJohnson.pngCommons:Deletion requests/File:Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy.gif Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nancy Reagan official White House portrait.jpg
NOT INTERESTED 90.206.199.63 04:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense JurgenNL (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imckinley.jpeg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official portrait of Rosalynn Carter - NARA - 173749.tif Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eleanor Roosevelt in Long Island, New York - NARA - 195449.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara Bush portrait.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lady Bird Johnson 1987.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:DolleyMadison.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Dolley Madison
Commons:Deletion requests/File:HelenTaft.jpg
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep somebody seems to be on a bad mission: en:Lloyd Williams (rugby union player born 1989) <- used here --High Contrast (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of identifiable person Magnolia677 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Tag photo with personality rights --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. Seems to be some troll action --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{Personality rights}} added. No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot conceive of any way this photo might be used for educational purposes on Wikimedia sites. The image primarily depicts a young child and everything is blurry or indistinct. Would not be useful for article on air show and child is not notable. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per file description "A boy waits for his picture of a B-52 to be signed by a 93rd Bomb Squadron aircrew member during the Slovak International Air Fest, Sept. 1, 2012, Sliac, Slovakia. The 93rd BS, assigned to the 307th Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base ,La., supported the air show with personnel and one B-52H Stratofortress." it is clear this is a public event, and is an image in scope. This shows an aeronautic event and a boy waiting for an "autograph", as per many boys of is age are fascinated by airplanes and aviation, and this is a fine image of this theme and other events in airshows besides the show off of aircraft . Also it depicts one of ways that the US make public relations with its allies. Per previous sentence this image illustrates the relationships between the USA and Slovakia. It is also a pretty good image where the blurring of background adds to the atmosphere. Also this image was previously kept in DR using the same rationale. Tm (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 08:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Dubious copyright Magnolia677 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep There is absolutely no "dubious copyright". --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep It is of educational value; it may be used on some navel piercing or piercing articles. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious copyright Magnolia677 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the used Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license is compatible to Commons. No "dubious copyright". --High Contrast (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - given that the watermark (see v1) attributed it to the flickr user, and copyviolators aren't usually so clever. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense mass nominations by this user High Contrast (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Previous nomination validly claimed this was not educational, but it got caught up in more questionable requests. Appears to be nothing more than some random woman's vacation photo. Not appropriate for Commons. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There are 3 other pics of women doing beach handstands in Category:Handstands on floors, but this is the only one showing one woman holding another in a handstand. It can illustrate beach handstands, assisted handstands, Latvian culture, etc. Rosario Berganza 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Image with unique theme, per Rosario Berganza, and in scope. Tm (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/04/27#c-Magnolia677-2014-04-27T15:42:00.000Z-File:Woman_in_a_so_called_"sexy_nurse_outfit".JPG){kind=link}
Keep Nonsense nomination. But: It is of educational value; it may be used on an article about nurse fetish or something like that. --High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/04/27#c-High_Contrast-2014-04-27T16:37:00.000Z-File:Woman_in_a_so_called_"sexy_nurse_outfit".JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/04/27#c-Yann-2014-04-27T17:51:00.000Z-File:Woman_in_a_so_called_"sexy_nurse_outfit".JPG){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep It is of educational value; it may be used on some fashion related articles about underwear or something like that. --High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Keep Nonsense nomination. But: It is of educational value; it may be used on an article about fashion topics. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. But: It is of educational value; it may be used on an article about fashion topics. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. But: It is of educational value; it may be used on an article about bikini or fashion in general or something like that. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. But: It is of educational value; it may be used on an article about bikini or fashion in general or something like that. --High Contrast (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Blatant self-promotion. The user advises that licencing of their work can be discussed via email. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Dubious copyright Magnolia677 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep No dubious copyright. A Commons compatible Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
dubious copyright Magnolia677 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No dubious copyright; the used Creative Commons license is compatible with Commons guidelines High Contrast (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not an amateur porn site, per COM:PORN Magnolia677 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination; no porn actually shown High Contrast (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No dubious copyright; the used Creative Commons license is compatible with Commons guidelines. By the way, the image is useable for educational purposes for depicting images about the Tourism on Cyprus for instance High Contrast (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not an amateur porn site, per COM:PORN Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination; no porn actually shown High Contrast (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It will be removed Sidhu7018 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Didym (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-25_13-45.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-04-25_13-45.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-25_13-45.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-25_13-45.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious "own work" (9 kb, no EXIF) 24.134.91.27 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused, out of scope... Brainy J (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Also technically wrong copyright I think, since it states it was taken by someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mattbuck is correct too. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source (= Facebook) has been deleted. File needs an OTRS ticket 24.134.91.27 06:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused and out of COM:SCOPE. This has been used for an attempt to create a self-promotional article, see es:Usuario discusión:Musicplayer which was speedily deleted. AFBorchert (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" 24.134.91.27 08:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: also out of project scope Didym (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE merely promotional. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
no permission 24.134.91.27 08:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: also out of project scope Didym (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![02:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/04/27#c-Mjrmtg-2014-04-27T02:07:00.000Z-File:Call_me_"Sari_Ozons"_-_2014-04-17_17-16.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
![01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/04/27#c-Didym-2014-05-04T01:02:00.000Z-File:Call_me_"Sari_Ozons"_-_2014-04-17_17-16.jpg){kind=link}
unused user portrait 24.134.91.27 08:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Example already available. Upload inadvertently. -LarsvonSpeck (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused personal shot of probably non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Advertise of an event Ciaurlec (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
File:I love people who openly hate me but I hate people who pretend to love me 2014-04-17 21-43.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Outside the project scope of Wikimedia Commons; logo of nonnotable entity TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be a logo of a school for which the uploader tried to create promotional text on his user pages at ar-wp. This needs to be processed through COM:OTRS in case it turns out that this is within our COM:SCOPE (which is indeed doubtful). AFBorchert (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused user image, out of scope. JurgenNL (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant. Wikimalte (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not used. -- Image seems to have been uploaded just for fun. -- Translation of Swedish text: "Personification of Murphy's law. He is so Murphy that even things that cannot go wrong, will to wrong" -- Geolocation is wrong as well, points into the middle of a river, where the image obviously is not taken Wikimalte (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-18_03-41.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-04-18_03-41.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-18_03-41.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-18_03-41.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be a personal shot of a non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is a large derivative poster in the picture Leoboudv (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Indeed, the poster is the central element of this photograph and thereby we do not have a case of de minimis here. AFBorchert (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Mohd shoaib Ahmed from warangal telangana state India is a symbol of simplicity and a person who live life in a very different Maner a very friendly person on earth email I'd skillfullshoaib@gmail-com 2014-04-18 03-01.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
advertising, cf. COM:ADVERT 4ing (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
video game screenshot Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; hardly showing a 31-year-old, as claimed by uploaders edit[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Includes big poster whose copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The depicted poster appears to be a problem indeed. This is no longer a case of de minimis. AFBorchert (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused personal shot of non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
File:The biggest holi celebrations party in hyderabad organized by shaik Ayoob 9908143716 2014-02-12 22-53.jpg
[edit]
imho non-free work, no links to images used in that montage, as of today only contribution by uploader, Roland zh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This cannot be kept without a documentation of the individual images and their copyright statuses which were used. AFBorchert (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
----------_2014-04-17_20-34.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
----------_2014-04-17_20-34.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
----------_2014-04-17_20-34.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
----------_2014-04-17_20-34.jpg){kind=link}
Unuseful file for Wikimedia projects Marco 08:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
this is a lower quality version of the more recently uploaded File:Red Garland 9A.jpg Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be pleased to have Red Garland.jpg deleted. Is that something I can do myself? It is not being used in any wikis now. - Brianmcmillen (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Only administrators not involved in this discussion can delete, but you, as the file creator/uploader, can request deletion, as you are doing, which pretty much closes the discussion. It doesnt have to not be used at a wiki for you to request removal, as creator. The only reason i could imagine this file staying is if the contrast or other factors were different and not easily reproducible by manipulating the higher quality image. again, thanks so much for the great uploads, glad you realized this is a housecleaning move.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused image which has been replaced by a superior upload. AFBorchert (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Because I didn't mean to upload this file on this site. RPOFA (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deletion request was submitted by the uploader and the image appears to be out of COM:SCOPE. It was just used for an attempt to create an article at en-wp (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royalist Party of America) which was declined twice and where is no indication that this organization could be notable. Besides, if this is the coat of arms used for an organization, we would also need to clarify its copyright status, possibly through COM:OTRS. AFBorchert (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be a personal shot of a non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
out of com:scope, personal unused photo -- Steinsplitter (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete Not realistically useful for educational purposes. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Verluisant (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of SCOPE.
FDMS 4 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - no educational uses for such personal photos. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 03:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Imagine dragons onerepublic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
- File:A picture of rayn tedder 2014-04-25 23-42.jpeg
- File:A picture of rayn tedder -rayn tedder the lead singer of the American band called "ONEREPUBLIC" 2014-04-25 23-39.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kary lozano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WilsonField1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions (mostly 68x68, despite File:Sheffield office.jpg), missing EXIF, eventual grabbed from an earlier version of http://www.wilsonfield.co.uk/ (© 2000 - 2014 Wilson Field Group Limited, All rights reserved).
- File:Manchester 1.jpg
- File:Sheffield 1.jpg
- File:Sheffield office.jpg
- File:West midlands.jpg
- File:Leeds office.jpg
- File:London office.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Not only is the title incorrect (it is not the official emblem of the city of Islamabad but the seal of the Capital Development Authority), but there is also no evidence that this design is out of copyright. The copyright term for government works in Pakistan is 50 years after first publication and the Capital Development Authority was established in 1960. But we don't know when this logo was created. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not a useful image, and I doubt that the uploaded holds copyright for it because its from a well known Internet meme. Also, this was uploaded with the single purpose of vandalising en:9/11 Truth movement. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As this appears to be an official emblem there is no evidence that the original is out of copyright. Governmental works in Pakistan are out of copyright 50 years after their first publication but the uploader failed to state when the original seal was created and published. Also I suspect that this is not his own work but has been copied somewhere. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
_-_Commemorative_Postal_Stamp_-_1971.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Commemorative_Postal_Stamp_-_1971.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Because the file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status, and no sufficient information can be gathered. MerlynDanielMali (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
_-_Commemorative_Postal_Stamp_-_1971.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Ellin Beltz -- Steinsplitter (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
_-_Commemorative_Postal_Stamp_-_1971.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Boyd.jpg
- File:Jozy Altidore.jpg
- File:Dempsey.jpg
- File:Clint.jpg
- File:Danny Williams Soccer.jpg
- File:Jermaine Jones.jpg
- File:Fabian J.jpg
- File:MIchael Bradley.jpeg
- File:Geoff Cameron.jpg
- File:USMNT.jpg
- File:Juan Agudelo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete; obvious {{Copyvio}}s. Several of the photos have EXIF confirming that they are grabbed from non-free sources (File:Jermaine Jones.jpg: Christof Koepsel/Getty Images; File:Geoff Cameron.jpg: Richard Sellers/Sportsphoto and prominent newscom.com watermark; File:Jozy Altidore.jpg: Karel Delvoye/Orange Pictures/VI Images; File:Boyd.jpg: photoshelter.com). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Érico Wouters msg 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files uploaded by Raulthegreatest are non-free photos grabbed from the Internet.
- File:Tim-Howard.jpg
- File:Fabian Johnson .jpeg
- File:Michael Sheehan Bradley.jpg
- File:Jermaine jones.jpg
- File:Jozy Altidore.jpg
- File:Terrence boyd.jpg
- File:Juan aguedelo.jpg
- File:Clint Dempsey.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felic Jose (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status: Uploaded on 30.07.2012 (no exif), watermarked with "DarienX - Photography & Video" = http://darienx.com/infodx.htm = photographer Darien H. Lingstuyl who does not match with uploader's name FeliX Jose. Permission needed.
Gunnex (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely cropped from a copyrighted source, as also done by uploader with File:Laox The digital kan.jpg, uploaded on same day. Gunnex (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a Venezuelan government document, not the work of the uploader as claimed Brainy J (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
File needs an OTRS ticket 24.134.91.27 08:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Picture taken at notable event. I can't see a reason to delete this. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 05:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no indication of CC BY-SA 2.0 on the given source, but a speaker of "Қазақша" could tell us how old this image is (and therefore if it is PD). Otherwise please delete it as No permission since. FDMS 4 11:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Public domain status seems to be assumed. Summary states that "No author, publisher or copyright information" was stated in the program that this was taken from. ALH (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image quite identical to File:Ab plant 1510.jpg Tangopaso (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Depicted person seems to be unknown to google. A portrait of the uploader? (unused) 24.134.91.27 09:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
copy File:Best Air Boeing 737-200 Prasertwit-1.jpg Lazyhawk (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not free to use. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Given the editors other uploads this should be deleted unless OTRS can be convinced of the owner. LGA talkedits 09:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" (13 kb, no EXIF) 24.134.91.27 09:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The source information is not credible Discasto 19:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gunnex as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio via Google Street View
Converted by me to DR, as I didn't find any earlier publications of this image; though the nominator may still be right. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/CentroFinancieroSantaFe.jpg --> (in Firefox, German keyboard layout) strg + "+" (several times to increase size) --> several watermarks "© 200X (9?) Google visible. Gunnex (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted but not by me Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. --High Contrast (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious copyright Magnolia677 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Wy? Natuur12 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This flag was previously deleted and is out of scope as the colours used were only standardised in 2010. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: Uploaded on 30.07.2012 by CescSalv (talk · contribs) the photo was already circulating since 2005 via Google = http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/Bangladesh/dhakaintl.jpg (now 404, from Photobucket user Tarik Chowdhury (Bangladesh). Still alive is a crop = http://www.haroonengineering.com/projects/images/total_header.jpg (last modified: 2006).
Most likely grabbed from skyscrapercity.com. Gunnex (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"The image its for free download" does not mean "free to share under the terms of CC BY-SA 1.0". Obviously not PD-ineligible. FDMS 4 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image incorrectly depicts the crystallographic unit of the RecA structure as solved in PDB 3CMT (Chen, Yang & Paveltich, Nature 453: 489-494, 2008); however, it does not properly depict the biologically meaningful configuration of the protein and filament. In fact, it is grossly wrong as RecA does not bring the two ends of a double strand break together as depicted in the image, and does not exist in a double-filmament configuration. This image is propagated throughout many wikipedia articles about recombination, and compromises the integrity of each of those articles, as well as the primary article on RecA. The original paper presents several biologically meaningful images of the structure, and none of them come even close to this blatantly misleading double filament. 171.66.18.113 22:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out this problem. The issue here was that the image showed the asymmetric unit (which I assume you meant to write is correctly depicted), but the asymmetric unit is different from the biological assembly. The biological assembly is virtually always the right image for an encyclopedia. This introduction to biological assemblies from the Protein Data Bank has background. I have uploaded a new version of the image depicting the biological assembly. I also corrected captions used in all Wikipedia articles listed in File:Homologous_recombination_3cmt.png#globalusage. If there are issues with the new version of the image, please let me know. Emw (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Same as File:OSR Mexico D242 the execution of maximillian.png but resolution is lower. Sammyday (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem with my images being removed instead of User:William Maury Morris II's images. The Wikisource project was his from the beginning to end. — Ineuw 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The other version has a higher resolution. Natuur12 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
COM:IDENT: person depicted claims that the photo was made without their consent: see [3] and [4] (in Russian). Russian law requires subject's consent even when photo was made in public place, if the image is the principal focus of use (e.g. portrait photograph) and the use of the image is not in the the state's, society's or other public interest (which is certainly not the case). See COM:CSCR#Russian Federation. Grebenkov (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope anyway Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
While Israel has a friendly FOP for permanently installed worked of art in public places, this piece does not appear to be a permanent fixture there, as presently searching for it shows it at the MET [5].. As such, the FOP clause would not apply. Masem (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Includes big poster whose copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. The poster forms a significant portion of the photo and is quite clearly the focus of the photo. Green Giant (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused, without meaningful description. Thus no potential future purpose, if just for the lack of findability. OAlexander (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This is't a simple logo. Only fair use like en:File:Logo ibar.jpg. Ray Garraty (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Uncertain license/source claim. Lots of images from earlier times match, albeit with different margins and cropping. Maybe all taken from some even older un-identified source. (examples: [6] [7] [8]) DMacks (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.relevantmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/node_thumbnail/public/field/thumbnail/Pastor-Louie-Gigliox400.jpeg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.outreachmagazine.com/thumbnail.php?file=/12Giglio_Passion_0710_383758119.jpg&size=summary_large){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
no me gusta Atosha Yoko (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Frivolous DR over a prefectly good image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not in the public domain. Because enactment of the symbol was in 1965, it is not 50 years from enactment still --OskNe (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio. Deceased colleague of person mentioned as source (not the uploader). Ship is from 1955. Tekstman (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This flag is in SVG on Commons under a different name. Fry1989 eh? 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
no me gusta Atosha Yoko (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Frivolous DR over a prefectly good image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep It shows the scenery during an adult entertainment convention or adult trade show. I find this image quite good for such topics. As such it is eduactional enough for Commons or any other Wikimedia projects. Please keep in mind that Commons host lots of photographs from adult entertainment conventions. --High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{PD-Art}}-fail considering artwork of German painter en:Franz Ackermann (1963—). Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Gives information how people oftenly look after they were at the Oktoberfest --High Contrast (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
"Duplicate" wasn't deleted, so I m here. This logo is the same as File:TRON.png but has a black background. It isn't used. Spillik (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
DW of sign LGA talkedits 23:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- this is not a derivative work, it's a woodblock graffiti, which is an original work of vandalism that is fixed to a post independently of any signageVictorgrigas (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- We need the consent of the person who's original work it is to host the picture here. LGA talkedits 01:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
DW of the sign. LGA talkedits 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moussa Kerroum (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence to support the claim that the author of these photographs died more than 70 years ago, and no US PD rationale.
- File:Bataille De Boughafer.jpg
- File:لحظة استسلام قبائل ايت عطا ببوغافر.jpg
- File:Battle de boughapher.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Refer to the date of the Battle boughafer betwin Morrocco and France--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- La bataille de Bougafer ou bataille de Saghro, débute le 13 février 1933 au Maroc et oppose les forces coloniales françaises aux combattants des tribus Aït Atta.--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Look [de Bougafer]--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Look also [oubasslam]--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming the photos show what you say they show, that only tells us when the photographs were taken. It does not say anything about when the author died. And there is still no US PD rationale. Quoting from the PD template you selected: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." —LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTpiy8yckA--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Look also 1933 /03/25 https://www.lematin.ma/express/2014/bataille-de-bougafer_tinghir-celebre-le-81e-anniversaire/199487.html Bataille de boughafer in 1933
- also 1933/03/25 https://www.bladi.net/forum/threads/bataille-bougafer.261758/ bataille boughafer in 1933.
- also 1933/ 03/25 [bataille boughafer 1933]--Moussa Kerroum (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: But we still don't know when the photographer died. In order to keep this files we need evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Natuur12 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Belonozhkin Andrei (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status. Normally, Belonozhkin Andrei (talk · contribs) used a Nokia 5250 for his uploads (1600x1200) but the below files, uploaded in a row on 27.06.2012, are in lower res and without exif, identical to those photos which were previously published at:
- File:Трасса-А153-дорога-А153-возле-поселка-Нариманов.jpg + File:Вид-с-трассы-А153-шлюз-№6-Волго-Догской-канал.jpg --> http://moyidorogi.ru/trassa-a153-marshrut-volgograd-buzinovka/ (18.05.2012, © 2012 Мои дороги.) = .jpg I + II
- File:Трасса-М21-на-границе-Ростовской-и-Волгоградской-области.jpg --> http://moyidorogi.ru/trassa-m21-marshrut-volgograd-morozovsk-kamensk-shaxtinskij-granica-s-ukrainoj/ (05.05.2012, © 2012 Мои дороги.) = .jpg.
- File:Трасса-М21-на-границе-Ростовской-и-Волгоградской-области.jpg
- File:Трасса-А153-дорога-А153-возле-поселка-Нариманов.jpg
- File:Вид-с-трассы-А153-шлюз-№6-Волго-Догской-канал.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Matiasbariloche (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Matiasbariloche, most likely grabbed from Facebook, as File:Silvina García Larraburu Congreso Nacional..jpg (uploaded 07.2012) versus (cropped) https://www.facebook.com/147895613528/photos/a.149761118528.137217.147895613528/10151058645923529/?type=1&theater (06.2012) or grabbed from the X thousands photos via https://www.facebook.com/pages/Silvina-Garc%C3%ADa-Larraburu/147895613528?sk=photos_albums
- File:Silvina García Larraburu Congreso Nacional..jpg
- File:Silvina García Larraburu; Festejo de las Elecciones del 23 de Octubre del 2011.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: Uploaded in 02.2007 by Aarkerio (talk · contribs) the photo was previously published via (example) http://www.gaceta.udg.mx/Hemeroteca/paginas/277/277-1819.pdf (11.2002, by "Gazeta Universitaria") or http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/noticias/destacan-vinculo-entre-unam-y-la-ciudad-de-mexico/ (02.05.2005, "Foto: Crestomátía. Tomada de www.clas.ufl.edu") = http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicacion/noticias/images/unam-010505.jpg Gunnex (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep It is of educational value; it may be used on some fashion related articles. --High Contrast (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a tough one but I have to go with delete based on COM:EDUSE:
- we already have a number of images showing women in bikinis and/or sporting piercings;
- the image is not being used on any article;
- the possible articles such as w:Bikini and the parallel articles on other languages already have significant images of people in bikinis including File:Bikini Model Jassi 3.jpg and File:Girl with red flowered bikini.jpg which are being used on numerous articles outside Commons;
- specifically on COM:EDUSE it says "an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X""; Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, this COM:EDUSE statement is a problematic thing since you plan to delete any image on Commons which is not in use on WIkipedia. In my view, the "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X"-statement is ment for articles which do not exist on any Wikipedia project. --High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. I have no intention of supporting deletion of everything that isn't being used in an article. We do have significant numbers of unused images that could be used but that does not mean we should delete them. However in this case, I cannot see how you could persuade Wikipedians to adopt this image in articles on bikinis, piercings or swings. Even newly created articles in other languages will most likely adopt some of their images from existing articles. I only pointed out that phrase from COM:EDUSE because so far it has been the only argument used in favour of keeping the image. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Educationally useful per High Contrast. Tm (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Which fashion articles do you think this photo will be used in, given that the obvious existing articles already have plenty of images? Green Giant (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not so hard to imagine any number of educational uses. -Pete F (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- What part of COM:EDUSE involves using our imagination? It does say that "an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X"". Ergo, you need to clarify what educational uses there are for this image, something that all three of you have failed to do. Green Giant (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- This editor cast a vote, and their reason is an imaginary one? An imaginary one? Magnolia677 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well COM:EDUSE does use the word "magically", so I guess imaginary reasons are a natural extension of that. Green Giant (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- What part of COM:EDUSE involves using our imagination? It does say that "an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X"". Ergo, you need to clarify what educational uses there are for this image, something that all three of you have failed to do. Green Giant (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus for deletion Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep It is of educational value; it may be used on some fashion related articles. --High Contrast (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Educationally useful per High Contrast. Tm (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: DW of art in background and 3D art in foreground, no permissions. Benoit Rochon (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Image shows man holding a piece of polished wood (sculpture?) in front of other framed works of art. That makes it Derivative Work of all the 2D art in the background and of the 3D art in the foreground, none of which are identified or have permissions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)- Delete Presumptive copyvio as a derivative work of the art which is a primary focus of the photo. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Uploader states this image is "own work" but it is the title card of the film "The Flicker". Unless uploader is Tony Conrad, per the Wikipedia page for The Flicker, this image is derivative and not "own work". Runner1928 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
DW of the sign/logo LGA talkedits 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Composite of three images with no sources for original images cited (as required by CC license) MPF (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Model of proposed casino, not permissible under COM:FOP GrapedApe (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, per (similar image) http://www.elle.fr/Maman/News/Chefs-designers-createurs-Ils-font-plaisir-a-leurs-meres/Sarah-Lavoine-Credit-Franco-Tettamanti-2012 attributed to "Franco Tettamanti", as already shown via File:Sarah Lavoine.png. Permission needed. Obs.: File is cropped from either [9] or [10]. Gunnex (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
![[10]](http://www.sarahlavoine.com/uploads/gallery/52a8760595d3d.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no FOP for buildings in Iran Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
2012120110006287
[edit]- File:Bencsik János.JPG
- File:Balog Zoltán.jpg
- File:Ángyán József.jpg
- File:Budai Gyula.jpg
- File:Czomba Sándor.jpg
- File:Czerván György.jpg
- File:Giró-Szász András.jpg
- File:Halász János.jpg
- File:Győri Enikő Portrait.jpg
- File:Németh Lászlóné.jpg
- File:Lázár János.jpg
- File:Illés Zoltán.jpg
- File:Hoffmann Rózsa.jpg
- File:Kovács Zoltán 1969.jpg
- File:Kontrát Károly.jpg
- File:Benkő Tibor.jpg
- File:Fodor Lajos.jpg
- File:Mihalovics Péter.jpg
- File:Molnar Agnes.jpg
- File:V. Németh Zsolt.jpg
- File:Vargha Tamás.jpg
- File:Németh Zsolt Portrait.jpg
- File:Simicskó István.jpg
- File:Rétvári Bence.jpg
- File:Répássy Róbert.jpg
- File:Szijjártó Péter.jpg
- File:Czene Attila.JPG
- File:Tállai András.jpg
- File:Klinghammer István.jpg
- File:Szabó Erika.jpg
- File:Cséfalvay Zoltán.jpg
- File:Szászfalvi László.jpg
- File:Hölvényi György.jpg
- File:Szócska Miklós.jpg
- File:Völner Pál.jpg
- File:Soltész Miklós.jpg
- File:Doncsev András.jpg
- File:Naszvadi György.jpg
- File:Szatmáry Kristóf.jpg
- File:L. Simon László.jpg
- File:Fónagy János.jpg
I'm raising this request for deletion in the course of a massive contributor copyright investigation on the English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990.
Ticket 2012120110006287 is used as evidence of permission for all of the above images. However, according to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Confirm_2012120110006287, many of the images aren't mentioned in the ticket, and in any case the uploader's request for "CC-BY-SA" permission, and the copyright holder's granting of same, was for non-commercial use in articles only. That is, the uploader apparently misrepresented the terms of the licence, or invalidly attached additional conditions to it, when asking for permission. This may have been a simple misunderstanding on their part, but unfortunately I think we must still conclude that the images are non-free. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify, the problematic wording of the permission in the OTRS ticket is "A képek kereskedelmi forgalomba nem kerülnek, pusztán a szócikkek illusztrációjául szolgál" (English: "The images shall not be exploited for commercial purposes, [but rather] solely for the purpose of illustrating the articles"). —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- BTW altough not mentioned before, the e-mail in the OTRS-system didn't come directly from the kormany.hu e-mail address, but it was forwarded by the uploader. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Igen, biztos kamu levelet írtam a kormany.hu nevében. Ezt akartad mondani ezzel, ugye? --Norden1990 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nem kizárt, hogy ez történt. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bizonyíts, ne feltételezz. Még hogy nem személyes támadás... persze. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- A COM:PCP alapján neked kell bizonyítanod, hogy ez nem történt. A legjobb megoldás az lenne, ha ismét küldenél nekik egy e-mailt (1) egyértelműen kiemelve, hogy a képek kereskedelmi felhasználása lehetséges és (2) és megkéred őket, hogy az engélyt a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org címre továbbítsák. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nem kell bizonyítanom semmit, te vagy a vádló. Ráadásul ez a vád eddig nem is merült fel, csak most, hogy nem tetszett, amit írtam neked. Másrészt, mire visszaírnak a kormany.hu-tól, az OTRS elbírálja a kérvényt, addigra ezerszer törlik itt a képeket a Commons-ban, mert ahelyett, hogy kultúremberek módjára meg lehetett volna beszélni a felmerülő problémát, az esetleges lépéseket, máris törlésre jelölték. Persze én lettem a bűnbak, mintha én jogot sértettem volna, úgy van ez beállítva. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- COM:PCP says "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Due to your en.Wikipedia block for copyright violations there is certainly a significant doubt. Also deleted files can be undeleted at COM:UD if an appropriate permission is received. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Az angol wikit ne keverjük ide. A holnapi nap írok nekik e-mailt, és amint kapok visszajelzést (meg van az esélye, hogy már nem írnak vissza sajnos), akkor azt szeretném, hogy te bíráld majd el OTRS kezelőként, hogy ne érje szó a ház elejét. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any update? Have the copyright holders sent a revised grant of permission to OTRS? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Az angol wikit ne keverjük ide. A holnapi nap írok nekik e-mailt, és amint kapok visszajelzést (meg van az esélye, hogy már nem írnak vissza sajnos), akkor azt szeretném, hogy te bíráld majd el OTRS kezelőként, hogy ne érje szó a ház elejét. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- COM:PCP says "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Due to your en.Wikipedia block for copyright violations there is certainly a significant doubt. Also deleted files can be undeleted at COM:UD if an appropriate permission is received. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nem kell bizonyítanom semmit, te vagy a vádló. Ráadásul ez a vád eddig nem is merült fel, csak most, hogy nem tetszett, amit írtam neked. Másrészt, mire visszaírnak a kormany.hu-tól, az OTRS elbírálja a kérvényt, addigra ezerszer törlik itt a képeket a Commons-ban, mert ahelyett, hogy kultúremberek módjára meg lehetett volna beszélni a felmerülő problémát, az esetleges lépéseket, máris törlésre jelölték. Persze én lettem a bűnbak, mintha én jogot sértettem volna, úgy van ez beállítva. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- A COM:PCP alapján neked kell bizonyítanod, hogy ez nem történt. A legjobb megoldás az lenne, ha ismét küldenél nekik egy e-mailt (1) egyértelműen kiemelve, hogy a képek kereskedelmi felhasználása lehetséges és (2) és megkéred őket, hogy az engélyt a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org címre továbbítsák. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bizonyíts, ne feltételezz. Még hogy nem személyes támadás... persze. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nem kizárt, hogy ez történt. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Igen, biztos kamu levelet írtam a kormany.hu nevében. Ezt akartad mondani ezzel, ugye? --Norden1990 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- BTW altough not mentioned before, the e-mail in the OTRS-system didn't come directly from the kormany.hu e-mail address, but it was forwarded by the uploader. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, clear provocation of Psychonaut, who deliberately misrepresents my sentences. I only emphasized that Wikipedia is a non-profit project. CC-BY-SA-2.5 is the authentic text here. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I provided the exact wording from the OTRS ticket as quoted by the OTRS volunteer, and linked to two prior discussions of how the noncommercial stipulation is problematic. (Further discussion is at User talk:Armbrust#Kormany.hu képek; translations available on request.) If you believe the grant of permission has been misrepresented or misunderstood then please feel free to post the full text here, anonymizing it where necessary, so that others can make an independent assessment. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that you misrepresent the text... I have no OTRS access. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had assumed that since you were the one who submitted the ticket in the first place, you had retained a copy. Your proposal above to write back to the copyright holder is a very sensible one and should remove any doubt as to the use conditions for these images. But if it turns out that they have no objection to freely licensing the images (which necessary includes permitting both non-commercial and commercial use by third parties), please have them contact OTRS directly at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Psychonaut is right, the permission request gave the impression that these images won't be used for commercial purposes but we actually cannot guarantee that. While I am certain this was well-intentioned (the intent was to convey that Wikipedia is a noncommercial project), the permission request was misleading nevertheless. (One could say that it is their fault if they gave permission for a specified license without actually checking what that license means, but we should do better than that.) The permission should be re-requested. Also, it would be best to request permission for these images specifically, not just any image on the site. Getting a permission for any image on domain X, and then using that for images that have been put to that site years later, is borderline illegal. --Tgr (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had assumed that since you were the one who submitted the ticket in the first place, you had retained a copy. Your proposal above to write back to the copyright holder is a very sensible one and should remove any doubt as to the use conditions for these images. But if it turns out that they have no objection to freely licensing the images (which necessary includes permitting both non-commercial and commercial use by third parties), please have them contact OTRS directly at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that you misrepresent the text... I have no OTRS access. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I provided the exact wording from the OTRS ticket as quoted by the OTRS volunteer, and linked to two prior discussions of how the noncommercial stipulation is problematic. (Further discussion is at User talk:Armbrust#Kormany.hu képek; translations available on request.) If you believe the grant of permission has been misrepresented or misunderstood then please feel free to post the full text here, anonymizing it where necessary, so that others can make an independent assessment. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete until OTRS are happy with the permissions. LGA talkedits 09:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- if the four red links were deleted for this reason (seems so), can they be temporarily restored? It's hard to request permission if we do not know what image we are talking about, and there seems to be no reason to handle this four differently than the rest. --Tgr (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, those four images were deleted because they weren't mentioned in the ticket at all; the uploader apparently copied and pasted a ticket which didn't apply. Regardless whether this was intentional or just an oversight, it was unambiguous copyright infringement. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, I am confusing tickets. You are right. Still, if I am requesting permission anyway, I can send another request for those four. Could someone copy their source links here? --Tgr (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.kormany.hu/download/0/c7/d0000/Szijj%C3%A1rt%C3%B3.jpg (Szijjártó), http://www.kormany.hu/hu/miniszterelnokseg/miniszterelnoki-megbizottak-biztosok-es-kormanybiztos (Molnár Á.), http://www.kormany.hu/download/1/53/d0000/Klinghammer%20Istv%C3%A1n.jpg (Klinghammer), http://www.kormany.hu/download/2/18/11000/doncsev1_%C3%B6neletrajz.jpg (Doncsev) --Norden1990 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, I am confusing tickets. You are right. Still, if I am requesting permission anyway, I can send another request for those four. Could someone copy their source links here? --Tgr (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, those four images were deleted because they weren't mentioned in the ticket at all; the uploader apparently copied and pasted a ticket which didn't apply. Regardless whether this was intentional or just an oversight, it was unambiguous copyright infringement. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Note to all -- WP is not non-commercial -- it explicitly talks about producing books and the mere solicitation of funds makes it commercial in some jurisdictions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
A Logo is not covered as an "Official documents, whatever their source or target language, such as laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence" LGA talkedits 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- The file is the logo of an agency of the Egyptian Government, and falls under the "official document" descriptor. Virginia the wolf (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it is not a document, it is an image. LGA talkedits 05:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Document, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, "(4a). Something written, inscribed, etc., which furnishes evidence or information upon any subject, as a manuscript, title-deed, tomb-stone, coin, picture, etc." [1]. Note the last item: picture. This logo serves as evidence/information in picture form of the Egyptian Green Building Council's existence. Virginia the wolf (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I am inclined to argree with Virginia, except for the fact that the EGBC is not an agency of the government -- it is a Council that includes both government people as well as representatives of NGOs and others that are not part of the government. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Shows a group of young people being at this beer festival --High Contrast (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Questions - what specifically about this photo indicates it was taken at Oktoberfest? How likely is it that this image could be used in a relevant article, given that w:Oktoberfest already has more than a dozen images and w:de:Oktoberfest and w:fr:Oktoberfest each have more than two dozen images? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- It was not taken on the Oktoberfest but on the "Gäubodenvolksfest" - a different event; but the second largest of this kind in Germany. --High Contrast (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies. I should have asked, how do we know it was taken at Gäubodenvolksfest? How likely is it that we could use this image in the three existing articles on Gäubodenvolksfest? Are there any other articles it could be used in? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- how do we know it was taken at Gäubodenvolksfest? - do you doubt the photographer's geographical knowledge. Do you really think the flickr photographer lies with this image? --High Contrast (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a rule somewhere that says "Assume good faith for Flickr users"? I can only assume good faith for Commoners and other Wikimedians on their respective projects. The reason I asked the question is because at first glance this appears to be an ordinary group of friends having a drink. I was hoping you would say something like "the particular brand of beer they are drinking is only available at this festival" or "look at these other photos with the same people clearly at the festival". Seriously I'm not looking for a reason to delete, just some educational value to this photo. Your original reasoning was "group of young people being at this beer festival" - the first part is clearly fulfilled but I'm having trouble with the second part i.e. are they at this festival? I'm sorry if I sound picky but I want to be certain before saying keep or delete. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- how do we know it was taken at Gäubodenvolksfest? - do you doubt the photographer's geographical knowledge. Do you really think the flickr photographer lies with this image? --High Contrast (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies. I should have asked, how do we know it was taken at Gäubodenvolksfest? How likely is it that we could use this image in the three existing articles on Gäubodenvolksfest? Are there any other articles it could be used in? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- It was not taken on the Oktoberfest but on the "Gäubodenvolksfest" - a different event; but the second largest of this kind in Germany. --High Contrast (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by TLSuda as no permission (No permission since). I didn't take this photograph, but just transferred this file from the English Wikipedia as it had a free licence. I have no strong feelings about whether it should be kept in the Commons or not, but am wondering whether there is anything to suggest that the photograph was not taken by the uploader. As far as I can see, it has EXIF data and is of a high resolution, so it doesn't appear to have been simply copied from the Internet. Thus, it's no different from a photograph that I have taken personally and uploaded to the Commons. Is there any reason not to assume good faith, as we usually do for such photographs? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- The En.Wp image says the image was previously published at this website (which was changed into the see also part of the source when you moved the image. The source link is dead, so we cannot verify copyright or not. Judging by the web address, it looks like the image is from a student's portfolio with the username joyceag. We need permission from that person, or evidence that that person and the uploader are one in the same.
- What further concerns me is the uploader links on his userpage his own student site under a different username at this site as rtg2.
- That's the reason I tagged it for speedy deletion (in a week) for no permission here and at En.Wp. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if the uploader had not mentioned that he had uploaded the photograph to an external website, we would have accepted in good faith that the photograph was taken by him. Thus, I wonder if the fact that the photograph was also uploaded to an external website (which is now no longer accessible and also not archived on Archive.org – I checked) is relevant. I suppose it is a bit odd that the photograph seems to have been published on the personal website of a student with the ID "joyceag" whereas the uploader's ID is "rtg2", but perhaps the uploader allowed one of his friends to publish his photograph on her website. Maybe you should try leaving a message on the uploader's website or e-mailing him. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The permissions tag that you removed would have dropped a message on his talkpage, if he has email enabled, it would have sent him a message. If he responded, this whole situation would've been taken care of. That's why I went through that process instead of this. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Converting the speedy "no permission" tag to a regular deletion review would not remove any warnings already placed on the uploader's user talk page, as far as I am aware. Anyway, I see there is still a warning on the uploader's English Wikipedia user talk page with your signature on it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The permissions tag that you removed would have dropped a message on his talkpage, if he has email enabled, it would have sent him a message. If he responded, this whole situation would've been taken care of. That's why I went through that process instead of this. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if the uploader had not mentioned that he had uploaded the photograph to an external website, we would have accepted in good faith that the photograph was taken by him. Thus, I wonder if the fact that the photograph was also uploaded to an external website (which is now no longer accessible and also not archived on Archive.org – I checked) is relevant. I suppose it is a bit odd that the photograph seems to have been published on the personal website of a student with the ID "joyceag" whereas the uploader's ID is "rtg2", but perhaps the uploader allowed one of his friends to publish his photograph on her website. Maybe you should try leaving a message on the uploader's website or e-mailing him. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per JackLee . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no FOP for modern buiildings in Iran Natuur12 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
wrong color, the exact yellow type ist to find in the correct version File:Rég de Boisgelin 1761 (1).png L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope, put it on facebook Mjrmtg (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nominator but also because of the copyright/credibility issue. If the person in the photo is the user, then they are falsely claiming credit for someone else's photo. Green Giant (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It's a photo of a fisherman holding an American paddlefish, which is, as per its article, a sport fish, so the photo would be a good illustration for an article on it. We assume good faith for photos of the contributor for which the contributor says he owns the rights to, this does not seem like a professional work, and seems quite likely to have been a timed exposure or made by a friend or relative who would have been fine to transfer the rights to the contributor. "Falsely claiming credit" is uncalled for. --GRuban (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Could you highlight the guidelines on assuming good faith in such circumstances? It isn't a case of being uncalled for, it is a case of sloppiness on the part of an uploader. Would it really hurt to type a few extra words and explain it was a timer? As for articles, COM:EDUSE states that a file doesn't "magically" gain educational value just because it could be used elsewhere. I can see the "educational value" that the uploader thought it had when they added it to List of archaeological periods (North America). If you can find some decent contributions by this user, I might be willing to change my opinion. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: We generally assume good faith when an uploader claims "own work". There are limits to that, and they are crossed when it is obviiously not own work. That is particularly the case when, as here, it is the only contribution of this uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Файл даже потенциально не моет быть полезны ни в каком сегодняшнем или будущем проекте фонда Викимедиа Zugr (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not an amateur porn site, per COM:PORN Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep It might be in scope here: Category:Female genital torture --High Contrast (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per High_Contrast Krd 11:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused, Explict image which may present an issue for users in certain jurisdictions as it apparently shows 'genital torture' albiet in a staged BDSM context. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept, Non-admin closure, Per off wiki comments from other contributorsSfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Czech law does not apply to the works of the UK government and this should be subject to crown copyright Spartaz (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I dont know how to change licence. Pls change it, if you know, in order to keep it. Thx --Krokodyl (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No copyright here. Too simple. Yann (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The stamp is the work of the UK Government and as such Crown Copyright would apply and this is over the TOO for the UK. LGA talkedits 23:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 11:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
All of these are way over the Australian TOO.
- File:AustralianCatholicUniversity.jpg
- File:JCU-Crest.jpg
- File:UOW Mark.png
- File:UWS - Logo (Emblem).svg
- File:Western Sydney logo .svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
LGA talkedits 23:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- A similar nonsensical deletion request as with regard to the Carcraft logos. In both cases all logos from their respective head categories, ie. the Logos of Australia and Logos of UK should be consequently up for deletion if the rationale of the deletion request is to be taken serious. Then time will have to be spent re-upping those files at various language WP editions. There will be inevitably errors in the process, which will lead to further discussions, deletion requests because somebody in their overreach will flag a logo as being to big, not having the form perfectly filled out or whatever. A complete waste of time. The whole thing would be suitably sorted out by simply marking all logos with some general disclaimer. "Threshold of originality" etc. are not things were WP should do juridical guesswork, as it matters not really in delivering a reproduction of a logo. The last major issue with logos was some 15 years ago, when English football clubs did not want them reproduced - they since have changed their stance. Logos are a visual representation of the their respective company or brand names and owner generally only complain if their logos are in low quality, obsolete or disfigured. In case of complaint one acts in the interest of the owner and does not hop onto a juridical perch as WP did at high expense with a German stamp depicting an image by Loriot.
- The whole thing stems from the original WP ideology, that everything has to be absolutely free, also with a view so that one can sell CDs of the WP to refinance the project: that is a dead notion now. Therefore one uses also often pretty gross user snapshots of whatever celebrities instead of official press release photos which are perfectly good but have some restrictions. 99.9% of WP users - and that's the ones that matter, don't have a problem accepting that they view copyrighted material, as long as their curiosity is satisfied.
- What the matter here is concerned: the UWS logo has probably considerable originality. Cook Uni is by itself copied together from freely available symbols. As in opposite to the EN:Aboriginal flag. It is established that I have to pay a royalty if I sell stuff with the Abo Flag. I severely doubt, that I can sell stuff with any of the logos on Commons marked as non-original without the consent of the owner. Thus the whole exercise remains ludicrous. I think, time is better spent upping the quality of logos and adding some that are useful for existing articles. Note also the problem of WPs of smaller language groups which each have to individually source and upload logos to their little realms - which is difficult with a smaller manpower. I can handle a few of which I speak the language, but then again I have my own time limitations, furthered by endless discussions for many of which I have only very little understanding. But now WP is inviting photos about proverbs and foods for which there ought to be only limited practical use in context of the original purpose of WP. Just some thoughts. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: These seem to exceed the TOO in Austraila, which is very low FASTILY 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Replaced by SVG file, not used. --Rl91 (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Grafica scorretta, sostituito da un logo esatto (File:Strada Statale 118 Italia.svg) Friedrichstrasse (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 11:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is File:Facebook logo (square).png, which holds the same value in a much better resolution; this logo could be bot-relinked to the other one. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 17:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I think we don't have to use a bot, on fr.wikivoyage, this template uses the logo. It can be changed in this template, but it's protected (semi-protected? I don't know). --tacsipacsi (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: First replace it than nominate it etc Natuur12 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
