Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 10th, 2014
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Packard did never use a swan as a motive, but it did use a cormorant from ca. 1932-1957Chief tin cloud (Diskussion) 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Chief tin cloud (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This cormorant was a well-known Packard senior model (or deluxe) hood ornament; at last in a highly stylized design. I have already transferred the pictures that were in this category to Category:Packard hood ornaments (Cormorant). No intention to annoy fellow wikipedians; just try to correct an easy to proof error.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, by Fastily, because the category was empty. Taivo (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, not self-created: author is claimed Sandra Kastås, but the uploader is UllmanPR. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Claim of "own work" for this hybrid image including icons of many companies seems very unlikely. Also, no obvious reason it would be in scope. Jmabel ! talk 02:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, maybe the row of icons is even de minimis, but I delete it as unused personal image. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nominated. Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, They were deleted by Nick. Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is a copyright notice in the lower right of the original version of the image, which the uploader has cropped out of the final version. Neither the uploader nor the underlying source provides any information about the date or manner of publication.Uploader's claim that it was published without a copyright notice is unsubstantiated at best. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, "© 1939" in lower right corner of original. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, so small photos (113×113 pixels) are useless. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm not sure it's legal to publicly label children as porn addicts and post their such labeled photos on the Internet Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Lupo as an attack image. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright claimed under OTRS ticket 2014051010004398. Further details awaited to verify claim Nthep (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Sufficient details given to establish that image is still in copyright - now tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio. Nthep (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, by Túrelio due to copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Better and correct named Version is the File:Leonardo-socorro de brisach.jpg.--Docteur Ralph (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture shows the socorro di Brisach in 1633 by the duke of Feria an not the siege of Brisach in 1638 by Berhard von Weimar.--Docteur Ralph (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"I took this image" (uploaded 09.2013, Facebook res) versus (example) http://www.supergoodmovies.com/639/tollywood/manisharma-s-son-to-be-directed-by-puri-jaganath-news-details (2009, Copyright © 2014 supergoodmovies.com. All rights reserved.) = (high res) http://cdn1.supergoodmovies.com/Filesone/9ccda98a461648ed948cb642ebe4a9fd.jpg (last modified: 2012) = unlikely to be own work Gunnex (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possibly salvageable, but there needs to be a clear credit & indication of rights status for the underlying photo. Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, no need to wait, all the uploader's contributions are deleted and this is the last one. Unused logos of non-notable websites are out of scope. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to have been a user page image that has not been in use since 2010, from a user whose only edit since 2007 was to basically blank the user page that had this photo. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Borntofrag. Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

inapropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florentin Munsch (talk • contribs) 2014-05-09T13:53:43‎ (UTC)


 Deleted, unused personal photo, uploader's request. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of project scope Didym (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, unused personal file, the uploader's only contribution. In addition, this is text-only file, but it is very out of scope anyway. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Redirección previa a un error de título ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

uploaded solely for vandalism, see de:Spezial:Beiträge/IBoy01, presumably uploader doesn't care about copyright etc. Schniggendiller (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, by Túrelio due to copyright violation, because the file was found elsewhere in the internet and it was unlikely to be own work. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. out of scope. Meisam (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very small image, no metadata: unlikely to be own work. Moreover, it is out of scope (non notable person). BrightRaven (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, so small photos (150×150 pixels) are useless. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Blurried, practically unuseable. Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, photos made in rock concerts have typically bad quality, but this photo has too bad quality even for rock concerts. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, by Nick with reason: "Mass deletion of out of project scope images added by user NairAliaga". Taivo (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture (S. Batič). Eleassar (t/p) 13:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Advertisements and posters even though in 'public space' are generally copyrighted by their creators, as long as they are no permanent installations (FOP).    FDMS  4    17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Clear copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculptural/architectural work. Eleassar (t/p) 15:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. Uploader added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} later, which looks not very valid here. JuTa 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Sports logo. No indication that the uploader owns the rights.
Logo deportivo; nada sugiere que la persona que subió el archivo tiene los derechos. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep PD-ineligible. - Fma12 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: seems like pd simple FASTILY 00:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Corrupt file (jagged harmonica on lower half). Replaced with File:Universitario Sucre.svg. OAlexander (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, thank you, Alexander. Taivo (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. No related uploads by uploader. Gunnex (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, This is the uploader's only contribution, so it is unlikely, that (s)he will come here to show sources for every file. No one of these 11 original photos had source or author other than own work. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"Own work" seems almost impossible. Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, actually I tend to believe own work, but I speedy delete it due to promotionality and advertizing. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Is it copyrighted screenshot? I suspect copyright violation. Some can argue, that so simple screenshot does not surpass threshold of originality, but in my opinion this is not the case. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a copyvio, Psiphon is free software. Palosirkka (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: GPL software screenshot −ebraminiotalk 12:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Adonlzz as Fair use (Non-free) and the most recent rationale was: logo Yann (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boderline. Is it simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}? Yann (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PD-textlogo should be fine for: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Resonate_company_logo.png Would like to appeal the delete nomination. Adonlzz


 Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No license provided. copied from here ~ Nahid Talk 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyright violation JuTa 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Hard to see how uploader can claim "own work": the relevant work here is the photos on the plastic bottles. Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, I agree: really hard to see, why the user decided to claim own work. The design is clearly copyrighted. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unknown origin of the collage parts and so copyright violation. A.Savin 23:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, none of the parts had any source or author other than "own work". In addition, two collage parts (one in top left corner, the other in center right) depicted modern buildings, but there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

probably speedy but i don't understand the source lang. copyed from here ~ Nahid Talk 13:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: very likely a copyright violation. JuTa 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque; no COM:FOP in Oman.

Jee 15:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; a duplicate of Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque. Jee 15:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, very good quality, but not big and no metadata. Suspicious. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal unused photo. out of scope Meisam (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Roestm (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All: blurred, low quality, bad light.
Some: selfies, out of scope
Some: missing permission

McZusatz (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, all the files were unused, blurry and self-promotional. These were the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ocantoralh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely all files grabbed from Facebook or screenshotted from sites with unknown copyright status, involving multiple copyright issues: Mixture of album covers (example), collages of album covers (example), concert tour covers (example), site screenshots, wallpapers and banners I + II, mysteriously watermarked images etc, all uploaded in a row on 03.09.2013.

Gunnex (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, none of the photos had metadata, none had author other than "own work". No one of them was used: apparently they depicted non-notable persons. Taivo (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Enricasbs (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small pictures with no metadata. There is a clear case of copyvio in the uploads of this user. "Own work" unlikely. Moreover, some pictures are DW of recent works of art.

BrightRaven (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The user has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal image, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is small photo without metadata and this does not look like selfie, but is claimed own work. I suspect real photographer's copyright violation. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Afrazali (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal photo, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

SnowMasterSarah (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal image, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

ADNAN MIR (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal photo, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Mad Ade (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal image, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP in Japan does not cover artistic works. Moreover, the photograph does not seem to be the uploader according to the "source" field. BrightRaven (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image grabbed from the artist's website [1]. The watermark was probably removed by the uploader or added after the upload. BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

HackStud (talk · contribs) did userpage in en.wiki and uploaded a personal photo, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his other contributions got deleted due to different reasons, including advertizing. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a small photo without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Also, the uploader is Gina Martin, but the uploader is Viviana niño, so this can be also copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Obsolete, no longer needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKTemplar (talk • contribs) 2014-05-08T11:32:37‎ (UTC)


Kept: Still in use on user page PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely authorship claims based on the nature of the photo and the uploader's history. LX (talk, contribs) 08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by AbdawiUAE (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, all files uploaded in a row on 04.09.2013. Appears to be all grabbed from internet. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. File:محمد عبده - Mohammed Abdu 70's.jpg + File:Abdu70.jpg = cropped from an album cover, File:Mohammed Abdu - 90's Abha 1998.png + File:Mohammed Abdu - Geneva 1988.png + File:T.V. Days.jpg = video/TV screenshots, File:BM5QzvKCUAAH 4u.jpg = unsourced collage, etc.

Gunnex (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Anluiponce (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Pifa14

[edit]

Here are all files, uploaded by Pifa14 (talk · contribs) and not yet deleted:

They are out of project scope as unused text-only files. Taivo (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Abram Tinodo E (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Walter Riso (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Veronidae (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status: Per file description taken from an exhibition in Venezuela of photos by living en:Raymond Depardon (1942—), a French photographer (...). Questionable if in or out of COM:DM-scope. Fails also COM:FOP#Venezuela.

Gunnex (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all as derivative works of copyrighted photos. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Taivo, derivative works PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Belle1917 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably not own work. (I already deleted 2 files where I was able to find the unfree sources.)

Didym (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Not own work, copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Blurred unused user page image. Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private image which is not used on any Wikimedia project - very likely not useful for educational purposes. See also Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not your personal free web host. High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nom; unused personal photo Pitke (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: user image currently in use on en.wikipedia, no photo album type misuse detected Pitke (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 06:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Mybe private photo & no educational value. ~ Nahid Talk 20:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Owner is aspire4sport & uploader has no right to release under CC. ~ Nahid Talk 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Screen cap; no indication that uploader is copyright owner (see http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/dri-archer-runs-426-dash/story?id=22647434). discospinster (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Despite bad quality, the file is used in hi.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep One of our current whopping total of two animations/videos of progress of penile erection. --Pitke (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:PENIS. This is an exceptionally low quality animated gif of the penile erection process. It's an enormous file, very blurry, full of artifacts, and moreover redundant to the actual videos of the erection process we have in Category:Videos of penile erection. The circumstances have changed since the last DR. It's time to get rid of this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept per and per prior discussion, this file is in use and has been for some time. If and when the editors of hi.wp choose to replace this with a "better" file, there might be something to discuss here; but until then, the decision is clear. -Pete F (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image available on the official website of Jerusalem, and would not be the first copyright violation of the uploader.    FDMS  4    14:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as Speedy (Db) and the most recent rationale was: Дуже погана якість
Converted by me to DR, as this should go through regular DR. Google translates the Russian deletion-rationale into "very bad". -- Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The quality is not good, but not exceptionally bad either. But there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The church can be old, but can be new also. The original request for speedy was written in Ukrainian, not in Russian. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: apparently a new building, there is no FoP in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality ({{BadJPG}}), orphaned. Leyo 19:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The file is used in 3 categories. I looked through all of them. I did not notice a replacement file. Is there any at all? Taivo (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a structure of this compound is needed at some point, it may be drawn in high quality within a minute. In addition, if someone creates an article for this compound, (s)he is unlikely to find the present (low quality) image in the Commons jungle. --Leyo 10:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, especially considering we have file:Leptophos.svg as replacement (in-use in the 4 *.wp articles on this compound). DMacks (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing a replacement file. I added all three categories. Is it good? Taivo (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like scan from a possible copyrighted book. ~ Nahid Talk 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The book isn't the focus, the ring and the heart shape formed by its shadow is. Though I admit I would be happier if the book used were clearly public domain. --GRuban (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, actually the text is not readable. But if somebody retakes the photo, using book, which is in public domain, then I am agree to delete the photo. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, this was the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, the photo is not big and it has no metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:とある白い猫#Your_edits_to_archives. Probably {{G6}}, applies, but there's no rush, and could use a second set of eyes. Elvey (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am commenting because my talk page is linked as the rationale as I felt the need to clarify that I do not support this nomination. I feel this nomination is trying to fix a problem that does not need to be fixed. Furthermore, I'd strongly urge against deleting archives, particularly to preserve the archive history.
  • The archive has so little activity so I do not see the point of archiving by year.
    • This is why I merged them into one page a while back ago in the first place as there was a somewhat noteworthy level of archiving backlog.
    • In the current setup archives are divided into groups of 250K and all of the content hasn't reached this number yet which is why content is limited to the first archive.
    • Dividing archives by year also breaks automatic linking to the archive pages which will cease to work at all if the redirects are deleted.
  • I'd ask the closing admin to correct the current problem.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 00:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This user doesn't understand what the problem is, though I think explained it in plain English; seems to be a language barrier. For some reason the user replied by copying the thread to my talk page; I have replied there. Please review the discussion there and decide.--Elvey (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: housekeeping FASTILY 08:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

possible copyvio, a low resolution found here ~ Nahid Talk 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE due to unusably low image-quality. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, all the user's uploads have very bad quality. Taivo (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Roger Colt (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status of files regarding en:Serge Houde, a Canadian film and television character actor, both files uploaded by Roger Colt (talk · contribs) on 06.09.2013. Multiple copyright issues involved, needing permissions:


Gunnex (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, now are all the uploader's contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No EXIF data, quite small image resolution - typical web resolution. I strongly doubt that this aerial photograph is the uploader's work High Contrast (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, the photo is not big and it has no metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Maybe private photo & no educational value. ~ Nahid Talk 19:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copy violation Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this image was uploaded on 29 April 2014 from an image digitised on 27 March 2014. However, consider "Tora is now" article published by Echo Net Daily in February 2014. It seems to have the same image.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the band that supplied the photo to the newspaper agency. The band holds ownership of the original image and therefore is not guilty of copy violation. I know this because I'm in the band. Thedrunkenship 11:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without permission from the photographer/owner via Commons:OTRS, this image can't be uploaded here. You've been warned in March and reuploaded the same picture 1 month later. If you satisfy one of the option from this section, please follow the procedure. Otherwise, this picture should be deleted. --SamuelFreli (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, the photo is not big and it has no camera data. In addition, this is the uploader's only contribution. Considering that, I am not sure, that Thedrunkenship has right to publish the photo under free license. If you are copyright holder, please send OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded 09.2013. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked, in lower res circulating since 07.2013. Gunnex (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, the photo is not big and it has no metadata, also it is the uploader's only contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only file which should be replaced with wiki-table. May be not relevant for article. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep But the file is used in es.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This picture and other pictures at Category:Murals by Diego Rivera in the Palacio de Bellas Artes should be deleted. They are copyrightable; the author died in 1957, less than 70 years after life. Only one exception that should not be deleted is File:PBA Man at the Crossroads full view from above.JPG because it shows the interior view of the building/museum, not one of murals. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored in line with the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Diego Rivera. Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Used on en:Ignatius Arry Sy. Pitke (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal file, out of project scope Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Flickrwashed image. Frame from a video. enwiki uploader has had all uploads here deleted for same reason and account blocked. Peripitus (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The file is not big and it has no metadata. In addition, there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. I suspect copyright violation.

Этот файл небольшой и не имеет данных фотокамеры как все остальные загруженные Конами файлы. По-этому считаю возможным, что фотограф не Конами, а кто-то другой. Нужно получить OTRS-разрешение от фотографа. Кроме того, в России нет свободы панорамы, так что фотографии о здании (если они не очень старые) можно загрузить в Викисклад только при разрешении архитектора. Taivo (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Dies ist ein Rest eines fehlerhaften Uploads siehe[2] Das richtige Wappen befindet sich unter File:Wappen Freinsheim.svg. Dort wurde die eigentliche zum Redirect führende Version zusammengeführt und von Odder gelöscht (der dbzgl. auch ein paar Kommentare hinterließ). Der eigentliche Inhalt dieser Version ist zusammenkopiert (wie wahrscheinlich alle Wappen das Erstellers, aber egal), was auch dazu führte, dass der Ersteller "selbst" (ein paar Monate) später einen anderen Löwen für "besser" befand (der wiederum aus dem Nationalwappen Tschechiens kopiert war, vorhergehender Löwe stammt anscheinend von Wappen Pleystein.svg die Krone weit verbreitet als Element aus dem französischen Heraldik-Projekt (~2006), wie es auch sei der ganze Löwe ist in einer neueren Version unter besagtem Wappen in der History enthalten). (Hüben wir drüben keine Verwendung) Ergänzend: Das ganze ist nicht so offensichtlich aufgefallen da User:Foroa (einige Monate später) den fehlerhaften/unkonventionellen Redirect aus nicht ganz nachvollziehbaren Gründen wieder zu einer ganz anderen fehlerhaften Dateibeschreibung gewandelt hat. -- Perhelion (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteDas Wappen hat mit dem Wappen der Stadt Freinsheim lediglich die Blasonierung gemein. Egal ob in der Literatur bei Klemens Stadler (1966) und Karl-Heinz Debus (1988, in einer leicht vereinfachten Form), ob offiziell von Gemeinde/(mittlerweile) Stadt, oder in einer Publikation vom Ministerium der Finanzen (Ende der 1980er), die Formgebung des Löwen, der Trauben und des "F" sind mindestens bis zu Otto Hupp (1928) gleich. Die vorliegende Grafik ist eine komplette Neuschöpfung nach eigener Interpretation des Autors und entbehrt jeglicher Grundlage außerhalb von Wikipedia Commons. Ich plädiere daher klar für löschen. Ein Beibehalten einer seit fünf Jahren hier mitgeschleppten, inkorrekten Datei, die nicht benötigt wird, würde den Qualitätsanspruch auf Commons doch in Frage stellen. Fränsmer (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nachtrag: Diese Datei stellt genauso das Wappen Freinsheims dar, wie dieses Wappen das Wappen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Fränsmer (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio. This is not part of the Anefo collection that was released as CC-BY-SA, but from the Fotocollectie Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst Tekstman (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: You're correct Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Doesn't appear to me to be in scope, but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise. Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If this is en:Cher's signature, then it is clearly in scope. Taivo (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason to believe it is? - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very different from genuine autographs by "the" Cher. Favour of delete per nom. --Pitke (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio, not part of the ANEFO collection that was released as CC-BY-SA. Tekstman (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no freedom of panorama in Greece. Commons needs either proof, that the house is old, or OTRS-permission from architect. Taivo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Title, in particular, makes me very suspicious this is a copyvio (refers to the size of the image rather than its content). If it is to be kept, it should be renamed appropriately. Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

same Name in de-wiki. please rename to File:Gini_coefficient.svg Aleks-ger (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The files are similar, but I do not consider them replacements of each other. Do you want to delete or rename the file? The file can be deleted anyway as uploader's request on uploading day. If you want to rename the file, then you must choose another new name. Taivo (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: As above Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Flickrwashed shot captured from a video by User_talk:tc1591 Peripitus (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photograph of a work of art in a gallery in Shanghai. COM:FOP#China only covers work of art in outdoor public place. BrightRaven (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Ya ha pasado tiempo y quisiera borrar esta versión de la imagen Lfalarconu (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is big photo with camera data, quality is good. Free licenses are irrevocable. I added Category:Green neckties, this is the best photo in the category. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The file is not big and it has no metadata. In addition, the author is claimed Skybolt101, but the uploader is Codepage. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of project scope as unused simple logo of non-notable organization (no mention in en.wiki). Taivo (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy of http://www.editionshelenejacob.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Logo_noir_petit.png Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete These files are not duplicates, because Commons file is much bigger. But unused personal logos are out of project scope. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Euro coins are copyrighted. 84.61.172.74 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crop out the coin. // Liftarn (talk)
 Delete This is small photo without metadata. I suspect, that this is not own work as claimed, but photographer's copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not Filmitadka.in's work to license. Non-free photo by Steven A Henry/Wireimage.[3] LX (talk, contribs) 10:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio. Not part of the ANEFO collection that was released as CC-BY-SA. Tekstman (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Elvazquez

[edit]

Elvazquez (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpages in en.wiki and Commons and uploading two personal files. One of them is used on the userpage and the other nowhere. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: You meant to nominate the userpage as well? Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Jasonspera

[edit]

Here are all uploads of Jasonspera (talk · contribs):

He has done nothing in Wikipedia except promotional userpage in en.wiki and uploading some images, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. The photos are very small. The logos belong to non-notable company. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Richoptix

[edit]

Richoptix (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Commons except userpage and uploading a portrait about himself, which is used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Commons is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DRs for other images
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:DW of artwork.

LGA talkedits 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all public graffiti or mural works, not in a museum or other place, I believe there are free from copyrightVgrigas (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, it will explain that murals are copyrighted and as the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks these are not free for use on commons. LGA talkedits 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. With the PDM license, the copyright owner still owns full rights over the image.

Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep out of process, make a new DR every year or so. metadata does not trump explicit license. how do you copyright a photo taken in 2017 in 2013? i.e. the wrong date tends to undermine the claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This has to do with the flickr license which is Public Domain Mark. The metadata is just a warning that the copyright owner retains copyright over the images...unless he/she changes the flickr license. A Public Domain Mark (PDM) license on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies because the flickr copyright owner retains full copyright over the images. Please see this Deletion Request for the Admin's clarification: the Public Domain Mark license can be revoked at any time. That's why Commons cannot accept this license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith is not sufficient when the copyright owner has a copyright notice clearly posted in the camera metadata for each photo. There was never any COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner and so she can launch legal action against Commons at any time. As Admin Woodward stresses, the Public Domain Mark flickr 'license' can be revoked at any time and that Commons cannot accept this license due to this problem. COM:PRP should apply here. The other Admins rejected this license at present so as a non-Admin trusted user I have to follow their decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: This image is PD (under US law) despite the PDM license since it is a US government image but the images under DR are by a private individual. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • good faith is sufficient. these are low risk items. there is a far higher chance of copyright vio with an false "own" or "PD-USGov" or FOP germany, than PD uploader. what is the number of DMCA take downs of PD items? is it less than FOP germany? the other admins did not have a consensus, they and you only have your strongly held views unsupported by facts, only an ideology of license purity. we have 300000 items with no metadata, maybe we should improve those licenses and sources, and the existing files with PD, before increasing the standard for new uploads.
    • why don't you cleanup the metadata of the USGS image rather than persist using the the broken use of information template? "Photos were taken with a system developed by Dr. Anthony G Gutierrez (Tony.Gutierrez@us.army.mil) and taken by Brooke Alexander, Sue Boo, Heagan Ahmed and Sierra Williams." what makes you think all those people were works for hire? were not some of them contractors? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: That's been discussed before.... Alexander and the others were interns, and so 'employees' under US law. - Reventtalk 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: When these images are sourced to a US government site, they would be PD if the metadata says US Navy, US Air Force, USGS, etc or generally sourced to a US government site. But when when an account linked to an individual person has a PDM license, it was the Admins who decided to delete the image, not me. I am not an Admin. In this image it says you can contact someone at usgs.gov at the bottom. So its certainly US Government..as in US Geological Survey. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you realize how many thousand images have been deleted from NASA website as "contractor"? or even ESA [4]: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons" - and some have been deleted and put back [5]. maybe we need an OTRS to USGS to establish who is an employee and who is not?
do not evade responsibility for your deletion nominations. the blithe assumption of US website = US Government is equivalent to flickr uploader used PD tag = PD own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, unless the Flickr account owner licenses the images. The public domain mark, and it's use on Flickr, has been discussed repeatedly, multiple places. There is a clear community consensus that we cannot accept it, because it is not a license, and we cannot 'pretend' that people who apply it to their own works are granting a license. - Reventtalk 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: In this case, the credit line in the camera metadata was given to NASA and the images are sourced to a NASAHQ Photos account. The copyright owner is explicitly named as '(NASA/Bill Ingalls)' which implies that Ingalls did the photography for NASA or NASA gave credit to Ingalls. In the undeletion request, it is clearly stated that "However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA." So, Ingalls work is PD.

If you wish to change Common's policies on a completely different issue like Public Domain Mark, this is not the right forum. PDM just Cannot be accepted from a private person's flickr account because the copyright owner, Linda Rae Duchaine here who states a claim of copyright over her images in the camera metadata, can Revoke permission at any time. How can Commons use these images? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

(tJosve05a (c) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - obvious case. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files are on Flickr with the 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license for Commons, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark since they can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time. As long as the license is not changed at source, we cannot keep these images.

Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment these have a category - use visual file change right or not at all. how many times will you append this page confusing the issue?
keep intent of flickr user was public domain. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: PD Mark images are not accepted on Commons since the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time. This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators to protect Commons from any legal problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you do not have a consensus for "This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators". your "revocable" is a theory only, there is no case where it has been here. there is no DMCA of a PDM. you are making up legal problems where none exist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: The matter was the subject of a six-month long RFC in 2015, as well as several discussions on VP/C since. The consensus of the wider community has always been that the PDM is not acceptable. - Reventtalk 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a bad close is not a consensus - what wider community? i see a clique of deletionist admins who rule by fiat. you dare call it community? this is why commons is hated and you are hated. come to wikimania - then you will see a community, if you dare. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • vk The is no doubt that the original photographer is the one putting these on Flickr, nor is there doubt that they intend them to be public domain. I have sent an advisory Flickrmail as below. With regard to the claim that a decision was made to "protect Commons from any legal problems", I find this an odd statement as there literally can be no legal problem for either Commons or volunteers who make the upload in good faith. @Leoboudv: could you link to where you have seen this stated? Thanks -- (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to  Delete based on a Flickrmail received to my account this morning - (extract) "I do not want my photos on Wikimedia Commons at this time. I have removed them from Flickr to prevent further confusion." If the links given as sources on these images are followed, they are now '404' pages. -- (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It was mentioned in this Deletion Request here and I believe that Jcb and Josve05a have the same understanding. I will be away on Thursday for a seminar. I am following Common's rules by filing this DR and I did not determine the rules on PD Mark. I too was warned not to pass such images some time ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced DR, PDM was mentioned, but nobody described it as a legal problem for Commons. Though we may gain a consensus for policies to handle the uncertainties, my understanding still is that uploads in good faith pose no tangible legal risk to the uploader, nor to the WMF or Wikimedia Commons project. Simply put, if the Photographer is the Flickrstream owner and they wish to change the license, then there will be an issue of whether the license is revocable or ever meaningful when applied to the photographer's own works. As it would be the copyright holder changing their mind, they would be free to request take-down or deletion, however there never has been a case of a claim of damages going to court for a verifiable PDM license being used to rehost an image, nor is it really conceivable that there ever will be, so long as reusing parties are doing so in good faith. Consequently, we could, say, wait for an indefinite period to see if the Flickrstream owner replies to my email, and evidence of that effort to determine copyright would be sufficient legal protection against future claims; so deleting these files within 7 days may be precautionary but logically and legally is not a necessity. -- (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The basic issue is if a license on flickr is revocable as other Commons Admins state then it would be a legal problem for Commons to use it. That is why the other Admins decided not to use PD Mark licensed photos. Of course, you are invited to flickrmail the copyright owner to change the license if you wish to CC BY (Attribution), CC BY SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)or CC zero (public domain dedication) if you wish. I saved some images in the past but there are hundreds of anti-Trump protest images on Commons already. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you mean it is revocable like a flickr user can change their CC-BY license? gosh i guess we can confirm the status at upload and move on. why should PDM be any different? there is a higher legal risk of a "FoP Germany", since there has been a case of a DMCA takedown there - unlike PDM. you are arguing about risk with no data whatsoever.
"other Admins decided" - are you saying admins are the deciders, and we just report on what they do? do admins trump consensus? maybe we should revise the process page. maybe the admins should discuss this on a locked page and just inform us what images to keep and delete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Once an image passes review with a generic CC-BY, CC BY SA or CC zero license, the image is considered passed for life no matter if the copyright owner changes the license at a later date...unless it is a copyright violation or if there are COM:FOP issues. So, Commons can keep the image forever. This image was definitely CC BY at upload even though it is now CC BY NC SA today at the flickr source in 2017 because it was uploaded in 2005 with a FlickLickr bot...that could only upload freely licensed CC BY images at upload. Hence it is not revocable today and Commons can keep it despite the copyright owners change of license with a NC (Non-Commercial) restriction. With PDM, the license is revocable, so its not really a license--more like a label. The copyright owner can remove the use of that image with a PDM license at any time simply by changing the license to say 'All Rights Reserved.' A PDM license has no legal effect. I think most normal Admins have the same understanding of the problems of using PDM labelled/licensed photos. Thank You and I will be away on most of Thursday in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
its a funny thing, the flickr bot also approves PDM such as this one File:Library of congress panel 2140020.jpg. i guess it is not revocable. you have no example where an uploader has changed the "label" - why make stuff up? we have no case law about changing CC-BY licenses, so we do not know the "legal effect" of insisting they are irrevocable. all you have is some tl;dr boilerplate. hey- take all year off, you will not be missed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You would have to ask the flickrbot designer this, not me. Stop being a troll. I won't nominate your image for a DR since its clearly your own image. The flickreview bot never marked your image since you uploaded it with Upload Wizard Extension So, the Upload Wizard Extension bot programmer hasn't clued in that PDM images shouldn't just be passed without review. Lucky for you. As for me, I am a volunteer and I am doing my duty as a marker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is just as much PD as the current case. apparently the admins who decided, have not decided to inform the wizard devs at the WMF to change their allowed licenses, but they screwed up the flickr2commons since that is java. lol. don't leave the barn door unlocked. "duty as a marker" = troll - have you ever taken a picture? why are you here if you have not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the closing Admin who decides this case will decide to send a message to the Upload Wizard Extension programmer about PDM. Or Admin Revent who knows about the PDM issue will close down this 'loophole' as you correctly note. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158352 - Reventtalk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Thanks for your reply here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: According to Fae who flickrmailed the copyright owner, Jillian Sallaway has rejected the use of her PD Mark images on WikiCommons and deleted all of them on her flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We can them nicely if they agree to change the license. But the problem is this set of images is very replacable as there are hundreds of women protesting Trump. If the copyright owner says no and doesn't change a license and make it free, then we cannot use the photo. I have had other people agree to change licenses for their images here Some of these images were taken in the Cairo Museum before this Museum banned all photography in their museum so they are not replacable today. The Egyptians also ban all photography in the tombs of the Valley of the kings today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, the problem is, commons is not a safe space that honors personality rights, and people might well doubt good faith reuse. emailing people on a one on one basis is not a way to run an image repository, it is bush league. yeah "very replacable" = "once you're seen one protesting woman you've seen them all. so let's just clean out the category of all shots not in use. and we can always farm flickr for more" you have a somewhat smaller vision of commons, i.e. a walled garden necessary to support wikipedia only. i'm beginning to agree with you, maybe i should take all my uploads to english, and "do not transfer to commons" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It was the Admins that decided that Public Domain Mark is too risky. I didn't even know about this decision until I was warned not to mark PDM images. So, I'm just following their decision here. An image doesn't have to be in use on wikipedia to remain on Commons forever. Thanks for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it was the admins who closed a discussion against consensus. i'm just not following their corrupt practices here. and you should expect images to go elsewhere forever. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The King Trump ones are high-quality caricatures with quite some meaning. This is in contrast to this "caricature of Donald Trump" that people here are seemingly desperate to keep and which is entirely inappropriate, not a caricature, and not useful or educational but out of scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Personal art and AI art is deemed out of scope. --P 1 9 9   14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:A31tya

[edit]

Here are both files, uploaded by A31tya (talk · contribs):

He has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki, an article about himself (now deleted) and uploading two photos about himself, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. In addition, he uses two usernames in en.wiki (neither has useful edits), but this is not problem of Commons.


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by User:Aeislalvaro

[edit]

Aeislalvaro (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:

This is routine request for small photos without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photos are so small? Can you upload bigger versions, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload versions with EXIF data? Can you categorize the files correctly? Taivo (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Chak No38 sharki

[edit]

Here are all files, uploaded by Chak No38 sharki (talk · contribs) and not yet presented for deletion:

They are small photos without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:GalerieZH

[edit]

GalerieZH (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

The files need OTRS-permission from artist's heirs. The artist en:Zdeněk Hajný died on 1st of March 2014. Taivo (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. Someones death is not a reason for files deletion or need of OTRS. Note that here we are talking about photographs of someone else work. Also I dont understand, why you are proposint deletion and you dont contact Galery ZH to send such permission.--Juandev (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The files are protected with copyright until artist's death and 70 years after that. They shouldn't be uploaded into Commons at all. As the paintings are 2-dimensional objects, the photographer has no copyright. And I contacted GalerieZH in his/her talk page, when creating this request. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ive been personally communicating with GalerieZH. They havent broke any rules. They uploaded images to which they hold at that time rights. If now the rights will be given to someone else, doesnt change the fact, that copyright holder released them under CC.--Juandev (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: com:DW of a copyrighted painting whis requires evidence of permisison via com:OTRS Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Sbirka

[edit]

Here are both files, uploaded by Sbírka (talk · contribs):

The files need OTRS-permission from artist's heirs. The artist en:Zdeněk Hajný died on 1st of March 2014. Taivo (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Ivanovka000

[edit]

Here are both files, uploaded by Ivanovka000 (talk · contribs):

They are unused personal files, out of project scope. In addition, they are small photos without metadata, so copyright violation is also possible. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Source is given as Template:Www.ku.ac.th. Presumably it is link 8 at the top of http://president.ku.ac.th/web/history.php#. No reason to think it is available under the license claimed, and it strains credulity to imagine that, as asserted, the uploader is the copyright holder and is releasing it under this CC license. Possibly public domain (though I expect not); also, possibly, if we have to delete it and if the Thai wikipedia allows non-free use, we should transwiki, since it is used in an article there. Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Tilantha hansanath bandara

[edit]

Tilantha hansanath bandara (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Commons except userpage and uploading two pictures about himself, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Commons is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Abyssal'Nebulaze

[edit]

Here are all contributions of Abyssal'Nebulaze (talk · contribs):

One of them (marked with asterisk) is used in en.wiki on userpage, the others are unused. All his contributions in en.wiki (except userpage) are either deleted as article proposals about non-notable entities or simply reverted as vandalism. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by User:Mukuldoley

[edit]

Here are all contributions of Mukuldoley (talk · contribs):

He has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading two photos about himself. One of them is used in the userpage and the other nowhere. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I just wonder if these images fail COM:DM due to the prevalence of the background.

-mattbuck (Talk) 13:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the rest can be kept as is. LGA talkedits 10:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Apperantly DM Natuur12 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Is it copyrighted design? Taivo (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 08:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is used on several Wikipedias, so if we end up deleting from Commons but it is deemed still useful, it should be transwiki'd. The problems: (1) no coherent source given: the cited source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kisangani_Ville.png is just one small portion of the image. The image is tiny, but appears to be a photo of something, and whoever's work it is a photo of is uncredited. (2) I'm not aware of any basis for this being the coat of arms of Kisangani. The much simpler File:Kisangani_Ville.png claims to be that coat of arms; http://www.ngw.nl/int/afr/kisangan.htm also gives a variant quite unlike this one. http://www.stanleyville.be/histoire.html gives something quite like that (and unlike this) as the colonial-era coat of arms. I'm not sure deletion is the right solution: if issue 1 can be addressed, then issue 2 might just be a matter of description. Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the last link above there’s a very similar image—about the same size but sharper, and with what might be a copyright notice at the bottom (“© Mayoralty of Kisingani“ ? my eyes aren’t what they were), apparently painted out of our version—not far below the colonial shields, and captioned “The arms used in 2009 (no further info at the moment).”—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lots of copyrighted GUI and symbols (see COM:SS) ...    FDMS  4    13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Added File:How to add an image.ogv to this RFD.    FDMS  4    13:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ... which has been nominated for deletion before by an IP. However, I do not think de minimis applies here.[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 08:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

information boards

[edit]

Images of information boards in Switzerland may not be covered by the freedom of panorama rule, as for that ”it must not be possible to use the picture for the same purpose as the original.“ --Abderitestatos (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose deletion request by User:Abderitestatos, imho misreading missinterpretation of fop by User:Abderitestatos of Category:Turicum related topics. Please see also User talk:Abderitestatos as of May 8/10, 2014 as well as Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems User:Abderitestatos: repeatedly vandalisms, trolling, personal attacks, disruptive actions or what else ?? as of 14:49, 10. Mai 2014‎. thx and regards, Roland zh (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ok, covered by Swiss FOP -FASTILY 10:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]