Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_Daniele_(irmã_a_direita).jpg){kind=link}
_Mãe_(esquerda)_irmã_(direita).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-09-21_12-38.jpg){kind=link}
![73 File:Nathan Simpson XVI portrayed by artist Leonardo DaVinci in this surreal portrait minutes before entering the room for the famed "Last Supper" with step-brother Jesus Christ- 2014-05-10 16-01.jpg](#File:Nathan_Simpson_XVI_portrayed_by_artist_Leonardo_DaVinci_in_this_surreal_portrait_minutes_before_entering_the_room_for_the_famed_"Last_Supper"_with_step-brother_Jesus_Christ-_2014-05-10_16-01.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-04-13_20-08.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-05-10_17-01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
La licencia de la web es SA-NC-BY, no sufiente para Commons. Nachosan (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The image lacks any info, it has zero enciclopedic value // Gikü said done Sunday, 11 May 2014 15:27 (UTC) 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleting as per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Template is nonsense. If the license is appropriate the image can be used in German Wikipedia. 2A02:810D:10C0:6F4:34CD:3684:7E3D:C464 21:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Although I highly doubt our Kabel Deutschland customer is a new contributor to Commons, I have to agree that especially after the last adaption of Steindy the template became contradictory to free licenses. Also, the meaning of the English part is not understandable at all. Therefore (and because this template is obviously rather intended to cause "harm" than joy),
Delete. FDMS 4 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the application from a cowardly IP from Germany comes has not the courage openly to occur.
The template is not nonsense. The user has been permanently blocked after administrative abuse in the German Wikipedia and can no longer write. More you can read here and here and here. There also you can „learn“ more about the German Adminpedia...
Therefore, it is also my good right to prohibit the use of his images in the German Wikipedia. It is therefore logical that a user who can not write, may contribute also any pictures for the German Wikipedia.Is the template is deleted, will I upload just to the detriment of other Wikipedias no pictures more for commons. I point out that very many of my photos are involved in non-English Wikipedias. So, you have the choice between the template and my outright withdrawal from Wikipedia/commons. – Regards Steindy (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Erm … Steindy, to prohibit means verbieten. Everything a CC license allows you to prohibit is that reusers attribute you in a way that suggests you endorse the reuse and that reusers attribute you at all after you have told them not to do so (which is, however, technically hardly possible on Wikimedia projects). I would not suggest you making any threats here. And a word to your statements about the German Wikipedia: In general, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but my experience with de.WP is that admins are generally (with exceptions) rather competent there. FDMS 4 23:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I want to communicate me, so do this in german. I have no desire, laboriously scrape together my last English skills. Finally, it's been nearly 50 years to have learned this in school. That's why I prefer the German language.
- Wenn Sie mir mir kommunizieren wollen, so machen Sie dies in deutsch. Ich habe keine Lust, mühsam meine letzten Englischkenntnisse zusammenzukratzen. Schließlich ist es schon knapp 50 Jahre her, dies in der Schule gelernt zu haben. Deshalb bevorzuge ich die deutsche Sprache.
- Regards Steindy (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kannst du gerne. Ich denke NICHT zur Verwendung in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia! spricht eine ziemlich klare Sprache, nämlich dass du eine bestimmte Wiederverwendung nicht gestattest. Wenn dem so ist, dann lizensiere deine Werke bitte nicht unter einer freien Lizenz, das wäre nämlich wiedersprüchlich. Die Freigabe unter einer solchen Lizenz ist nicht wiederrufbar. FDMS 4 00:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ich denke mich klar und unmissverständlich ausgedrückt zu haben. Ich bin nach administrativem Missbrauch der erweiterten Rechte in der deutschen Wikipedia infinit gesperrt. Als gesperrter Benutzer habe ich dort NICHTS beizutragen, auch keine Bilder; weder direkt, noch indirekt durch Einfügung anderer Benutzer. Und eine Aufhebung meiner missbräuchlichen Sperre in der deutschen Adminpedia werde ich auch nicht betreiben, zumal der willkürliche Sperrgrund „kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar“ lautet. Compris? Ich habe es nicht nötig, in der deutschen Adminpadia mit meinen Werken mitarbeiten zu dürfen. So viel Selbstachting sein mir gestattet. Wird der Baustein gelöscht, werde ich eben auch kaine Bilder mehr nach commons hochladen. So einfach ist das. --Steindy (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Erstens, hör doch bitte auf mit dem Märchen, für deine Sperre gab es breiten Konsens, und genauso hätte auch wohl jeder Commons-Admin gehandelt. Zweitens solltest du grundsätzlich weder als ungesperrter noch gesperrter Benutzer Bilder zur deutschsprachigen Wikipedia beitragen, dafür gibt es nämlich das separate Projekt Wikimedia Commons, von wo Medien von jederman weiterverwendet werden können. Dass du an dieser Stelle wiederholt Drohungen machst zeugt leider von deinem schlechten Communityverständnis (soviel übrigens zu "Lebenserfahrung"), das auch zu deiner infiniten Sperre in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia geführt hat. FDMS 4 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Erstens verbitte ich mir, von Ihnen mit dem vertrauten „Du“ angesprochen zu werden. Ich habe Sie auch mit „Sie“ angesprochen. Auch oder gerade wenn Sie Sir-Karl-Popper-Schüler sind, gebietet es Ihnen der Anstand, dies zu respektieren. Zudem behalte ich mir vor, meine Freunde selbst auszusuchen und Jugendliche Ihren Alters zählen nicht dazu. Schließlich könnte ich vom Alter her, Ihr Großvater sein.
- Zweitens hören Sie gefälligst auf, hier vorsätzlich Unwahrheiten zu verbreiten. Mir reichen die Unwahrheiten, die in der Deutschen Wikipedia verbreitet werden allemal. Diese Diskussionen hier and hier and hier sprechen eine deutliche Sprache. Letztlich zeigt auch das Abtauchen des Verantwortlichen Admins Ne discere cessa!, der seit meiner Sperre am 17. April 2014 keine Bearbeitungen mehr getätigt hat, eine deutliche Sprache; ein gutes Gewissen sieht anders aus.
- Und letztlich drittens haben Sie Ihre Meinung bereits kund getan, weshalb jedes weitere Nachtreten höchst entbehrlich ist. Sie sind an diesem Konflikt weder beteiligt, noch von diesem betroffen, weshalb ich mir vorbehalte, wegen dieser persönlichen Angriffe Schritte gegen Sie zu unternehmen. --Steindy (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Erstens, hör doch bitte auf mit dem Märchen, für deine Sperre gab es breiten Konsens, und genauso hätte auch wohl jeder Commons-Admin gehandelt. Zweitens solltest du grundsätzlich weder als ungesperrter noch gesperrter Benutzer Bilder zur deutschsprachigen Wikipedia beitragen, dafür gibt es nämlich das separate Projekt Wikimedia Commons, von wo Medien von jederman weiterverwendet werden können. Dass du an dieser Stelle wiederholt Drohungen machst zeugt leider von deinem schlechten Communityverständnis (soviel übrigens zu "Lebenserfahrung"), das auch zu deiner infiniten Sperre in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia geführt hat. FDMS 4 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ich denke mich klar und unmissverständlich ausgedrückt zu haben. Ich bin nach administrativem Missbrauch der erweiterten Rechte in der deutschen Wikipedia infinit gesperrt. Als gesperrter Benutzer habe ich dort NICHTS beizutragen, auch keine Bilder; weder direkt, noch indirekt durch Einfügung anderer Benutzer. Und eine Aufhebung meiner missbräuchlichen Sperre in der deutschen Adminpedia werde ich auch nicht betreiben, zumal der willkürliche Sperrgrund „kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar“ lautet. Compris? Ich habe es nicht nötig, in der deutschen Adminpadia mit meinen Werken mitarbeiten zu dürfen. So viel Selbstachting sein mir gestattet. Wird der Baustein gelöscht, werde ich eben auch kaine Bilder mehr nach commons hochladen. So einfach ist das. --Steindy (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kannst du gerne. Ich denke NICHT zur Verwendung in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia! spricht eine ziemlich klare Sprache, nämlich dass du eine bestimmte Wiederverwendung nicht gestattest. Wenn dem so ist, dann lizensiere deine Werke bitte nicht unter einer freien Lizenz, das wäre nämlich wiedersprüchlich. Die Freigabe unter einer solchen Lizenz ist nicht wiederrufbar. FDMS 4 00:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Speedydeleted:(CSD U5) Genug Drama. Nicht mit CC Lizenz kompatibel, + COM:SCOPE, + Bitte dewp konflikte nicht auf Wikimedia Commons austragen. Wo würde das enden wenn es alle so handhaben würden die auf anderen Wikis gesperrt sind. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
All uploads by uploader are copyvo From internet.
- File:Stadion FK Zemun.jpg
- File:Slana Bara.jpg
- File:Stadion Krčagovo.jpg
- File:Stadion FK Inđija.jpg
- File:Stadion Borca kraj Morave.jpg
- File:Stadion FK Bežanija.jpeg
- File:Stadion FK Voždovac.jpg
- File:Gradski stadion Subotica.jpg
- File:Stadion FK Rad.jpg
- File:Gradski stadion Novi Pazar.jpg
- File:Javor Ivanjica Stadium.JPG
- File:Stadion Cukaricki.jpeg
- File:Stadion Čukarički.jpg
~ Nahid Talk 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Accidentally starting DR, I marked the page as copyvio also, sorry for trouble. ~ Nahid Talk 19:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photograph of non-notable person, no probable educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photograph of non-notable person, no probable educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, no educational value & possible private photo. ~ Nahid Talk 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photogrqaph of unidentified person, no probable educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work from modern art. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photograph of a non-notable person Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
And also:
- File:Lil Sony,.jpg
- File:Niefang play Boyz.jpg
- File:U.L.N..jpg
- File:Lil Sony..jpg
- File:3D forever.jpg
- File:Lil Sony.jpg
- File:Niefang.jpg
self-promotion of a non-notable artist, very unclear copyright status of some photos as the subject is visible himself and there is no EXIF data FDMS 4 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a cropped version of File:Annadurai, Chennai Airport.jpg which is a photo of a memorial containing a photograph. I don't belive the cropped version is allowable because it only shows the original photo which will have its own copyright (as opposed to the memorial). Obi2canibe (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- As per license I transformed the photo to my liking. It might be a grey area. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Without information on the picture we cannot keep the crop version. The original version may be kept as the photo might be De minimis which is not the case on the crop. We would need publication date, country of publication and information on the author in order to evaluate whether the picture is acceptable here. PierreSelim (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
File:- Brandan nethercliffe ---Age- 11 born 2002 --born- Basingstoke Hampshire - 2014-04-29 22-01.jpg
[edit]
1. Out of scope: Unused personal image of non-notable person. 2. Child photography with no indication of parental consent Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination High Contrast (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
File:-استاد خلبان حاتم دعاخوان اروميه-استاد خلبان حاتم دعاخوان سال 1350 آموزش خلبانی را با موفقیت باتمام رسانده و برای ت 2013-08-20 17-03.jpg
[edit]
Probably a copyright violation: Picture seems to be retaken from a photograph displayed somewhere, shadow of the photographer is mirrored on the right half of the image Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation - Copied from https://www.facebook.com/RRDreamWorks AntonTalk 01:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused "family logo" for which I can't see any meaningful use. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal photo. ~ Nahid Talk 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_Daniele_(irm%C3%A3_a_direita).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Daniele_(irm%C3%A3_a_direita).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused personal shot of likely non-notable people. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
_Daniele_(irmã_a_direita).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_Daniele_(irmã_a_direita).jpg){kind=link}
Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Esta imagen te ayuda a tener mas culo lo cual dice que eres mejor en el acto sexual- 2014-05-11 19-51.jpg
[edit]
out of scope (text only) Lupo 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
used only in a promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
this kind of flag din't never exist and is the pure phantasy of the creator. L' empereur Charles (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Although we do have many such combined national flags (to illustrate dual citizenship, for example), in that case the image is misleading, as that country did not use a single national flag.--Antemister (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep I do not see anything misleading, no claims of officiality. Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Fry1989, the problem is that this flag never exist but often is in use as offical flag of Austria-Hungary on the diffrent wp's and that is really a misleading -- L' empereur Charles (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Than remove it from those official usages. There is nothing misleading about the file name or it's description, this is not a valid reason to delete the file. Fry1989 eh? 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Fry1989, the problem is that this flag never exist but often is in use as offical flag of Austria-Hungary on the diffrent wp's and that is really a misleading -- L' empereur Charles (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no basis for keeping this image that has no reliable sources for its use and so is a personal fantasy to imagine Austria-Hungary to be more a modern type nation state than it was. --Bomzibar (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This flag is a mistake, it was never in use.--Pappenheim (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't made to suggest that, it's very obviously not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- ... not a real flag. So why keep it? It would just cause confusion, and this diskussion would repeat at least anual.--Pappenheim (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- We do not delete things because they "are not real". That alone is never a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- ... not a real flag. So why keep it? It would just cause confusion, and this diskussion would repeat at least anual.--Pappenheim (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't made to suggest that, it's very obviously not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom, Bomzibar, Pappenheim. All is said --Wikijunkie (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per comments at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue; fictional flags like that are out of scope. LGA talkedits 21:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't fictional either. It doesn't claim to be anything fake, it was purposefully designed and is clearly in scope. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Show a source for the flag and I will change to keep, if there is no source it is fictional. LGA talkedits 22:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't need a source because it doesn't claim to be a real OR fictional flag. You're completely missing the point of this image. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry but the flag is either real or fictional there is no middle ground here, if the flag is the creation of a WP editor it is fictional and in my view out of scope. LGA talkedits 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't need a source because it doesn't claim to be a real OR fictional flag. You're completely missing the point of this image. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Show a source for the flag and I will change to keep, if there is no source it is fictional. LGA talkedits 22:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't fictional either. It doesn't claim to be anything fake, it was purposefully designed and is clearly in scope. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- None of you seem to understand an underlying fact. This file does not claim to be a real or fictional or historical (or in any other manner) flag of Austria-Hungary. It is not a fake because it doesn't claim to be anything. There are times where such custom images are needed for projects, just look at File:Politics of Malaysia.png. Just because some people use it on pages where it shouldn't doesn't make it a "misleading" or "fake" image. There is no reason to delete it merely because it's "not a real flag". Fry1989 eh? 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It was in Category:Flags of Austria-Hungary (before I removed it) which implied a claim to be a real flag. LGA talkedits 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't imply that at all. It is the combined flags of Hapsburg Austria and the Hungarian Kingdom, that category was perfectly valid. We have plenty of "combined flags" which are not real flags but rather deliberate combinations, such as File:Flag of Libya (2011 combined).svg or File:Flag of Slovakia and Germany.svg. Just because it's two flags put together doesn't mean we remove them from categories, or more importantly delete them. Fry1989 eh? 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not, please discuss that point further on the files talk page. LGA talkedits 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are vandalising the file by removing a valid category. Do not do it again. We have hundreds of combined flags, are you to nominate them all for deletion because they're "not real"? Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not, please discuss that point further on the files talk page. LGA talkedits 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't imply that at all. It is the combined flags of Hapsburg Austria and the Hungarian Kingdom, that category was perfectly valid. We have plenty of "combined flags" which are not real flags but rather deliberate combinations, such as File:Flag of Libya (2011 combined).svg or File:Flag of Slovakia and Germany.svg. Just because it's two flags put together doesn't mean we remove them from categories, or more importantly delete them. Fry1989 eh? 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It was in Category:Flags of Austria-Hungary (before I removed it) which implied a claim to be a real flag. LGA talkedits 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- seems to be, that you will not understand! This flag may looking pretty but ist not, not the flag of Austria-Hungary and also not the “combined flag of Austria-Hungary”, the suggestion of that is a misleading! I'm able to upload a combined flag of Scotland-Wales created in my phantasy, what do you think about that? -- L' empereur Charles (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - This image you call a flag was created as a symbol to tag the joined forces of Habsburg-Hungary in a battle at Isonzo river. In discussion this construction was turned down as misleading image, that never existed in reality. It is not a flag, just a graphic of only limited value. --Maxxl2 - talk 07:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete In what kind of article we nees a fictional flag at all? --Otberg (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do I really have to say it a million times that this does not claim to be an official OR fictional flag, and that we have literally have hundreds of these flags for a variety of purposes? This file is no different, and all of you are mistaken in your reasoning for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- But these hybrid flags are not misleading, like this one...--Antemister (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- This file is only misleading to people like you who think everything has to be "real" to the extreme. Nobody else thinks File:Flag of Germany and Hungary.png is a real flag of anything, so why should they think this file is a real flag of anyting? You have been told so many times "it's not real" is not a real reason to delete images. There's nothing wrong with this image or any of the others, and they were created on purpose for projects. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- There was never any state union between Germany and Hungary, but between Austria and Hungary there was one. While this rather similar File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg did exist, uninformed (most) users might imply that the design discussed here was used in the same manner.--Antemister (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ignorance is not an excuse. Fry1989 eh? 01:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- There was never any state union between Germany and Hungary, but between Austria and Hungary there was one. While this rather similar File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg did exist, uninformed (most) users might imply that the design discussed here was used in the same manner.--Antemister (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- This file is only misleading to people like you who think everything has to be "real" to the extreme. Nobody else thinks File:Flag of Germany and Hungary.png is a real flag of anything, so why should they think this file is a real flag of anyting? You have been told so many times "it's not real" is not a real reason to delete images. There's nothing wrong with this image or any of the others, and they were created on purpose for projects. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- But these hybrid flags are not misleading, like this one...--Antemister (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Comment 1. I don't think that the argument that the file was not explicitly misleading to be sufficient, however the file has since been renamed to clearly show that it is a fictional flag, which is also reflected in the file description, so I think that the goal of clarity here has been met. Perhaps if all fictional flags had the word "fictional" in their title and description, it would go a long way to resolving the ongoing issue. 2. I don't see any policy against fictional works, and barring such a policy, fail to see how that by itself is sufficient for deletion. 3. So, what exactly is the argument for deletion here? The fact that the flag is fictional? Or COM:SCOPE, "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose ... providing knowledge; instructional or informative", or that this "File not legitimately in use"? trackratte (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- As I don't see where any such "educational purpose" has been demonstrated therefore in my view COM:SCOPE is not met (i.e. the file is outside our scope) it is incumbent on either the uploader or those wishing to keep it to demonstrate such use a educational purpose, they are yet to do so. LGA talkedits 02:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment meanwhile the file has been renamed into "Fictional flag Habsburg Hungary.svg" sowith it is easy to recognize that this file is a private adventure and not an official one. So far I (for myself!) think that the reason for delete is no longer justified and Mister Fry1989 can keep it and hang it on the Siegfried Line or whatsoever -- L' empereur Charles (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- It never should have been renamed, it did not claim to be a real flag in the first place. Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom et all. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Whilst the flag is not a "real" flag, per se, it does combine flags, and this not uncommon as File:English language.svg demonstrates. That particular flag could very well also be used to represent relations between the UK and US -- such as an image in stub template. The image under discussion here could be used for a similar purpose for relations between those two states. So there is possible scope for this image as described by Fry1989.
I also recognise the delete "votes", and the solution for this would be for a discussion to take place which encompasses all such flags, not just one, and for images to be adequately described, categorised (such as using "Category:Variation on flags of blah blah" to differentiate it from official flags) and perhaps a template applied to such images to advise possible re-users that such images are not official.
I hope that this closure will assist all editors to help find some middle ground and come to a mutually acceptable solution. russavia (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Additional comment. I missed that Category:Hybrid flags by country already exists so the variations category may not be best place. But I'll leave this up to editorial discretion. russavia (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
just 640x480 black pixels. Lupo 20:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_M%C3%A3e_(esquerda)_irm%C3%A3_(direita).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_M%C3%A3e_(esquerda)_irm%C3%A3_(direita).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused and blurry personal shot of likely non-notable people. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
_Mãe_(esquerda)_irmã_(direita).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_Mãe_(esquerda)_irmã_(direita).jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused personal shot of likely non-notable people. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope, used for deleted article about this juvenile he wrote himself so unlikely he made the picture himself as well MoiraMoira (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. ~ Nahid Talk 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
out of scope Lupo 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO false own work claim. Looks like a promo shot. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of several images used in this collage are missing or are insufficient, compromising the whole file. Uploaded on 20.09.2013, 1 part mysteriously watermarked. 2 parts most likely grabbed from (example) http://www.ebharat.in/jharkhand/khunti/panchghagh-falls-khunti-jharkhand + http://www.ebharat.in/jharkhand/khunti/shiv-temple-amreshwar-dham-khunti (Copyright © 2005-2012 VinayRas Infotech. All rights reserved.) = http://www.ebharat.in/sites/default/files/imagecache/node_preview/sites/default/files/Panchghagh-Falls_Khunti-Jharkhand.jpg.jpg + (cropped) http://www.ebharat.in/sites/default/files/imagecache/node_preview/sites/default/files/46474192.jpg.jpg (both: last modified: 07.2013) or grabbed (example) from internet. Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation http://www.veethi.com/india-people/n._srinivasan_(digital_artist)-profile-3678-42.htm AntonTalk 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of a widely used wallpaper, Uploader has no power to release under CC license. ~ Nahid Talk 08:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Person of a non notable person and there is no discription or accuarate cats Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; unused shot of unknown, non-notable person; probably also violating her personality rights. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing at the link indicates Lost Highway records or Marco Grob have licensed the photo as PD. We hope (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The link is to an LA Times blog and while it credits the record company and photographer, there's nothing about a CC license there. We hope (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No proof whatsoever of file being CC licensed, meanwhile the file has already been published somewhere else. PierreSelim (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photograph of non-notable person, no probable educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely grabbed somewhere from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, no educational value & possible private photo. ~ Nahid Talk 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
empty. file uploaded under new title Saqib (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_2013-09-21_12-38.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-09-21_12-38.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, cropped from (example) http://www.telsu.fi/l/rojua--rojua_2915632_1.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
_2013-09-21_12-38.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
_2013-09-21_12-38.jpg){kind=link}
Uknown source. wiki table must be used instead. Meisam (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like ascreenshot from a movie. ~ Nahid Talk 08:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
DW of probably (c) image. Can't find CC-license for given source. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akashyadav1043 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://galleryhip.com/miley-cyrus-2013-sexy.html Prokurator11 (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work:
- File:Могила поэта Пряничникова.jpg + File:Пряничников Иван Александрович.jpg, uploaded on 14.09.2013, taken from (as indicated) http://brdd.ru/bio-prjanichnikov (10.09.2013, by Igor Zorihin, ©2013 Биржа добрых дел.Все права защищены. = All rights reserved). Permission needed.
- File:Гавриил Дмитриевич Агарков.jpg: Unlikely to be own work. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
Related (by same uploader): Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vladimir Kuznezov.
- File:Могила поэта Пряничникова.jpg
- File:Пряничников Иван Александрович.jpg
- File:Гавриил Дмитриевич Агарков.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No indication that the creator of this diagram released it under a free license. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monicamontone (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of book covers and promo photos. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Mônica Montone - escritora.jpg
- File:Mônica Montone 1.jpg
- File:Mulher de Minutos.jpg
- File:Sexo champanhe e tchau.jpg
- File:A louca do castelo.jpg
- File:Mônica Montone.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Asmabatoul (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, both mysteriously watermarked
Gunnex (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Schotli boubi (talk · contribs)
[edit]not own work
- File:Bac Gillois sur PONT.jpg
- File:Travure 2.jpg
- File:Travure.jpg
- File:Travure 5.jpg
- File:Travure 4.jpg
- File:Travure 3.jpg
- File:Travure 6.jpg
- File:Gillois.jpg
- File:Armi gen home.jpg
- File:Pfmpontflottantmotorisg.jpg
- File:071113-15 Hartheim 169.jpg
- File:Portière civil.jpg
- File:Module Rampe Autonome.jpg
- File:Deplacement de 2 modules et de l equipe de securite.jpg
- File:P1-produits-27.jpg
- File:PFM MALAYSIE.jpg
- File:Numar115.jpg
- File:TBC PFM1.jpg
- File:Numar116.jpg
- File:TBC PFM.jpg
- File:071113-15 Hartheim 233.jpg
- File:8RMAT 08.jpg
McZusatz (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coddog 1997 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely grabbed from Facebook, considering also logs.
- File:Knoxville nationals 2013 2013-09-15 21-40.jpeg
- File:Trent pigdon rookie for 12-13 season 2013-09-15 19-16.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vladimir Kuznezov
[edit]{{PD-Scan}}-fails (+70 pma), considering 3 artworks of Russian painter ru:Кузнецов, Владимир Александрович (художник) (1874—1960), copyrighted till the end of 2030. Permission needed.
Nominating also 2 related photos:
- File:Могила В.А. Кузнецова.jpg, taken as indicated somewhere from http://brdd.ru/ (Google Translate: © 2013 Marketplace good del.All rights reserved.) versus {{Cc-zero}} (on which base?)
- File:Владимир Александрович Кузнецов.jpg, uploaded 08.2013, unlikely "own work", considering (example) http://www.maslovka.info/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=895 = http://maslovka.info/images/555/KUZNETSOV-2.jpg (last modified: 2007)
Permission(s) needed.
- File:Божьи люди.jpg
- File:Владимир Александрович Кузнецов.jpg
- File:Канон.jpg
- File:Могила В.А. Кузнецова.jpg
- File:Пушкин и Няня.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only images which could be replaced with wiki-tables and math markup.
- File:Kf complex ion Table.png
- File:Table 2 Kb.png
- File:Salts.png
- File:Table 1 Ka.png
- File:OH calc.png
- File:Nicotinic acid calc.png
- File:Kb NaF.png
- File:Kb eqn.png
- File:Kb calc CN-.png
- File:Ka2 calc.png
- File:Ka2 cont..png
- File:Ka1.png
- File:Ka eqn.png
- File:Ka calc HOAc.png
- File:Indicator eqn.png
- File:HOY strength.png
- File:HCN eqn.png
- File:HClO4 series.png
- File:HA bond strength.png
- File:Electroneg strength.png
- File:Ba(OH)2 calc.png
- File:Acid base eqn.png
- File:% diss eqn.png
- File:New rate to equil.png
- File:Calc Keq prb.png
- File:Rust eqn.png
- File:Eqn 1.png
- File:Kp to keq prb.png
- File:Kp to Keq 001.png
- File:Q prb 1.png
- File:Q prb 2.png
- File:K to Kp.png
- File:Q reaction quotient.png
- File:Kand K'.png
- File:Eqn 3.png
- File:K and K' prb.png
- File:Calc Keq 1.png
- File:Kp prb.png
- File:Prb K and K'.png
- File:K and K'.png
- File:Second quad part 2.png
- File:Second quad prb.png
- File:Check on first quad prb.png
- File:First quad part 2.png
- File:First quad problem.png
- File:First quad prb.png
- File:Kp eqn.png
- File:Quad Eqn Gen Equi.pdf
2_calc.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Julio Ramón Vargas Salas (talk · contribs)
[edit]- Scope
- Own work claim false (b&w image, map, one itunes image already deleted)
- File:Arturo García y Jorge Aspilcueta.jpg
- File:Arturo García recibiendo la Medalla de Oro 2011.jpg
- File:Arturo García y Víctor Dávalos.jpg
- File:El Chacarero.jpg
- File:Luis Caceres Velasquez y Arturo Garcia.jpg
- File:Los Canarios de Melgar.jpg
- File:Arturo García 2.jpg
- File:Arturo García.jpg
- File:Trío Yanahuara.jpg
- File:Mariano Melgar 2.jpg
- File:Mariano Melgar Valdivieso.jpg
- File:Mapa del Yaraví.jpg
- File:El yaraví.jpg
- File:Víctor Dávalos y Jesús Vásquez.jpg
- File:Los Dávalos 3.jpg
- File:Los Dávalos 2.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Hmhuo (4 uploads regarding fr:Université normale de Shenyang = 2x copyvio/1x problematic) Gunnex (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. Out of scope. Meisam (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, Maybe private photo. ~ Nahid Talk 08:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erdemcrk58 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from non-trivial logos. If some of logos are in public domain, this facts should be explained in descriptions.
- File:600px Bianco e Azzurro Nuova Santa Maria delle Mole Marino.png
- File:600px Bianco e Azzurro con stemma di Arzano.png
- File:600px Bianco con lupo nero a occhi rossi.png
- File:600px Bianco con Leone Nero.png
- File:600px Bianco con Aquilotto e Pallone.png
- File:600px Bianco con Aquila Blu.png
- File:600px Bianco olbia.png
- File:600px Amaranto con R e pallone.png
- File:600px Akragas.png
- File:600px - LupaRoma flag.png
- File:600px - LupaRoma2 flag.png
- File:600px Azzurro2 siracusa.png
- File:600px Bianco e Bluneapolis.png
- File:600px Granatafano.png
- File:600px Rosso e Blu2gubbio.png
- File:600px Bianco e Azzurro foligno.png
- File:600px Bianco e Azzurrogela.png
- File:600px Azzurro e Blu2 ALBINOLEFFE.png
- File:600px Granata portosummaga.png
- File:600px 2Rosso e Bianco con lupo biancorosso.png
- File:600px Bianco e Nero con Cavalluccio Bianco.png
- File:Cav aq.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: this is not Facebook. Selfie by 16-year-old uploaded for use in deleted autobiographical en:Bibek Bhattarai JohnCD (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
out of scope: text-only Lupo 16:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
out of scope; smartphone screenshot Lupo 16:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Nathan Simpson XVI portrayed by artist Leonardo DaVinci in this surreal portrait minutes before entering the room for the famed "Last Supper" with step-brother Jesus Christ- 2014-05-10 16-01.jpg
[edit]
unused selfie with joke description and title; out of scope. Lupo 16:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, useless. Lupo 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The video might fall under the Creative Commons regulation but the music in the beginning not. An additional permission is needed to distribute the music under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. 188.104.114.156 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'd be inclined to take it at face value that the music is also covered by the "Jetstar Group" attribution listed on the YouTube page. But in case it isn't, the file doesn't need to be deleted outright, just reverted to the previous upload, which did not include the soundtrack. -Pete F (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'd also be inclined to think that Jetstar would have correctly licensed the music, if this was a video released by a third party then I would be going the other way. If on the other hand the nominator has more information that indicates that Jetstar has not indeed correctly licensed the music, or that the licence does not cover hosting here, then please let us have it, either here or via COM:OTRS. LGA talkedits 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I knew, this was simply Jetstar's jingle, but I Shazamed it and sure enough it is a song by a not-so-well known Indy band from Melbourne. I will revert back to the no sound version, and will try to come up with a way to remove the jingle for time being whilst keeping other sound. russavia (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No sound, no problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium JurgenNL (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Reuskens in Borgerhout date from 1712. So they are over 3 centuries old. I don't think copyright rules or FoP are relevant in this case.Luxil (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: 
I withdraw my nomination - sculptures are old enough. JurgenNL (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We know that this is from a 1975 magazine and that the subject died in 1927. There is nothing to show that the photographer has been dead for 70 years, as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This file is a derivative work and violates the terms of the license (CC BY-SA 3.0) of the original work. FDMS 4 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Corrupted file Magnolia677 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. It might not be corrupt, but use an unusual compression method. I went to have a look at the source file on Flickr (using Safari): I got most of a preview in the viewing frame, but the whole viewer disappeared before it completed! (Browser window & remainder of page unaffected.) I downloaded our version: Preview opened it as a blank grey image (but with viewable metadata); Photoshop refused to open it, complaining about something to do with “arithmetic encoding” (? but hence my speculation); GIMP opened it just fine. (Evidently the ImageMagick servers had no problem making thumbnails either.) I’ve resaved the file (at the cost of re-JPEG-ing), and will try uploading this new version—unless anyone objects.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS: I just went to Flickr with Firefox: no problem viewing or downloading. 05:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I’ve now uploaded a new version. While restoring some lost metadata I noticed a few things about the original that may or may not be relevant to the problem: it was created by Hugin, an open-source panorama stitcher; its resolution was given as 1 ppi; the resolution units are “0” rather than “inches“ or something equally intelligible (to a human). And the exact error message from Photoshop (v12.1) was “Could not complete your request because reading arithmetic coded JPEG files is not implemented.” Image-format experts, make of that what you will! Anyway, because the new file behaves in Safari, I’m going to optimistically say Keep; is it better for you, too?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I’ve now uploaded a new version. While restoring some lost metadata I noticed a few things about the original that may or may not be relevant to the problem: it was created by Hugin, an open-source panorama stitcher; its resolution was given as 1 ppi; the resolution units are “0” rather than “inches“ or something equally intelligible (to a human). And the exact error message from Photoshop (v12.1) was “Could not complete your request because reading arithmetic coded JPEG files is not implemented.” Image-format experts, make of that what you will! Anyway, because the new file behaves in Safari, I’m going to optimistically say
Keep Odysseus1479 repaired the file. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage (en:Austin Carlile) is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. No related uploads by uploader. Gunnex (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Scan from a book, no permission. Yann (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Scan
Hello. Yes I made that scan, after many years working on the Chinese art, and it's a major work of art for this period. And it's not easy to find good reproductions on Commons, exept sometimes. And I did a lot of work to make corrections on the images of Commons or with the permission of Gary Lee Todd, for example. BUT, now, that work of art, (the real author of the gilded bronze is dead) has no good reproduction but in the book mentioned. So I think if you want to suppress all of the images of the art of China scanned from books, all over the world, you have a big job. And it's a pity because we cannot speak of works of arts, scultures and pantings, if we can't see them. Are you sure that it is a good job for the law! How can I ask the permission to the author, now? I think the work for wikipedia, in those conditions, is too hard. Sorry to disturb you. Have a good day. (I'm a French man, sorry for my bad english). Ismoon (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Ismoon: Bonjour,
- L'auteur de la statue est mort, mais la photo est récente. Donc le photographe possède encore des droits sur cette photo. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- English: The author of the statue is dead, but the picture is recent. Therefore, the photographer still owns a copyright on this picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: The sculpture itself is old and thus no longer copyrighted, but the person who took the photograph of it has copyright in the photograph. He or she had to choose the angle from which to photograph the sculpture, check that the lighting was suitable, and so on. If you had photographed the sculpture yourself, then there would be no problem for you to upload that photograph. This rule does not apply to two-dimensional works if they are photographed straight-on. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
useless logo because there's a typo in it! the correct one is at File:LYAUK logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 2014-05-10T10:37:29 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-13_20-08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-04-13_20-08.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Appears to be a screencap from a TV shows, in this performance - http://www.americanidol.com/videos/featured-videos/top-8-redux-caleb-johnson-faithfully Axb3 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-13_20-08.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-04-13_20-08.jpg){kind=link}
This is an image from around 1942 -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that the photographer died before 1944 as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by a better SVG version, (see here) .- Fma12 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
appears to be a celebrity selfie. Given the lack of understanding of self-made and licencing with this user's other uploads I doubt that this is a self-made image, and doubt that the uploader owns the copyright to it. Peripitus (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The link in the authorship line leads to a 404 error. However, it appears as though it could have been legitimately sourced at one time. So, I have removed my "No source" tag and instead nominated it for deletion, per the request of McZusatz on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Archive link: [1] DMacks (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: added archive link. --McZusatz (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objections to keeping it at this point. --Holdek (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](https://web.archive.org/web/20060527191823/http://www.gl.iit.edu/govdocs/maps/Middle%20East-Age%20of%20the%20Caliphs.gif){kind=link}
This image can be found as a cropping of the one at: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/txu-oclc-28514370-06.jpg
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
So wie es scheint, ist dieses Bild ein Stock-Photo (siehe hier), bei dem es fraglich ist, und in meinen Augen eher unwahrscheinlich, dass dies unter einer freien Lizenz weiterverbreitet werden darf, und außerdem der wahre Urheber wohl nicht angegeben wurde. Zudem zeigt es wohl nur eine Massage, aber nicht direkt das BadeLand Wolfsburg, wozu es wohl ursprünglich hier hochgeladen wurde. Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
not own work: [2] no evidence of free license; frame included, so PD-Art also not applicable. The newsletter itself appears to be {{Attribution}}, but it's unclear where they got that image from and whether it would be covered by that license, too. Lupo 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-10_17-01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-05-10_17-01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope. Lupo 16:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-10_17-01.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-10_17-01.jpg){kind=link}
Photograph of a photograph, uploader has no right to release under CC license. ~ Nahid Talk 19:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
COPYVIO, le verseur n'est pas l'auteur de la photo : voir exif qui indique ROSSET FRANCOIS Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, out of scope, etc F (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted logo; not pure text-only Lupo 16:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Simple graphic replaced by svg Fulvio 314 09:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Is not good to have logos on CC license, so I decide to remove this one Jcubic (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
edited crop of the image that this image is also from. The one here is a closer crop of the one online so the commons image is not the original. Peripitus (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Own work = copyvio. If uploader finds the club "Super", it reduces the authenticity of the logo and makes it here unusable, OAlexander (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a cropped version of a file from http://www.conoceceuta.com/0060-01-14%20galeria%20fotos%20murallas%20merinidas.htm. Although the oldest archived copy of that site dates to 2007 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070512210250/http://www.conoceceuta.com/0060-01-14%20galeria%20fotos%20murallas%20merinidas.htm), the cropping makes me think that that one is the original. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Logo of a company, may not be under the indicated license, used in a speedily deleted article en:TW Business Development LLP Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No reason given why {{PD-old}} applies. Source site has no information on the image's provenance. We have enough free alternatives anyway. —howcheng {chat} 06:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see how this is self-made. I suspect that copyright is instead owned by the subjects and this has been scraped from their twitter feed. Peripitus (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Photo is tagged as PD-USGov. This appears to be incorrect. The uploader listed the author as "State of Nebraska", which isn't the US government. Subject is a state politician, not a federal officeholder. Source from which photo was taken, Nebraska Radio Network, gives no indication that the photo was produced by the federal government. Page from which photo was taken bears a 2014 copyright tag. Ammodramus (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: ' Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs a license from Claudia Sinatra, the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to REPLACE my own erronious upload of Torque_formulas_with_lever_arm_OR_perp-_F_and_r.jpg Guy vandegrift (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
seem changed from game screensaved picture,with some modification.--AeoliaSchenberg (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
broken version of File:Marknadsdag2012.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 2014-05-11T07:26:20 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Man without beard is not Riva-Rocci; updated file (man with beard) is Riva-Rocci. I think I did something wrong when updating the file. Could you please remove the original file (man without beard, who is Charles Best)? Vysotsky (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion request withdrawn, as everything seems OK now. Picture of Riva-Rocci is now the correct Riva-Rocci (with beard). Vysotsky (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no source/information given about the seven elements of this. This appears to be a composite of images taken from elsewhere. Peripitus (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Poorly licenced user interpretation of club logo File:Tupi - 1990.png. Undesirable variant as not authentic as logo. OAlexander (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not the coat of arms of Sain-Genis-l'Argentière (the correct one is here), but represents the coat of the departement of Rhône (already here) . --Fabyrav (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Lupo 16:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be official promotional image taken from subject's official web site, which says "All rights reserved". No OTRS. No reason to think uploader is authorized agent. Rob (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
seem changed from game screensaved picture,with some modification.--AeoliaSchenberg (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- How come？This model was made by myself.--Panzer VI-II (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: At least it is out of scope as personal art Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Bad quality. Better pictures of this room exist ; see Category:Interior of Red Pyramid. Sémhur (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
there's a superior image here File:MESIC 2011 Cádiz.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 2014-05-11T17:07:02 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The source is clearly not provided. // Gikü said done Sunday, 11 May 2014 15:40 (UTC) 15:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
frame from a video (see http://www.rfi.fr/ameriques/20100911-amerique-islam/) attributed to RFI with no permissions email Peripitus (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
McVitie's shortbread package images
[edit]Straight reproduction of copyrighted packaging artwork, therefore copyvio. (Auto-translation into Chinese; 直再现版权保护包装图案的，因此copyvio。)
- File:Fluorite0082-2.jpg
File:Dscn0082.jpgEdit; this image was renamed/moved to File:McVitie's shortbread.jpg (for technical reasons, nomination gadget did not quite handle this case correctly since Fluorite was not the user who moved it).
Ubcule (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Straight reproductions of (presumably copyrighted) box art. Packs assumed to be Taiwanese or mainland Chinese, but images are meant to be free under both originating country (Taiwan or People's Republic of China) and in US, and this fails under at least the latter and probably the former? (Auto-translation into Chinese:- （大概是受版权保护的）盒子艺术的直复制品。包认为是台湾或中国大陆，但图像是指两个来源国下是免费的（台湾或中华人民共和国），并在美国，这下失败，至少后者也可能是前者？)
Ubcule (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
KPA rank insignia
[edit]- File:KPA OF-10a field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-10b field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-10c field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-10d field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-1a field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-1b field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-2a field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-2b field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-3 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-4 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-4 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-5 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-6 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-7 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-8 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OF-9 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-3 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-4 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-5 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-6 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-7 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-8 field shoulder insignia.png
- File:KPA OR-9 field shoulder insignia.png
Low quality images of rank insignia of the North Korean Army. Superseded by far better images in this category and are not in active use. Elmor (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
incorrect license, incorrect attribution. + copyvio (Kuprin died in 1960)
- File:Тополя Куприн.jpg
- File:Куприн пейзаж с луной.jpg
- File:Куприн беасальская долина.jpg
- File:Куприн.jpg
Iluvatar (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no FOP in Belarus, rquest by the author of the photo Jarash (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Flickr source states All rights reserved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcbutcher (talk • contribs) 2014-05-11T10:05:17 (UTC)
- Comment It seems original uploader at EN Wiki and the Flickr user are same. If so, no additional permission required. Jee 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Any Wiki user can call themselves anything. There is no evidence that the Wiki user is the same as the Flickr user. The only proof is is if they respond by changing the licence on Flickr. Hence we cannot accept any claims to Flickr as source without a free licence on Flickr. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree; but this is a very old case and I think we are not practicing COM:LR at that time. I assume Cecil had verified the license in Flickr at that time (she is an admin; so a trusted user) and so it only falls under a "Flickr license change" which will not affect our use. But if there is serous concerns, I've no problem in deleting it. Jee 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- We have many other properly-licenced photographs of that object on Commons, so we don't really need this one. My opinion is that when in doubt delete. Cheers. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree; but this is a very old case and I think we are not practicing COM:LR at that time. I assume Cecil had verified the license in Flickr at that time (she is an admin; so a trusted user) and so it only falls under a "Flickr license change" which will not affect our use. But if there is serous concerns, I've no problem in deleting it. Jee 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Any Wiki user can call themselves anything. There is no evidence that the Wiki user is the same as the Flickr user. The only proof is is if they respond by changing the licence on Flickr. Hence we cannot accept any claims to Flickr as source without a free licence on Flickr. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Although Cecil is now an experienced and trusted user, we cannot be sure about then -- certainly less experience -- and without an explicit note about the license, I think COM:PRP applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused photogrqaph of unidentified person, no probable educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment There is an article about the National Honor Society which was the reason why I didn't nominate the file for deletion. But it seems to be just a photograph of an unimportant person, so it could be deleted --Indeedous (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's definitely not an uploaded photograph, but a screenshot, I think that should rather ring some copyright bells … FDMS 4 22:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it is and there is no evidence for a copyright violation, missing EXIF is not a crime. These bells could be could-someone-explain-his-mother-please-how-her-smartphone-works bells, too. But we should include File:Honor Society induction 2013 2014-01-21 23-53.jpeg and File:Honor Society Induction 2013 2014-01-22 00-14.png --Indeedous (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- If I draw a painting and put a photograph in it, it is still a painting (collage) and not a photograph. Of course it could be mother-look-I-can-shoot-a-photograph-and-then-even-make-a-screenshot-of-it-and-upload-it-to-Commons bells, but I guess these are rather rare. When someone shoots a photo using his mobile phone, uploading it directly to Commons is rather easy, while uploading a screenshot is often easier than downloading the full-size photograph from the website and then uploading it to Commons. FDMS 4 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it is and there is no evidence for a copyright violation, missing EXIF is not a crime. These bells could be could-someone-explain-his-mother-please-how-her-smartphone-works bells, too. But we should include File:Honor Society induction 2013 2014-01-21 23-53.jpeg and File:Honor Society Induction 2013 2014-01-22 00-14.png --Indeedous (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's definitely not an uploaded photograph, but a screenshot, I think that should rather ring some copyright bells … FDMS 4 22:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture taken from private road; does not fit UK FoP rules. In the OTRS claim: ticket:2014051010001408 it is suggested that picture taken from the highway (at the marked posision) should show a stone entrance and gates at the beginning of the private road. Ankry (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- But is there then any copyright to claim at the buildings on the picture? FOP is an exception to copyright law, that if there is still copyright at something, but displayed in public space you can make pictures. The architect of the castle on the picture is certainly dead more the 100 years, so falls into public domain. So you don't need an FOP exception to make a picture from it. Akoopal (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable here. Natuur12 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- The claim is that it is a photo of private property, taken in a private location without owner permission. I am not sure what kind of privacy should be considered, so I forward the claim here for your decission. Analyzing satallite data, I could agree, that it is really shot in a private, but not 100% sure. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Private or not has nothing to do with copyright. You can't know if it is taken with or without owner consent, and perhaps from futher away with a telelens. Simply owning something doesn't give you a copyright, you need to be the creator for that at least. It might have been trespassing but that has nothing to do with copyright, so that should not be a reason for deletion. Akoopal (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Non-copyright restrictions explains the topic. Multichill (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Private or not has nothing to do with copyright. You can't know if it is taken with or without owner consent, and perhaps from futher away with a telelens. Simply owning something doesn't give you a copyright, you need to be the creator for that at least. It might have been trespassing but that has nothing to do with copyright, so that should not be a reason for deletion. Akoopal (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- The owner agrees that there is no copyright issue here. The owner of this area points that picture was taken illegally as the photographer took it from a private road without owner's permission, and asks for removal basing on this reason and offers to supply other pictures when this one is removed. The owner also confirmed that when using 55mm lens (not telephoto) it is impossible to take this picture from public road. A stone gateway and gate should be present in photograph if it is taken from the location shown. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Please stop wasting our time playing deletion milk-monitor. Whether or not this is private land is immaterial, it is a public place ergo FOP applies. Even if the landowner objects to the photograph it still stands as that is a contractual issue between the author and the landowner and does not affect copyright (ergos is no concern of ours). The buildings at the top is not copyrighted. Buildings come under FOP in the UK. Speedy keep, the arguments are petty and irrelevant at best and mean-spirited and obdurate at worst. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: FOP is irrelevant, as the building is long out of copyright. The building on the hilltop in the background is de minimis. The owner of the building may have a cause of action against the photographer for trespass, but that is not our concern. If the building owner follows through on his offer to supply better images of the building, as suggested in the OTRS ticket, then we could delete this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Flickr source claims All Rights Reserved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcbutcher (talk • contribs) 2014-05-11T15:26:29 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:UNICEF logos
[edit]According to the UNICEF website The unauthorized use of the UNICEF name and logo is against international law and is expressly forbidden there is no reason to assume the logo is PD.
- File:Flag of UNICEF.svg
- File:UNICEF Israel.JPG
- File:Unicef logo.svg
- File:Unicef ukraine baner.jpg
- File:Улаз у Дрвенград.jpg
LGA talkedits 22:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- UNICEF is a United Nations organ and therefore the United Nations licensing would clearly apply. Keep Fry1989 eh? 23:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- In which case why does the UNICEF website (linked to above) make the claim it does, if it is freely licensed we need OTRS proof or the COM:PRP applies. LGA talkedits 23:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what claim it makes, as an organ of the United Nations any license which stipulates that UN symbols are acceptable for Commons would apply to UNICEF. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- You might not care about copyright, however others do, and I see nothing that indicates that the UNICEF logo is PD, but on the other hand a claim on the organisations own website. By all means contact the UN and/or UNICEF and ask them to confirm to OTRS the status of the logo but given the claim on the organisations website there is far more than significant doubt about the freedom of the logo and therefore policy is that it should be deleted. LGA talkedits 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I say I don't care about copyright? What I said is I don't care about errant claims that may or may not be true. PD-UN would clearly apply to the UNICEF logos, there are no exceptions that I can find which would exclude UNICEF. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly you have not read either {{PD-UN}} or the UN Administrative Instruction linked to on it, both allow for the UN to copyright items at will, the the statement on the website would indicate the intention to claim copyright over the logo and the "Administrative Instruction" is not legally binding in law. LGA talkedits 01:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I read it fine, I just disagree with your assessment. Section 2 would apply to UNICEF logos the same as any other organ of the UN. Fry1989 eh? 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- But for three problems with that, firstly, section two uses phrases such as "written material" and "material offset from typescript and issued under a masthead", secondly the document makes no references what so ever to either images, logos or symbols being covered by the instruction, and finally the "Publications Board" (who ever they are) can override the instruction and, unlike, say for example a Creative Commons licence, the Administrative Instruction can be revoked. LGA talkedits 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I read it fine, I just disagree with your assessment. Section 2 would apply to UNICEF logos the same as any other organ of the UN. Fry1989 eh? 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly you have not read either {{PD-UN}} or the UN Administrative Instruction linked to on it, both allow for the UN to copyright items at will, the the statement on the website would indicate the intention to claim copyright over the logo and the "Administrative Instruction" is not legally binding in law. LGA talkedits 01:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did I say I don't care about copyright? What I said is I don't care about errant claims that may or may not be true. PD-UN would clearly apply to the UNICEF logos, there are no exceptions that I can find which would exclude UNICEF. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- You might not care about copyright, however others do, and I see nothing that indicates that the UNICEF logo is PD, but on the other hand a claim on the organisations own website. By all means contact the UN and/or UNICEF and ask them to confirm to OTRS the status of the logo but given the claim on the organisations website there is far more than significant doubt about the freedom of the logo and therefore policy is that it should be deleted. LGA talkedits 01:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what claim it makes, as an organ of the United Nations any license which stipulates that UN symbols are acceptable for Commons would apply to UNICEF. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- In which case why does the UNICEF website (linked to above) make the claim it does, if it is freely licensed we need OTRS proof or the COM:PRP applies. LGA talkedits 23:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete with caveat 1. I find the quote above under the reason ("...logo is against international law and is expressly forbidden...") nebulous as it could be speaking to Trademark or other IP mechanisms not relevant to Commons. However, the same official source also states that "UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs" which clearly points to copyright. Absent further evidence, and inline with COM:EVID, COM:SCOPE, and COM:DR, I see nothing showing PD for the logo itself.
2. I think it is silly to claim that we must delete the photos of soccer players or photos of people simply because they are wearing a jersey with the UNICEF logo on it. I think that also runs counter to the reasoning behind having the logo on a jersey in the first place. However, COM:DW specifically speaks to this when it says "By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist". So, since the people being photographed are its "main subject" and not the logo on the jersey, I would think that these photos should then be kept. Although, absent an OTRS message releasing the images, I think someone could make a case for signficant doubt vis a vis COM:PRP, although at first glance I doubt it. trackratte (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have only nominated the files listed at the top of this page (not all the files in the category) and with relation to the football shirts and why I did not included them in this DR was there is a possible claim of de minimis on those (which does not apply to those I have nominated). LGA talkedits 03:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.unicef.org/about/legal_copyright.html very clearly applies to copyright and requires permission for reuse of any UNICEF material. There is nothing in {{PD-UN}} and its linked instructions that precludes UNICEF from enforcing copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 70.39.186.191 as Copyvio (copyright) and the most recent rationale was: is a copyright picture from public domain -- Steinsplitter (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The file was uploaded on 28 February 2013 by Starworld2013. The uploader wrote that they took the picture themselves and declared it to be available under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Although the uploader is not an established editor (fewer than two dozen global edits), they do not have a history of uploading material that infringes copyrights. The metadata indicates that it was taken on 2 January 2006 and also contains information about the camera, exposure length, focal length, etc. A Google Image search on the photo returns 10 results, 2 of them on Commons; the remaining 8:
- veethi.com, hotlinking Wikimedia Commons
- filmeindiene.org, where publication date is 11 January 2014, later than when the photo appeared on Commons
- artistebooking.com, lower resolution and no metadata
- cinetvmasti.com, lower resolution, no metadata, and appears with information that seems to have been copied from the Wikipedia article
- india-forums.com, lower resolution, and the publication date is 19 December 2013, later than when it appeared on Commons
- aajkikhabar.com, lower resolution, published on 28 June 2013
- ebharat.in x2, both very low resolution (100px×100px)
- Unless the uploader increased the resolution of the photo from artistebooking.com and added fake metadata (unlikely), the Commons image is not from any of the above sources, and the websites got the image from Commons, instead.
- There are also images where the above photograph appears as part of a side-by-side collage with a photograph of actor Shashank Vyas. However, the earliest of these seem to be dated around March 2013, after the upload date on Commons.
- Based on the above, it is very unlikely that the uploader took the image from some another website, because all of the other websites host lower-resolution images, were published after the upload date and/or link to Commons, and they lack the metadata that is present in the image on Commons. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fake metadata, The user wrote that "Roop Durgapal as Sanchi in Balika Vadhu" on 2 January 2006!
I don't knw how is it possible because the show first air on July 2008 & she entered in 2012, So how user uploaded her Sanchi character picture on January 2006. 115.185.74.47 11:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The assumption of bad faith on the part of the uploader is not warranted. 2 January 2006 is the date that the photograph was taken, not the upload date. The upload date is 28 February 2013. The photograph is of the actor, not of the character. The reference to the character in the name and description (neither of which appear in the metadata) is likely due to the editor's inexperience in naming images for Commons. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- delete per nom
@User:Joshua Issac previously this file was tagged by me as copyvio because this file is exist on hundred of websites so it is possible that the file is copied from any one of this and as far as i know the file is copied from indiatimes and this IP claims that metadata is fake, i dont know but user changed something in this before uploading so it is possible that this is tricky uploaded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.187.61 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: AGF . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has appeared many places on the Web -- I strongly suspect Flickrwashing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly save this file. This photo is confirmed that it is created by Lee Chung-wei, and he has this flickr account (leechungwei), and agreed to release this photo to CC-by-sa 2.0. See this evidence. Formosania (Chat) 03:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission, which needs to be forwarded to COM:OTRS by the copyright holder FASTILY 10:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
