Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-05-02_20-24.jpg){kind=link}
))_-Bu_ne_anlama_geliyor'muş?_;)))_-Resim_yükle,_diyen_bendim_zaten_;D-)_2014-05-02_05-22.png){kind=link}
![120 File:"Le Voyage à Nantes" au Palais de Tokyo.jpg](#File:"Le_Voyage_à_Nantes"_au_Palais_de_Tokyo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE, too small to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, too small to be usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to unusably low resolution; and probably copyied from Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As a nom, I'm just going to mostly reuse the earlier deletion nom of Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn: Although it's perfectly possible that these people are actually sex workers, there is no evidence in the photo or the linked source that they are. Since the photo was taken in 2009, at least some of them will still be living people today - and at least some of them are identifiable. I guess we could rename the photograph to not include prostitutes in the name - but then it would be an out of scope personal photo with no likely educational use anyway. On any other project, describing particular living people as prostitutes without a RS stating such would not only be instantly removed, but probably suppressed. It's in violation of the Board's BLP resolution and of Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and should thus be deleted Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment @Kevin Gorman: , is this nomination -- your first in quite a while -- related to the points you are trying to make in this extensive email list thread, currently underway? If so, it might be helpful for you to say so. That would explain why you put in the otherwise gratuitious "any other project" part, which is demonstrably false considering that this file (viewed 268865 times last month)) is currently used to illustrate the English Wikipedia (viewed 4,953 times last month). (My next action, as an English Wikipedia contributor, will be to remove the photo from that article.)
- But never mind all that -- I agree with your points. The file should be
Deleted as a violation of COM:IDENT. -Pete F (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Peteforsyth: - See my response to you on the other page, although I find it a bit funny that you copied and pasted a rationale from another deletion nom criticizing me for copying and pasting a rationale from another deletion nom... Clearly, out of the two deletion noms you commented on, only one of them could've been my first recent deletion nom. You should probably at least fix your stats.grok.se link to point to the right file. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the catch. But you've missed the point of my comments -- I have no problem with you reusing text. I do find the "any other project" part problematic (in all three of these nominations), because (1) gratuitously divisive, and (2) demonstrably false. -Pete F (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's hardly demonstrably false. Describing living individuals as prostitutes without providing any evidence that they are falls under the oversight/revdel/removal proceedings of both ENWP and DEWP as well as many other projects - board resolutions certainly suggest it should fall under that on all projects, but I don't want someone to trout out the sioux wikinews or something to prove me wrong. Photos are paid less attention to than text generally, which is quite a bit different from me being demonstrably wrong. If you consider it gratuituously divisive to point out that Commons doesn't consistently adhere to the ethical standards that Board resolutions require and most other projects follow more consistently, that's certainly your perogative. It even falls under the damn global oversight policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the catch. But you've missed the point of my comments -- I have no problem with you reusing text. I do find the "any other project" part problematic (in all three of these nominations), because (1) gratuitously divisive, and (2) demonstrably false. -Pete F (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: As an obvious copyright violation russavia (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not "own work" since the image is watermarked with "It Girl" and "Belle Glamour". The same image was deleted earlier today under the name File:Crossdresser Belle Glamour.JPG Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
not sure about copyright Beginnerstarter (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Content own by a french radio (http://difool.skyrock.com/2143861399-Skyrock-solidarite.html) used for vandalism on wiki-fr [[Utilisateur:LLM|££M]] (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: vandalism, copyright violation Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
not sure about copyright Beginnerstarter (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Linda mabry 67.85.58.164 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep - no reason given for deletion. Good image provenance and licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Avery (talk • contribs) - Speedy keep? Keφr (keep talk here) 10:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: vandalism by ip -- Steinsplitter (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a primitive photoshop 96.241.218.72 17:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Inconsistent request, ip blocked on it wiki for vandalism SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nieuwe watertoren (Steenbergen)
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Belgium: work by Jacques Hurks (d. 1977).
- File:2010-09-11 12.13 Steenbergen, watertoren foto1.JPG
- File:Overzicht watertoren - Steenbergen - 20346621 - RCE.jpg
- File:WatertorenSteenbergen.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 09:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) FOP Belgium??? Steenbergen is located in the Netherlands. Michielverbeek (Overleg) 10:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
FOP Belgium??? Steenbergen is located in the Netherlands. Michielverbeek (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Apologies.
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per nominator Jarekt (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Author is Max Emelianov, and website contains maxemel → looks like it is author's website. Anatoliy (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jacques Hurks
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Belgium: works by Jacques Hurks (d. 1977).
- File:Breda - Pastoor van Ars kerk.jpg
- File:Detail H. Pastoor van Ars Liesbos kerk P1050677.JPG (unknown sculptor)
- File:H. Pastoor van Ars Liesbos kerk P1050671.JPG
- File:H. Pastoor van Ars Liesbos kerk P1050675.JPG
- File:Kerk Lies P1050673.JPG
- File:P1030553kerk Effen.JPG
- File:Rijksmonumenten Roosendaal 015.JPG
- File:Rijksmonumenten Roosendaal 336.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose These were taken in the Dutch Noord-Brabant, not Belgian Brabant. NL has FOP. --Vera (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, apologies. I'm really wondering what I was thinking yesterday. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 07:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, apologies. I'm really wondering what I was thinking yesterday.
Kept, Not in BE Vera (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Watermarks (including web-sites) are not forbidden here. It looks like author's website provided, and it is cropped now. Anatoliy (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Watertoren (Stampersgat)
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Belgium: work by Jacques Hurks (d. 1977).
Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
FOP Belgium??? Also Stampersgat is located in the Netherlands Michielverbeek (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Apologies. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 10:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Will you then also remove the nomination templates and inform the users? Akoopal (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. JurgenNL (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Peter khan (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images are out of scope.
- File:Kb 07.jpg
- File:Kb 05.jpg
- File:Kb 06.jpg
- File:Kb 04.jpg
- File:Kb 03.jpg
- File:Kb 02.jpg
- File:Kb 01.jpg
SamuelFreli (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as out of scope and uploaded by someone who later socked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
-NC license not compatible with Commons.
- File:Moulin du Wez dans la vallée du Brouge.jpg
- File:Clément Dessart et une famille.jpg
- File:Famille Joseph Gouverneur.jpg
- File:Clément Dessart en action.jpg
- File:Souvenir de Marche-en-Famenne.jpg
Yann (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Je pense que les fichiers sont compatible avec la license. Il faudrai seulement enlever la mention ne pas utiliser saus autorisation de l'auteur? Je vais le faire de ce pas. Comme cela ce sera règlé. --KIKIRPA (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @KIKIRPA: Comme ces images ont été publiées avant d'être importées sur Commons, il est nécessaire de fournir une permission. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. N'hésitez pas à me demander si vous avez besoin d'aide. Merci de répondre ici. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Yann En fait les images n'ont jamais été publiée. Elles appartiennent à l'IRPA qui a décidé de les mettre en accès direct sur Wikimédia Commons. L'IRPA est le titullaire des droits d'auteur pour ces photographies. Normalement l'institut peut les publier sur Wikimedia en suivant la procédure normale.--KIKIRPA (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @KIKIRPA: Elles ont été publiées sur le site web de l'IRPA, c'est ce qui compte, ce qui donne à l'IRPA un droit d'auteur pendant 25 ans. C'est pourquoi il nous faut un mail de l'IRPA. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Yann Ce compte d'utilisateur est le compte officiel de l'Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique. Je suis la personne chargée de la communication sur internet vis à vis de l'extérieur. Je doit simplement envoyé un mail à l'adresse présente si dessus pour dire que je possède les droits d'auteurs de ces photographies?
- Dans ce cas, vous pouvez même envoyer un mail générique expliquant cela pour toutes les images que vous importez sur Commons. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @YannMerci beaucoup, je vais faire cela.--KIKIRPA (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- @YannUn robot de Wikimédia a supprimer les images alors que j'ai envoyé un email à l'adresse que vous m'aviez renseigné. comment puis-je récupérer les images? merci d'avance pour vos réponses. --KIKIRPA (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Excusez-moi, mais vous avez prouvé ces dernières semaines que vous ne maîtrisiez pas entièrement la matière des licences Creative Commons.
- J'émets les plus grandes réserves sur votre habilitation dans ce cas, en tant que stagiaire travaillant à la « communication sur internet », à décider du droit d'auteur de ces photographies d'une part, d'avoir explicitement compris que vous autorisiez une utilisation commerciale d'autre part, alors que votre site web mentionne on ne peut plus clairement que l'usage est restreint à titre éducatif et non commercial, et propose un tarif de 30 € par photo pour un usage commercial.
- Je souhaiterais plus de garanties sur la réelle intention de l'Institut de faire un don de ses photos pour tout usage, y compris commercial.
- Pourriez-vous a minima confirmer que c'est belle et bien votre intention, et en accord avec le curateur de la photothèque ? --Dereckson (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Ticket:2014051610004609. Yann (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unusable personal scribble, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unusable personal art work, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Very small, no EXIF, may not be own work. Yann (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
From Picasa, watermark, no description, useless name. Yann (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal vanity picture, using at least 2 photos to make this a composite image. It is used on a Serbian WP user page who has made only 1 edit: his own user page! This is not Facebook. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No EXIF, small size, heavily photoshopped, name suggests copied from FB. Yann (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
photo has copyright mark and website listed, copyvio Mjrmtg (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unusable snippet of a picture. Uneducational. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description. A portrait of the uploader? (unused) 91.66.152.113 09:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 11:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This poster needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.152.113 11:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
old and has never been used Sublines (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Can be deleted. --McZusatz (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request Captain-tucker (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
scan from photo,no cc license shizhao (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Fahad is a former ramp model in bangladesh-he was born 11th April in begumgonj of noakhali district of bangladesh- 2014-05-03 19-00.jpeg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
file needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.152.113 10:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Image of non-notable person. See, en:wiki:Biswajit Muduli. It may be a red link (deleted page) the moment, it is reviewed here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description 91.66.152.113 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright.--i.е. v-mail 12:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
copyright issue? No info, no cat. 84.100.26.225 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Collage of likely copyrighted cartoons/drawings. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
das bild sieht nicht nach Selfie aus. es wurde von Fefinster eingestellt und stellt Felix Finster dar. es liegt nahe, dass das foto einen anderen Urheber (Fotograf) besitzt, dessen rechte hier durch URV missachtet werden. Jbergner (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
low quality delete this Made575 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unremarkable photo of an unremarkable COM:PENIS. While Commons is not censored, this photo is unused, brings nothing new or better and is therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Alan (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
deleted earlier, but uploaded again Estopedist1 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope; mix of historical and fictional map; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
posible violación del copyright desdehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/hunter-multipurpose-tactical-vehicle/hunter-multipurpose-tactical-vehicle1.html Tarawa1943 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unusable snippet of a picture. Uneducational. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Hong Kong does have a few quite periods so the odd beer goes down a treat.. (12237608744).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a section of a map lacking any information about its original source 67.100.127.181 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 11:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
File:On the day of marriage function of my brother in law now he will come know the real meaning of life when it comes to your self deal it & come out 1st 2014-05-03 07-45.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe promotional/no educational use ~ Nahid Talk 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
not a pure text logo as this logo has far too low resolution to be of use. ~ Nahid Talk 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-02_20-24.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-05-02_20-24.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
cell phone screen shot, copyvio? Mjrmtg (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-02_20-24.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
_2014-05-02_20-24.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
cell phone screen shot with website name, copyvio? Mjrmtg (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Nepal is peace fuull country of nepal- If you love this flag and country please salute it- 2014-05-13 20-20.png
[edit]
Blurry, out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused, low-quality ({{BadJPG}}, and also difficult to visualize the bonds to groups on the rings, and odd text-wrap on the compound-names). Have file:Leptophos metabolism.svg at current MOS. DMacks (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Soruya bak ya ;))) -Bu ne anlama geliyor'muş? ;))) -Resim yükle, diyen bendim zaten ;D-) 2014-05-02 05-22.png
[edit]))_-Bu_ne_anlama_geliyor%27mu%C5%9F%3F_;)))_-Resim_y%C3%BCkle,_diyen_bendim_zaten_;D-)_2014-05-02_05-22.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
))_-Bu_ne_anlama_geliyor%27mu%C5%9F%3F_;)))_-Resim_y%C3%BCkle,_diyen_bendim_zaten_;D-)_2014-05-02_05-22.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
nudity that has no education or purpose Loveonearth (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope/maybe personal ~ Nahid Talk 09:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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 user. Gunnex (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader took the picture himself. No clear sources given. - Fma12 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Without any information about who this is, there is no educational value (or value to Wikimedia Foundation transparency). If this file should be kept, please add some useful information to the file description. Pete F (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: in use -- Steinsplitter (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FDMS4 as no source. McZusatz (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Converted to DR to allow discussion. --McZusatz (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete com:PRP. We can not confirm if the CC license was ever valid. (Could also be CC-BY-SA-NC-ND or similar). --McZusatz (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Restored: COM:UDEL --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only image which should be replaced with table and math markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cronopiomx (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Uploaded in 09.+10.2013. Files (showing cruise ships, titled with "Grand-(...)") all grabbed from http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar ("Barcos"):
- File:Grand-celebration-iberocruceros.jpg --> http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/arg/naviera/cruceros-gc/grand-celebration.html (archived since 07.2013) = http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/B2C/RA/naviera/cruceros-gc/PublishingImages/CABECERA-2-Grand-CE11.jpg
- File:Grand-holiday-iberocruceros.jpg (borders after upload removed) --> http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/arg/naviera/cruceros-gh/grand-holiday.html (archived since 07.2013) = http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/B2C/RA/naviera/cruceros-gh/PublishingImages/cabecera-2-Grand-Ho.jpg
- File:Grand-mistral-iberocrucero.jpg --> http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/arg/naviera/cruceros-gm/grand-mistral.html (archived since 07.2013) = http://www.iberocruceros.com.ar/B2C/RA/naviera/cruceros-gm/PublishingImages/cabecera-21-Grand-Mi.jpg
- File:Massimo Brancaleoni 3.jpg --> previously published via (example) http://www.eleconomista.es/turismo-viajes/noticias/4773970/04/13/Massimo-Brancaleoni-releva-a-Alfredo-Serrano-como-director-general-de-Iberocruceros-y-Costa-Cruceros.html (04.2013, Ecoprensa S.A. - Todos los derechos reservados)
- File:Logotipo Iberocruceros.jpeg --> unlikely "own work", borderline if licence {{PD-textlogo}} or PD-whatever can be applied
Permission(s) via COM:OTRS needed.
- File:Grand-mistral-iberocrucero.jpg
- File:Logotipo Iberocruceros.jpeg
- File:Massimo Brancaleoni 3.jpg
- File:Grand-holiday-iberocruceros.jpg
- File:Grand-celebration-iberocruceros.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Владислав Кравчук (talk · contribs)
[edit]3 paintings by Vlad Kravchuk+ 2 pictures of him. All files are unused. Vlad Kravchuk seems to be a non notable artist, so all the files seems to be out of scope.
- File:Танец красок.jpg
- File:Танец красок, 2012. Холст, масло, 120х120.jpg
- File:Венеция 70 70.jpg
- File:Карадаг, 2011. Холст, масло, 70х100.jpg
- File:Влад Кравчук.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khayredine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Khayredine
Gunnex (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Belgium: the architecture is work by Jacques Hurks (d. 1977).
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070268.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070269.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070270.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070273.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070274.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070275.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070279.JPG
- File:Jacobus de Meerderekerk (Fijnaart) P1070283.JPG
_P1070268.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070269.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070270.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070273.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070274.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070275.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070279.JPG){kind=link}
_P1070283.JPG){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 09:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Taken in the Netherlands. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 07:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jokhan prasad pandey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal album with no realistic educational use per COM:EDUSE and per COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Bechan.jpg
- File:Wife good wife.jpg
- File:Atharv pandey.jpg
- File:My mother.jpg
- File:Jokhan prasad pandey.jpg
- File:Jokhan and sunaina.jpg
Green Giant (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork
BrightRaven (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MAHESH PRITHVIRAJ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Too big collection for user page.
- File:MAHESH002.jpg
- File:MAHESH0022.jpg
- File:MAHESH01.jpg
- File:972257 463432067080404 2083112709 n.jpg
- File:MAHESH PRITHVIRAJ.jpg
- File:1511073 559928114097465 1115129378 n.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Shalom Harif is not Shalom harif Ulman. The reference is incorrect National Library of Israel (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by İlqarnovruzov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status + unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, mysterious file titles. All files uploaded on 13.05.2014. Some files previously published at https://www.facebook.com/samaxi001/photos_stream, eventual also on other related sites.:
- File:10293552 772059479485060 3630680469391431799 o.jpg (high res, but watermarked with "www.facebook.com/samaxi001") --> https://www.facebook.com/samaxi001/photos/pb.363578150333197.-2207520000.1400003064./772059479485060/?type=1&theater (04.2014)
- File:10317729 772691556088519 4421896113000293632 o.jpg (high res, but watermarked with "www.facebook.com/samaxi001") --> https://www.facebook.com/samaxi001/photos/pb.363578150333197.-2207520000.1400003031./772691556088519/?type=1&theater (04.2014)
- File:1461135 694718233885852 488095047 n.jpg --> watermarked with "www.facebook.com/samaxi001"
- File:966361 594304680593875 1287679622 o.jpg --> watermarked with "www.facebook.com/samaxi001 Ilqar Photography" (= user İlqarnovruzov ??)
- File:1970437 765368766814593 76658577 n.jpg
- File:1461135 694718233885852 488095047 n.jpg
- File:1466267 696479857043023 353442338 n.jpg
- File:1743724 735535113131292 354832083 n.jpg
- File:1379825 764028173615319 931919085 n.jpg
- File:966361 594304680593875 1287679622 o.jpg
- File:1332 624027524288257 1823461382 n.jpg
- File:10293552 772059479485060 3630680469391431799 o.jpg
- File:10317729 772691556088519 4421896113000293632 o.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fabianoollima (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines: the statue looks modern; there is no information about the death year of the sculptor.
Eleassar (t/p) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. More like com:dw. --McZusatz (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Promotional, includes web-addres in picture Motopark (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Frankie Levangie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Gigi-starter-wife.jpg
- File:Ace-norton.jpg
- File:Emile-hirsch-captain-phillips.jpg
- File:Lone-Survivor-1.jpg
- File:Emile-Hirsch-Los-Angeles.jpg
- File:Ace Norton.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope/maybe personal photographs
- File:1441188 607241639312206 1900516672 n.jpg
- File:10170743 677182615651441 9012534939739818438 n.jpg
- File:Izau.jpg
- File:576476 3834459789207 386483862 n.jpg
~ Nahid Talk 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DJGeezyReal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
- File:Studies for piano 2.jpg
- File:Andrea Cavallari Studies For Piano.jpg
- File:AndreacavallariCIDIM2.jpg
- File:Andrea's foto.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Маргариточк (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, private image
- File:Фотомодель.jpg
- File:Модель, фотомодель Маргарита Семина.jpg
- File:Фотомодель Маргарита Семина 4.jpg
- File:Фотомодель Маргарита Семина 3.jpg
- File:Фотомодель Маргарита Семина 1.jpg
- File:Фотомодель Маргарита Семина 2.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: screenshots of apps/social media software + out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by أيوب الاسماعيلي (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Yassine habibi.jpg
- File:صورة تظهر سهريج السواني مكناس.jpg
- File:Vollyball.jpg
- File:Arabic book.jpg
- File:جمجة انسان بدائي.jpg
- File:عبد الجبار لوزير.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm the owner of all these files I dont know why it pending removed . can you explain please. --أيوب الاسماعيلي (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could upload photos in origin resolution with EXIF to proof your authorship. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP, COM:OTRS permission needed -- Steinsplitter (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the sculpture is work by Ivan Sojč (d. 1951). Eleassar (t/p) 09:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in Slovenia Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Per Commons:URAA.
While the sculpture is now in the public domain in the source country (Slovenia), it was put on display in 1932 in Slovenia and was copyrighted there on the day of copyright restoration in the US in 1996.
For works created before 1 January 1978, the copyright expires on 31 December 95 years after the works's creation under URAA, which makes this work eligible for Commons in 2028. TadejM (t/p) 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Photo uploaded a few years ago under a wrong license, and serves no further educational or encyclopedic purpose; out of project scope. Correcting this error. Many thanks! Best, --Serbish (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
file needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.152.113 10:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No proof of license. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what the problem is here. The source states at the bottom right that "Content is available under CC-BY-SA", and there do not appear to be any other similar images on the web that might indicate an issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are many copyvios on that site, and there is no source requirements. I'd even say none of the content there is original. http://worldofprehistory.wikia.com/wiki/Special:NewFiles FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:PCP Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
can't find the author, source, licence 91.66.152.113 11:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Belgium: no information about the death year of the bust; the inscription says the monument is from 2009. Eleassar (t/p) 09:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The sculptor is Wilfried Jacops and he is alive. BrightRaven (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Canada does not appear to be participating in the contest, and the entire content of the page appears to be a copy-paste of the text of the enWP article, quite out of scope. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Émile Gilioli (1911-1977) is not in public domain. No FOP in France. 90.44.109.226 22:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
![22:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/13#c-90.44.109.226-2014-05-13T22:32:00.000Z-File:"Le_Voyage_à_Nantes"_au_Palais_de_Tokyo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
![18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/13#c-Natuur12-2014-05-23T18:06:00.000Z-File:"Le_Voyage_à_Nantes"_au_Palais_de_Tokyo.jpg){kind=link}
Species of Empis could not be identified. File is in use on identification page in german Wikipedia, where I asked for help to identify the fly and see whether the image may be useful. Biodehio (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why delete as it fits into TWO categories?--Zyperkux (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Images of not identified objects are not useful, neither in any Wikimedia project nor in any other project. This could nor be identified on de:WP:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung#Fliege 3. --Biodehio (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessarily do we have to know what we see. An image could simply delight us. Think about abstract photography. You could zoom into that picture, thus remove the context, and be rewarded. May even be kept as artsy natural photo.--Zyperkux (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Images of not identified objects are not useful, neither in any Wikimedia project nor in any other project. This could nor be identified on de:WP:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung#Fliege 3. --Biodehio (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
file without metatag, upload by user that have upload 2 other image with evident copyviol --Luigi.tuby (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion. Fixertool (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Species of Empis could not be identified. File is in use on identification page in german Wikipedia, where I asked for help to identify the fly and see whether the image may be useful. Biodehio (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no permission 91.66.152.113 10:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Likely Flickrwashing because this image is found here, though at a lower resolution, and that source does not verify the copyright that the Flickr uploader claims for the two images he has uploaded to Flickr. Ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The album would appear to have been published with the required (p) mark in 1969 (see here), that would mean (according to COM:HIRTLE) that it is copyright in the US until 95 years after publication date (irrespective of the URAA). LGA talkedits 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that this photo was published (as defined by US copyright law) anywhere prior to March 1, 1989 as a result of which, when it was published in 1998 it would have been entitled to copyright protection under 17 U.S. Code. § 303 and § 302 (see ) until at least 2092 as an anonymous work. LGA talkedits 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Being a 1972 photo would be enough to delete this file (according to URAA before the WMF has suggested to "ignore" the law in those cases. But beyond of that, the photo was taken from "The Unpublished Files of Alfredo Zitarrosa" (translated from the original) which clearly says that this image had not been unveiled since it was released in 1998. - Fma12 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Problem is not the URAA in this case. Natuur12 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Low res, no transparency, no real use. File:Avai FC (05-E) - SC.svg and three other variants (s. Category:Association football logos of Santa Catarina) should cover logos for the club more than sufficiently. OAlexander (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
_-_SC.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Far too low res for any meaningful use, no transparency, etc. File:LogoCascavelFutsalClube.png in somewhat better quality is available. OAlexander (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
uploader has created a private licence ( "noncommercial") http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Carmen_Gim%C3%A9nez_Smith003.JPG&diff=next&oldid=98325003 91.66.152.113 10:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- comment i did not create it, i copied it from here [1] undeleted category here [2]; you need to abide by consensus.
- GFDL with NC licenses are allowed Category:Unfree copyright statuses; see also Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE. if you want to delete this image then you have 3410 to delete by the same principle: let the mass deletions commence.
- however, i will be happy to change the license, if there should ever be a consensus to not allow these licenses. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: The uploader is correct Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no permission 91.66.152.113 11:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Samanthajayne77 is the Publiciy Coordinator for GlobalTV and has the authority to release this image. She has made a number of edit requests per COI on en:Carolyn Jarvis. I believe release permissions were discussed before the image was uploaded. 98.208.245.237 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This file needs an OTRS-ticket Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Likely Flickrwashing because several versions of this image are found online [3] including this one and none verify the copyright that the Flickr uploader claims and he has just two images. Ww2censor (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Dieses Zeichen hat es in dieser Form nie gegeben. Der Quellennachweis wurde aus einer meiner Dateien kopiert und ist falsch! Myfanoflife ist ein Dauerstörer des Projekts. Mediatus (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this press conference was not a Bollywood Hungama party/event. Or else why does this image exist in larger size, better quality, and without the Bollywood Hungama watermark at indiawest.com? (Page on which the image is linked: [4]) In my opinion {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} is not applicable to this image. Lupo 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Somehow some users think that BH must post images with full resolution on their site for wikipedia. Also users think photographers can't transfer copyrights to more than one website. Based on this irrationality, many images are deleted. Such attitude is damaging project and forcing users to leave project. Why would users waste time to contribute to project if images are deleted on irrational suspicions? Abhi (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think my question was "irrational" at all. If an image is licensed to several sites (it's not a copyright transfer: indeed an author can transfer the copyrights only once because after the transfer, he doesn't own them anymore... but that's off-topic), then it is not a Bollywood Hungama owned image, and the license tag doesn't apply. The tag explicitly applies only to photos made by Bollywood Hungama photographers made at Bollywood Hungama parties/events. This image from a press conference does not appear to fulfill these criteria. Lupo 09:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you that this press conference probably not a Bollywood Hungama party/event. But if you look into this category obviously you'll find plenty of images like this one. My question is do you agree to open a DR for all of them? ~ Nahid Talk 14:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had no intention of doing that, but probably one should go through this category with a fine-toothed comb. I don't know what exactly this template applies to... it says it applied to "Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events that are exclusively created by their own photographers" and then goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of stuff not covered by the template. I do notice that for instance the other user who commented here, Abhi, uploads images from Bollywood Hungama that have source URLs like http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/... That seems to be OK, though I also notice that Bollywood Hungama does not specify who took the photograph, and whether that photographer was one of "their own photographers". So how are we to know, especially if the source URL does not include "parties-and-events"?? What kinds of other images from that site might or might not be OK to use is a bit unclear to me. Lupo 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- When entering this url you can see "photos" "wallpapers" "parties and events" and "cover" tabs in the middle. According to Ticket:2008030310010794 we can not use "photos" "wallpapers" and "cover" but "parties and events"; yes we can and i think it solve the part one (Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events). Now IMO, water marked images are created by their own photographers because there is no way understanding of their own pictures without this approach since there is no comment like 'this image is created by us or not'. I looked into the ticket, one part of the ticket indicates that, "we are allowed to use images from events, such as premieres, award function etc, images from films on the sets and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites." Regards! ~ Nahid Talk 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I dunno. Another site credits the image to Viral Bhayani, who seems to be a freelancer.[5] Lupo 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- When entering this url you can see "photos" "wallpapers" "parties and events" and "cover" tabs in the middle. According to Ticket:2008030310010794 we can not use "photos" "wallpapers" and "cover" but "parties and events"; yes we can and i think it solve the part one (Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events). Now IMO, water marked images are created by their own photographers because there is no way understanding of their own pictures without this approach since there is no comment like 'this image is created by us or not'. I looked into the ticket, one part of the ticket indicates that, "we are allowed to use images from events, such as premieres, award function etc, images from films on the sets and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites." Regards! ~ Nahid Talk 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had no intention of doing that, but probably one should go through this category with a fine-toothed comb. I don't know what exactly this template applies to... it says it applied to "Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events that are exclusively created by their own photographers" and then goes on to give a non-exhaustive list of stuff not covered by the template. I do notice that for instance the other user who commented here, Abhi, uploads images from Bollywood Hungama that have source URLs like http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/... That seems to be OK, though I also notice that Bollywood Hungama does not specify who took the photograph, and whether that photographer was one of "their own photographers". So how are we to know, especially if the source URL does not include "parties-and-events"?? What kinds of other images from that site might or might not be OK to use is a bit unclear to me. Lupo 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you that this press conference probably not a Bollywood Hungama party/event. But if you look into this category obviously you'll find plenty of images like this one. My question is do you agree to open a DR for all of them? ~ Nahid Talk 14:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think my question was "irrational" at all. If an image is licensed to several sites (it's not a copyright transfer: indeed an author can transfer the copyrights only once because after the transfer, he doesn't own them anymore... but that's off-topic), then it is not a Bollywood Hungama owned image, and the license tag doesn't apply. The tag explicitly applies only to photos made by Bollywood Hungama photographers made at Bollywood Hungama parties/events. This image from a press conference does not appear to fulfill these criteria. Lupo 09:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:PCP Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This image was created by me and to the best of my knowledge I did not submit it to creative commons as is claimed under the licensing. My copyright watermark was also cropped out without permission.
-Kevin Stohlgren
2602:306:CE89:E1A0:352D:A2E9:178D:F2C 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Could be true but your name is the same as the uploaders and I need some more evidence for this claim. Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted: as per Ticket:2015082410022577. Yann (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Émile Gilioli (1911-1977) is not in public domain. No FOP in France. 90.44.109.226 22:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
As a nom, I'm just going to mostly reuse the earlier deletion nom of Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn: Although it's perfectly possible that these people are actually sex workers, there is no evidence provided that they are. Since the photo was taken recently, at least some of them will still be living people today - and at least some of them are identifiable. I guess we could rename the photograph to not include prostitutes in the name - but then it would be an out of scope personal photo with no likely educational use anyway. On any other project, describing particular living people as prostitutes without a RS stating such would not only be instantly removed, but probably suppressed. The small black boxes on some faces is far from enough to make the people un-identifiable. It's in violation of the Board's BLP resolution and of Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and should thus be deleted Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment @Kevin Gorman: , is this nomination -- your first in quite a while -- related to the points you are trying to make in this extensive email list thread, currently underway? If so, it might be helpful for you to say so. That would explain why you put in the otherwise gratuitious "any other project" part, which is demonstrably false considering that this file (268 views here last month) is currently used to illustrate both the German Wikipedia (570 views last month) and the Polish Wiktionary, identifying the women as prostitutes.
- But never mind all that -- I agree with your points. Merely blacking out the eyes is not enough to make the women non-identifiable; and now that the file has been picked up by multiple web sites outside the Wikimedia family, further efforts to obscure the identities of the women, or to remove the label "prostitute," would be futile. The file should be Deleteed as a violation of COM:IDENT. -Pete F (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Peteforsyth: - I do not believe that the existence of an ongoing discussion elsewhere is relevant to this deletion nom. The text of this nom is also, as mentioned, more or less an explicit copy of the rationale I used on a photograph years ago. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Carrer de Sant Ramon in El Raval, Barcelona is notorious for being one of the worst places in Barcelona for street prostitution, and this is also acknowledged in local Catalan press. The uploader has done the right thing in applying cover to the eyes of the people, and no individual person is being "named" as a prostitute, but given that this street is known for daylight prostitution, the name of the file and its description is apt. However, prostitutes in the street do not generally like their photographs to be taken. I am not opining delete on the basis of the nomination but rather for very different reasons. Inline with Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements, in Spain one requires permission to both take a photograph and publish the photograph when it is taken in a public place, and there is no evidence that this was obtained by the uploader. So on that basis, and that basis alone, it's a firm delete. russavia (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to make sure I have your reasoning here right @Russavia: , you are saying that it is acceptable to label living, identifiable individuals as prostitutes based solely on the fact that they are standing on a street known to be a red light district? You're right in pointing that the country specific requirements are also important/relevant, but could please explicitly clarify whether or not I interpreted the first half of your statement correctly? (Tangent: I got a concussion last night, and will primarily be staying out of Wikimedia related business for the next ~48 hours since concussions do funny things. And then, ironically, I'll probably upload a photo of the effected part of my face to Commons, since we seem to not have many pictures of injuries that cause concussions.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- As someone just clarified to me, I misread your post slightly, since, you're right, the photo doesn't label any particular individual a prostitute. However, the photo is clearly intended to indicate that at least some if not all of the identifiable people in the photo are prostitutes. So let me reword: do you think it's okay to label groups of living identifiable people as prostitutes or otherwise involved in prostitution without evidence? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here on Commons, when looking at whether media is suitable for hosting, the first thing we look at is whether it is appropriately licenced, or whether it is a copyright violation. If it is a copyright violation, it is deleted, much like this file was. If it is appropriately licenced, we then look at whether the photo was taken in a private or public place. If taken in a private place with an expectation of privacy, if there was consent or no expectation of privacy we keep it, if not we delete it. If taken in a public place, we use Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements to determine whether consent to take the photo and to publish is required. If consent is required to take the photo and to publish it, unless consent can be shown (or reasonably inferred) to have been granted, we delete it. Any images that are kept should have {{Personality}} and {{Consent}} applied as appropriate. Now, the issue that you are talking about is something I don't especially feel the need to comment on as it is not pertinent to this particular image, and I would rather talk in realities than in hypotheticals and irrelevancies because every image is different.
- Just to make sure I have your reasoning here right @Russavia: , you are saying that it is acceptable to label living, identifiable individuals as prostitutes based solely on the fact that they are standing on a street known to be a red light district? You're right in pointing that the country specific requirements are also important/relevant, but could please explicitly clarify whether or not I interpreted the first half of your statement correctly? (Tangent: I got a concussion last night, and will primarily be staying out of Wikimedia related business for the next ~48 hours since concussions do funny things. And then, ironically, I'll probably upload a photo of the effected part of my face to Commons, since we seem to not have many pictures of injuries that cause concussions.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- But I do have an example for you Kevin that you might want to look at and if you'd prefer to wait until you are no longer suffering from concussion that would be fine. (Sorry to hear about that, and hope you are ok and recover quickly). File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg is the image in question. I'd also prefer that you don't reply here, but perhaps on wikimedia-l or elsewhere on Commons at a venue to be decided by you. But, in asking for your comment, I'd like you to put your "Commons" hat on and opine on this image the way that we would do so here on Commons. Feel free to drop me a link to the wikimedia-l or Commons venue you choose to opine on this image at. russavia (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- If the consent violation is sufficient to delete the file, then why was the first half of your post explicitly defending the behavior of the uploader, and pretty explicitly saying you're fine with labeling identifiable living people/groups of people as prostitutes without backing? It's pretty confusing to have a local sysop do that and then refuse to answer further questions about their viewpoint on the grounds that it's not pertinent. If it's not pertinent, why did you write the first half of your vote? The photo you linked is sourced to the state department, and I have significantly more faith in the state department's statements about living people than those of a random person uploading a photo to commons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin, if we are going to delete files on Commons, I prefer that files are deleted for the right reasons, and I adhere to the KISS principle. In my opining delete, which is done in my capacity as an editor, and not a sysop, I had to make it clear that we don't have to consider the reasoning upon which brought you to nominate this file. This is not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of other editors, and also for the admin who does close this discussion has a reminder that our files are deleted for the right reasons. russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sysops are generally expected to explain their actions when asked, rather than dancing around them, given the level of trust the tools entails. You weren't acting as a sysop when you made your comment, but a comment from a sysop that seems to say they are fine with violating COM:IDENT and the BLP resolution requires further explanation. Can you please just give a straight answer to this question, which is what I (and others) interpreted your initial words to mean: do you believe that labelling a identifiable group of individuals as engaging in prostitution without external evidence to that point is acceptable under Commons policy, and in compliance with the board resolutions regarding BLP issues? For the next 3-4 days, I'll mostly be confining my participation to the two DR's I started rather than dealing with the broader issues, which I'll come back to once concussion symptoms start to fade. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: , I think your explanation here is exemplary, thanks for explaining why you took this approach. @Kevin Gorman: I do think what Russavia said is pretty clear, but let me restate it, maybe this will help:
- It may very well be that the principle you state is true, but it also could be that some unanticipated and exceptional circumstances would make it sensible to include a file like that, or require the principle to be fleshed out in a little more detail. So it's better to avoid making sweeping statements when the present matter doesn't require it. Consider this analogy: if somebody is arrested on charges of stealing $5 off your kitchen table, and in the course of the trial it becomes unequivocally evident that they actually stole $1000 worth of stuff out of your house including the $5, would you expect the court to continue investing its resources in the specific matter of the $5? Or would it make more sense to simply prosecute the encompassing issue, and leave the specifics of $5 bills unaddressed? -Pete F (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Peteforsyth: - you are right that the present discussion doesn't hinge on whether or not Russavia believes it's okay to label groups of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution, since it's pretty clear the file in question here is going to be deleted. If Russavia had not directly brought up his apparent opinion that labeling groups of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution is okay, I certainly wouldn't be asking about him about it. But given that someone holding advanced privileges on a project went out of their way to seemingly say that they believe such an action is a-okay, Russavia should either explain what he meant or confirm that my understanding of what he meant is correct, because someone who holds advanced privileges both has an obligation to explain their actions and comments to the community, and because if someone with advanced privileges *does* think that is okay, it's worrisome to say the least. It would take less time for him to do so than it would to continue to dance around the question. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- You know what would take less time Kevin? Ignoring your attempts at putting words in my mouth, and taking this discussion off my watchlist, because it is now quite tedious to say the least. russavia (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: - I haven't really put any words in your mouth. In your initial vote, you explicitly supported the file name and actions of the uploader - to quote, "The uploader has done the right thing in applying cover to the eyes of the people, and no individual person is being "named" as a prostitute, but given that this street is known for daylight prostitution, the name of the file and its description is apt." That appears to me (and most of the other people I've run it by) to indicate that you believe it's not a violation of COM:IDENT or the board BLP resolution to label a group of identifiable living people as engaging in prostitution related activities based on no evidence other than the street they are standing on. I've repeatedly asked you to correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words, and you've repeatedly refused to do so (and since it would take quite little time to correct me if I was wrong, I'm assuming I interpreted your comment in more or less the way you intended it. It's beyond concerning that a sysop on a major project refuses to explain their statements and apparently believes that it's perfectly okay to label people prostitutes based on the fact that they're in a redlight district. I'll drop this line of inquiry after this for now, but certainly have this page bookmarked for the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: , I think your explanation here is exemplary, thanks for explaining why you took this approach. @Kevin Gorman: I do think what Russavia said is pretty clear, but let me restate it, maybe this will help:
- Sysops are generally expected to explain their actions when asked, rather than dancing around them, given the level of trust the tools entails. You weren't acting as a sysop when you made your comment, but a comment from a sysop that seems to say they are fine with violating COM:IDENT and the BLP resolution requires further explanation. Can you please just give a straight answer to this question, which is what I (and others) interpreted your initial words to mean: do you believe that labelling a identifiable group of individuals as engaging in prostitution without external evidence to that point is acceptable under Commons policy, and in compliance with the board resolutions regarding BLP issues? For the next 3-4 days, I'll mostly be confining my participation to the two DR's I started rather than dealing with the broader issues, which I'll come back to once concussion symptoms start to fade. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin, if we are going to delete files on Commons, I prefer that files are deleted for the right reasons, and I adhere to the KISS principle. In my opining delete, which is done in my capacity as an editor, and not a sysop, I had to make it clear that we don't have to consider the reasoning upon which brought you to nominate this file. This is not only for your benefit, but also for the benefit of other editors, and also for the admin who does close this discussion has a reminder that our files are deleted for the right reasons. russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- If the consent violation is sufficient to delete the file, then why was the first half of your post explicitly defending the behavior of the uploader, and pretty explicitly saying you're fine with labeling identifiable living people/groups of people as prostitutes without backing? It's pretty confusing to have a local sysop do that and then refuse to answer further questions about their viewpoint on the grounds that it's not pertinent. If it's not pertinent, why did you write the first half of your vote? The photo you linked is sourced to the state department, and I have significantly more faith in the state department's statements about living people than those of a random person uploading a photo to commons. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- But I do have an example for you Kevin that you might want to look at and if you'd prefer to wait until you are no longer suffering from concussion that would be fine. (Sorry to hear about that, and hope you are ok and recover quickly). File:9.000919 Pattaya streetscene5.jpg is the image in question. I'd also prefer that you don't reply here, but perhaps on wikimedia-l or elsewhere on Commons at a venue to be decided by you. But, in asking for your comment, I'd like you to put your "Commons" hat on and opine on this image the way that we would do so here on Commons. Feel free to drop me a link to the wikimedia-l or Commons venue you choose to opine on this image at. russavia (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Russavia points out a much more clear-cut reason to delete this specific file, I concur with his vote above as a better reason to take action here than the one I gave. -Pete F (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per russavia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I was almost convinced by russavia argument, but then I looked through outdoor photographs from Spain like Category:Demonstrations and protests in Spain, Category:Bullfighters from Spain, Category:Beggars in Spain or even Category:Wikipedians in Spain and I do not see any {{Consent}} templates. Are we going to delete them too? I do not like rules which are only applied to the images we do not like.--Jarekt (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beggars in Spain? Things such as demonstrations, cultural events, etc are specifically excluded from the consent requirements as our information sets out. russavia (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are right the specific exclusions are here like "It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).". That will take care of the demonstrations and may be the bullfights, but I am still confused about Category:Wikipedians in Spain: the consent is definitely implied but nobody uses {{Consent}} template. Anyway, I agree that unfortunately Delete is the right move for this image. --Jarekt (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: you are free to look at the Wikipedians in Spain category and if you believe they should be nominated feel free to do that. Anyone can, of course, do that. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are right the specific exclusions are here like "It is allowed to propagate graphical information about public events or occurrences when the image of a particular person appears merely incidentally (section 8.2.c).". That will take care of the demonstrations and may be the bullfights, but I am still confused about Category:Wikipedians in Spain: the consent is definitely implied but nobody uses {{Consent}} template. Anyway, I agree that unfortunately
- Do you mean like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beggars in Spain? Things such as demonstrations, cultural events, etc are specifically excluded from the consent requirements as our information sets out. russavia (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the point for deletion. There is no identifiable individual that can be related with prostitution, so there is no need of consent. It is fair the assume it with prostitution as this particular street is known in the press of Barcelona for that. --V.Riullop (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to be sure I understand your position -- do you think the black marks over the people's eyes is sufficient to obscure their identities? -Pete F (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I thought so, hard to recognize any person, but after reading COM:IDENT#Identification I change my mind as the black marks are not considered effective, it is unethical, and the subject of the photo is sensitive. Please Delete per no consent. --V.Riullop (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I thought so, hard to recognize any person, but after reading COM:IDENT#Identification I change my mind as the black marks are not considered effective, it is unethical, and the subject of the photo is sensitive. Please
- I'd like to be sure I understand your position -- do you think the black marks over the people's eyes is sufficient to obscure their identities? -Pete F (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm following the consensus that this file is not allowed according to COM:IDENT#Identification Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
low-quality and no EXIF data, also I do not think Waterloo university is a copyright violator FDMS 4 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France: the statue looks modern, there is no information about the death year of the sculptor. Eleassar (t/p) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Notorious mc.jpg Watty19 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violoation of part of the cover of a book. Only change is the title is in white and this file is black. Source given also claims copyright. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The licensing is clearly wrong. This may be salvageable because it may be in the public domain, but I don't see a clear basis. If author is unknown, and it was published in a Berne Convention country in 1900, it seems to me that it could still be in copyright. Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
the information on the map is not correct any more. this map is very old and has never been used anywhere. Sublines (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
imho it may be doubted to be own work as being a montage missing links to the images used for, Roland zh (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution (480x480), missing EXIF, considering also that all other files uploaded by Elçin.K-ov (talk · contribs) on same day 09.05.2014 come in 2048x1536 resolution with exif Samsung GT-C6712. A similar photo was previously published via http://vk.com/photo-23232544_303558982 (05.2013, by АЗЕРБАЙДЖАН ОНЛАЙН) = http://cs320617.vk.me/v320617641/889/MD9Tg57T_f8.jpg = identical cloud constellation, top and bottom parts missing, but on the left side the frame is more extended). Gunnex (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
{{Duplicate}} of Manesson-Travaux-de-Mars_9815.tif where thumbnail generation failed Hansmuller (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Doubt if own work, permission via OTRS will be needed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Manesson-Travaux-de-Mars_9835-2.tif. In Manesson-Travaux-de-Mars_9835.tif thumbnail generation failed Hansmuller (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Salma Hayek 2, 2012.jpg Gogo212121 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of Manesson-Travaux-de-Mars_9875-2.tif. In Manesson-Travaux-de-Mars_9875.tif thumbnail generation failed Hansmuller (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Angelina Jolie on the set of Changeling by Monique Autrey.jpg Lady Lotus (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I sad that is mine but was wrong. this is copyright. please delete the picture thx Sar1977 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Adverticement, check text. – GeMet [talk] 20:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Having done exhaustive searches for work by Anatolio Sedoff (Google GBooks, Gscholar and JSTOR) I can find nothing to suggest any of his photographs were ever published (as defined by US copyright law) prior to March 1, 1989, the only places I can find that have published them are the now defunct www.neiquechamigo.com and neike.com.ar both of which date from after March 1, 1989 as a result (and according to COM:HIRTLE) these will be protected in the US until 70 years after the death of author (and since he was taking pictures in 1978) that is 2048 at the earliest.
- File:Obera-1969.jpg
- File:Obera-1974.jpg
- File:Obera-calo-1973.jpg
- File:Obera-centro-1973.jpg
- File:Obera-cincuentenario-1978.jpg
- File:Obera-libertad-1973.jpg
- File:Obera-nieve1.jpg
- File:Obera-nieve2.jpg
- File:Obera-nieve3.jpg
- File:Obera-ruta-1973.jpg
LGA talkedits 05:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Two confirmed copyvios, File:Ts17army.jpg from [6] and File:2scots.jpg from [7] and several more likely, someone should check this guy's contributions.
Underlying lk (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment
I'm putting some of the more obvious copyvios up for speedy deletion.Looks to me like they can all be deleted. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copy of http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2561787904/nm3112010?ref_=nm_ov_ph Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danidemalaga (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poster art
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: Derivated from poster art of "Carnaval Málaga" (1990-2010), considering also User talk:Danidemalaga.
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1996 EL PALO Comparsa paleña ILUSIONES DE TRAPO y Murga Chirigota THE TOPS MODELS Miguel Bermúdez y Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1999 EL PALO Comparsa Paleña CALAFATE Libreto de Coplas y anuncios. Miguel Bermúdez Garcia y Juani Bermúdez García.jpg
- File:Carnaval EL PALO Málaga 2000 COMPARSA PALEÑA EL MESTER DE JUGLARÍA Miguel Bermúdez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1998 Comparsa Bolero EL PALO Miguel Bermúdez y Juani Bermúdez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1990 EL PALO Libreto Comparsa Paleña PENDIENTES DE UN HILO.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2006 EL PALO Comparsa A MEDIA NOCHE.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1995 Comparsa paleña LA SAL DE LOS MARES Miguel Bermúdez 1er premio.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1992 EL PALO murga chirigota infantil juvenil QUE PAICHA ( LOS MOROS ) Miguel Bermúdez García, Carlos Belmonte, Nicolás Garcia Lozano, Rafael García Roji , Javier Luque, Daniel Domínguez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2010 EL PALO Chirigota murga callejera ilegal ABIERTO EN CANAL Javier Gómez Bello y Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1996 EL PALO murga chirigota PORQUE LO LLEVO DENTRO . LAS PREÑÁS Miguel Bermúdez , David Santiago Velasco y Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2010 EL PALO Chirigota murga callejera ilegal LA CUKIS Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1997 EL PALO murga chirigota mixta femenina ESTAMOS EN LA HONDA Daniel Domínguez Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1998 Cuarteto Quinteto Paleño CENACHERO 2000 Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2000 Cuarteto Quinteto Paleño LOS QUE DAN LA NOTA Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton EL PALO.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2002 EL PALO Cuarteto Infantil LOS REYES VAGOS Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton y Andrés Padilla Morales Jaré.jpg
_Miguel_Berm%C3%BAdez_Garc%C3%ADa,_Carlos_Belmonte,_Nicol%C3%A1s_Garcia_Lozano,_Rafael_Garc%C3%ADa_Roji_,_Javier_Luque,_Daniel_Dom%C3%ADnguez.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Historical photos
[edit]It seems so, that the uploader uploded "all he can get" regarding photos "Carnaval [in/of] Málaga" without worrying about original copyright restrictions. Unlikely to be own work: historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.932 - Teatro Cervantes..jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 - 1.935 infantil.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.932 - disfraz de época.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 - 1.935.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.932.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.880 - 1.960 - El Baile de la Prensa.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.934 - Baile Infantil.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 Fiesta Infantil Baile de la Prensa.jpg
- File:Caraval de Málaga 1.934 - Baile de la Prensa, Infantil.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.932 Fiesta Infantil Baile de la Prensa.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 - Cartel Baile Infantil.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.927.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 Teatro Cervantes Baile de la Prensa.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 Cartel Ciudad de Invierno.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.900 - 1.936 Carroza.jpg
- File:Diego Villalba Jiménez 'El Bollero' Carnaval Málaga.jpg
- File:Diego Villalba 'El Bollero' Carnaval Málaga - años 20.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga Diego Villalba 'EL BOLLERO' años 20.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 - Agrupación Artística Malagueña.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 'Los Cosacos del Din Don Platanof'.jpg
- File:Comparsa 'Los Marines' 1.934 - Carnaval de Málaga.jpg
- File:Málaga 1905 Calle Larios COSO BLANCO.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 - 1.936 Carroza del Coso Iris.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.933 ' Mickey ' primer premio - Martinez Virel.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.932 - segundo premio 'Secadero de Tabaco'.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 primer premio 'Patio Andaluz'.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 - Carroza 'HACE'.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.900 - 1.936 Carroza del 'Círculo Mercantil'.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.931 - 'Marineras de Agua Dulce'.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.900 - 1.936 Coso Iris - Carroza.jpg
- File:Carnaval de Málaga 1.900 - 1.936 COSO IRIS - Coche Caballo adornado con flores.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1.900 - 1.936.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danidemalaga (talk · contribs)
[edit]A collection of blurry pics with very low educational value
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1996 EL PALO murga chirigota THE TOPS MODELS Miguel A. Bermúdez y Daniel Domínguez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1993 EL PALO murga chirigota LOS SURFEROS OJÚ QUE CHORRÁ Miguel Bermúdez Daniel Domínguez Elton Erton Carlos Belmonte Juani Bermudez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO 2000 Cuarteto LOS QUE DAN LA NOTA Daniel Domínguez González Erton elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1997 Murga Chirigota ESTAMOS EN LA HONDA ( LAS MOTERAS ) Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton EL PALO.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1996 murga chirigota THE TOPS MODELS Miguel Bermúdez y Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga Murga chirigota LAS PREÑÁS 1995 EL PALO Miguel Bermúdez, David Santiago Velasco y Daniel Domínguez Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Trío Cómico Paleño EL PALO MÁLAGA Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2001 EL PALO Trío Cómico Paleño Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO 2001 Cuarteto Manolo Rueda y Daniel Domínguez.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO 2001 Cuarteto Manuel Manolo Rueda y Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga Cuarteto EL CENACHERO 2000 quinteto cómico humor EL PALO Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 2000Cuarteto EL CENACHERO 2000 EL PALO en MARBELLA Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO Cuarteto LAS ESPAIS MILLERAS 1999 Daniel Domínguez Elton Erton paleño.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga 1998 Cuarteto Paleño CENACHERO 2000 Daniel Domínguez Elton Erton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO 1998 Cuarteto CENACHERO 2000.jpg
- File:Carnaval EL PALO Málaga 2000 Cuarteto LOS QUE DAN LA NOTA Daniel Domínguez González Erton Elton.jpg
- File:Carnaval Málaga EL PALO Murga ( chirigota ) THE TOPS MODELS Miguel Bermúdez , Daniel Domínguez González Elton Erton.jpg
_Daniel_Dom%C3%ADnguez_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Elton_Erton_EL_PALO.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_THE_TOPS_MODELS_Miguel_Berm%C3%BAdez_,_Daniel_Dom%C3%ADnguez_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Elton_Erton.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
91.66.152.113 11:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Species could not be identified, many better images of Sarcophaga existing. File is in use on identification page in german Wikipedia, where I asked for help to identify the fly and see whether the image may be useful. Biodehio (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why delete as it fits into TWO categories?--Zyperkux (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Images of not identified objects are not useful, neither in any Wikimedia project nor in any other project. This could nor be identified on de:WP:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung#Fliege 2. --Biodehio (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No clear evidence of a valid license. The uploader only cited a permission published on Serbian Wiki (see here).
As far as I know in cases such these, a valid OTRS ticket is required.
The files affected are:
- File:Jugoslavia wc 1982.jpg (1982)
- File:Wc90-yugoslavia.jpg (1990)
- File:Olympic team 1960.jpg (1960)
- File:Euro 68 Final Italy Yug 2.jpg (1968)
Fma12 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I never used OTRS system. Please let me a few days to try to contact Serbian federation and obtain a confirmation of the permission published on the Serbian Wikipedia. --H4stings (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS will retore the files if everything sorts out correctly Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Species could not be identified, many better images of Sarcophaga existing. File is in use on identification page in german Wikipedia, where I asked for help to identify the fly and see whether the image may be useful. Biodehio (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
EN: The file is useless: its value is questionable due to the poor quality of the photography subject (paper model), so it cannot be used at any of the wiki articles.
RU: Файл бесполезен: его ценность сомнительна из-за низкого качества субъекта фотографии (бумажной модели), из-за чего он не может быть использован в статьях википедии.
Jasnorville (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that when the magazine published this image it did not contain a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA). LGA talkedits 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per nominator's rationale. MBisanz talk 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Notorious mc.jpg Watty19 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2067 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Restored --Ezarateesteban 17:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that when this album was published it did not display a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA). LGA talkedits 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- KeepI can't find any evidence that this image of the cover of the album had any copyright notice.--Zeroth (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Other albums from the same artist released at the same time had the required (c) or (p) mark displayed on them such as this one from 1969 so I see no reason to assume this one did not. LGA talkedits 01:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 10:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2067 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that when this album was published it did not display a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA). LGA talkedits 22:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- KeepI can't find any evidence that this image of the cover of the album had any copyright notice.--Zeroth (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Other albums from the same artist released at the same time had the required (c) or (p) mark displayed on them such as this one from 1969 so I see no reason to assume this one did not. LGA talkedits 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 10:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that when the newspaper published this image it did not contain a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA) LGA talkedits 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- KeepI can't find any evidence that this publication had any copyright notice.--Zeroth (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2067 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that when this album was published it did not display a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA) LGA talkedits 22:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- KeepI can't find any evidence that this image of the cover of the album had any copyright notice.--Zeroth (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Other albums from the same artist released at the same time had the required (c) or (p) mark displayed on them such as this one from 1969 so I see no reason to assume this one did not. LGA talkedits 01:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 10:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that when the magazine published this image it did not contain a copyright notice and as such will still be copyright in the US (regardless of the URAA) LGA talkedits 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- KeepI can't find any evidence that this image of the cover of the album had any copyright notice.--Zeroth (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Re-opening discussion. russavia (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. russavia (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As discussed on Commons:Village_pump#Wikimapia_photos, quite dubious uploads from Wikimapia. Many uploads there are being taken from external werbsites w/o permission and simply uploaded as own work, perhaps in good faith but that doesn't change the fact of a copyright violation. So are pictures nominated here. No reason for me to believe that they (or most of them) are indeed freely licensed stuff.
- File:Sresdneuralsk-administratsia-building-1.jpg
- File:Government-of-ulyanovsk-oblast-seat-1.jpg
- File:Government-of-khakassia-abakan.jpg
- File:Parliament-of-republic-of-altai.jpg
- File:Government-sakhalin-oblast.jpg
- File:Ryazan-oblast-duma-1.jpg
- File:Ryazan-oblast-government-build-1.jpg
- File:Astrakhan-port-3.jpg
- File:Astrakhan-port-2.jpg
- File:Astrakhan-port-1.jpg
- File:Saratov-government-building-1.jpg
- File:Saratov-oblast-parliament-1.jpg
- File:Krasnodar-krai-parliament.jpg
- File:Angara-complex-plesetsk.jpg
- File:Suzdal-administratsia-building.jpg
- File:Krasnouralsk-administratsia.jpg
- File:Vnutreny-voiska-lesnoy-sverdlovsk-oblast.jpg
- File:Okhotsk-administration-building.jpg
- File:Okhotsk-from-air.jpg
- File:Munchon-middle-school-1.jpg
- File:General-staff-academy-russia-moscow.jpg
- File:Mvd-shtab-2006.jpg
- File:Government-crimea-republic-simferopol.jpg
- File:Parliament-of-yakutia-2006.jpg
- File:State-council-of-komi-komunisticheskaya-8.jpg
- File:Kurgan-oblast-government-seat.jpg
- File:Government-seat-ivanovo-pushkin-9.jpg
- File:Amur-oblast-government-seat.jpg
- File:Kabardino-balkaria-government.jpg
- File:Government-of-kabardino-balkaria-in-nalchik.jpg
- File:Parliament-of-kabardino-balkaria-building-nalchik.jpg
- File:Uglegorsk-2010-administration-building.jpg
- File:Dom-pravitelstva-karachay-cherkessia.jpg
- File:Khasan-primorsky-store.jpg
- File:Border-customs-russia-china.jpg
- File:Abandoned-structure-russia-north-korea-khasansky-raion-march-2014.jpg
- File:Demarcation-mark-1440-russia-mongolia-border.jpg
- File:Russia-china-northkorea-demarcation-mark.jpg
- File:Russia-north-korea-border-from-china.jpg
- File:Abakan-overview-01.jpg
- File:Magadan-oblast-administration-2006.jpg
- File:Magadan-port-2006.jpg
- File:Khasan-railway-station-night.jpg
- File:Lenin-square-arkhangelskk-1.jpg
- File:Uspensky-monastery-zabrama-bryansk-1.jpg
- File:Bridge-over-Seym-river-kursk-oblast.jpg
- File:Russia-china-mongolia-tri-border-eastern-part.jpg
- File:Troyebortnoye-bachevsk-point-russia-ukraine-border.jpg
- File:From-sudja to-yunakovka-2-control-russia-ukraine-sumy.jpg
- File:Sudja-border-russia-ukraine-1-2010.jpg
- File:Bachivsk-russia-ukraine-border.jpg
- File:Seredina-buda-point-border-russia-ukraine.jpg
- File:Yunakivka-border-checkpoint-ukraine-russia.jpg
- File:Russian international crossing border point Shumilkino.jpg
- File:Omsk-oblast-krasny-put-100-2.jpg
- File:Government Kirov Region.jpg
A.Savin 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The photos were uploaded from Wikimapia and I gave the uploaders there the credits and added correspondent license. All User Submissions of all users and all Wikimapia Data are freely available for commercial and non-commercial use under Creative Commons license Attribution-ShareAlike through WikiMapia website, WikiMapia API and other current or future WikiMapia services. If a picture was uploaded to Wikimapia and already violated copyrights of other site, I can understand, but if there is a picture that appears only in Wikimapia, it would be unfair to just delete it from Wikicommons. Best regards, Rakoon (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rakoon, I randomly check a few images and all of them have {{Cc-by-3.0}}; not {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Jee 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, then my licenses are not accurate, i don't know what's the difference between them, if you think need to correct them you are welcome. Rakoon (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Rakoon, I randomly check a few images and all of them have {{Cc-by-3.0}}; not {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Jee 09:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The photos were uploaded from Wikimapia and I gave the uploaders there the credits and added correspondent license. All User Submissions of all users and all Wikimapia Data are freely available for commercial and non-commercial use under Creative Commons license Attribution-ShareAlike through WikiMapia website, WikiMapia API and other current or future WikiMapia services. If a picture was uploaded to Wikimapia and already violated copyrights of other site, I can understand, but if there is a picture that appears only in Wikimapia, it would be unfair to just delete it from Wikicommons. Best regards, Rakoon (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 10:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Belarus. Who are the painters and why are their works public domain?
- File:4483 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4482 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4481 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4480 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4479 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4478 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4477 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
- File:4476 National Arts Museum of the Republic of Belarus.JPG
Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I made those photos and I release them to public domain. Isn't it ok? Rakoon (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rakoon: No it isn't: they are derivative works of painters who hold the copyright. Perhaps some are public domain due to their age so the names of the painters must be added to the file descriptions. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- In some of the photos I captured the details of the artist. So those details should be added? Rakoon (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rakoon: Yes indeeed. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- OK I have added the information about the artists where I was able to know. I hope it will help. Kind regards, Rakoon (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rakoon: Painters must be dead since 50 years to be public domain and none of these artists are in that case, sorry. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- OK I have added the information about the artists where I was able to know. I hope it will help. Kind regards, Rakoon (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rakoon: Yes indeeed. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- In some of the photos I captured the details of the artist. So those details should be added? Rakoon (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Rakoon: No it isn't: they are derivative works of painters who hold the copyright. Perhaps some are public domain due to their age so the names of the painters must be added to the file descriptions. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work of copyrighted paintings. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Blurred, unusably low quality.
- File:20210917 181302 September 2021 in Warsaw.jpg
- File:20210917 181305 September 2021 in Warsaw.jpg
- File:20210917 094605 September 2021 in Warsaw.jpg
- File:20210917 094408 September 2021 in Warsaw.jpg
- File:20210917 211047 September 2021 in Warsaw.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 23:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't delete them. Indeed quality is not high, but it is also not so low to the extent that one cannot see or understand what is the subject of these photos. Rakoon (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Still, these pictures can be easly replaced with better ones - there's no need to keep those low quality files - Delete --Botev (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Still, these pictures can be easly replaced with better ones - there's no need to keep those low quality files -
Deleted: unusable due to bad quality. --Krd 06:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Statue of Peter the Great (Moscow) by User:Rakoon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted monument, but Russia does not allow commercial uses or distributions of copyrighted public art. See prior deletion requests at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statue of Peter the Great in Moscow.
- File:20160809 120355 August 2016 in Moscow.jpg
- File:20160809 115444 August 2016 in Moscow.jpg
- File:20160809 115308 August 2016 in Moscow.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)