Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
aceticacid1.svg){kind=link}
_es.svg){kind=link}
_1932.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![99 File:Escudo de "El Carmen".jpg](#File:Escudo_de_"El_Carmen".jpg){kind=link}
![106 File:Leonard Lissandre, sculpture "Faucheur au repos"..JPG](#File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"Faucheur_au_repos"..JPG){kind=link}
![115 File:Leonard Lissandre, sculpture "La baigneuse", d'après Falconet..jpg](#File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"La_baigneuse",_d'après_Falconet..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
the copyrigt declaration is wrong Susanna Giaccai (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, of course, this is not own work. But maybe it is too simple for copyright. But I delete it due to author's request on uploading day. And it can be out of project scope as unused book cover. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
aceticacid1.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
aceticacid1.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very unusual drawing of 2-(aminooxy)aceticacid2.svg or Aminooxyacetic Acid.svg. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
aceticacid2.svg){kind=link}
aceticacid1.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
aceticacid1.svg){kind=link}
para corregir Juan. botti (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused private photo Alexander A. Klimov (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept, This image is used on Wikiquotes. In addition, we don't just delete any unused image on this project, although we may honor the uploader's request for deleting his/her upload if it is unused. (In this case, the nominator is the uploader but the image is used.) Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
how is this a relevant screen shot? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo. The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (See Commons:Deletion policy#Not educationally useful.) Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Brecumms. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I add for deletion all other contributions of the same uploader due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Here out of scope. (We need a transfer to Facebook bot) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This map is strongly uncorrect and completely false. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Map is correctly licenced. It's up to Wikipedia chapters using it or less SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope, see en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:XxMeggersxX Sven Manguard Wha? 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader XxMeggersxX (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading two personal files, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
corregir y volver a subir Juan. botti (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
appears to be a non-free image taken from a website Axb3 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Axb3: Which website? This is no valid deletion nomination. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation from http://tvline.com/2014/05/06/american-idol-caleb-johnson-calls-fans-retards/ JuTa 20:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
duplicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Houseman (talk • contribs) 2014-05-22T15:37:15 (UTC)
- Duplicate of which image? --JuTa 20:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of File:Basi1006.jpg, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
duplicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Houseman (talk • contribs) 2014-05-22T15:39:55 (UTC)
- Duplicate of which image? --JuTa 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of File:Basi1007.jpg, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
_es.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_es.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad editing. Not correspond to the original — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortisa (talk • contribs) 2014-05-22T10:55:55 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
_es.svg){kind=link}
It does not have any category. Juanmallanos (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything, but it is uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not used ~ Nahid Talk 18:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Private / nonsense image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
_1932.jpg){kind=link}
_1932.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Violate the rules of Wikipedia Commons. Copyright. Obispado (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
_1932.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, the picture is in the Public Domain. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept, the file is properly licensed and in the public domain. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
_1932.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
original image is copyrighten Lady Lotus (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, by Sven Manguard with reason "crop of copyvio". Also, this is uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal unused CV with no foreseeable, educational use ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Wikipedia is not a place for CVs. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not have any category. Juanmallanos (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything, but it is uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo/self promo ~ Nahid Talk 19:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not have any category. Juanmallanos (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything, but it is uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, unused and blurry. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The source is given as the "internet", with no details of the photographer. It is almost certainly still in copyright, with no appropriate licensing given. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, source – internet, author – unknown. While the depicted object is free from copyright, it is 3-dimensional object and so permission from photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
ephemera, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I add for deletion File:Chemistry project.pdf due to same reason: unused personal files. Now are all the uploader's contributions presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Doesnt seem like this additional file adds anything to project either.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
La foto no es de calidad suficiente para ser utilizada en enlaces. Donalejandro11 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, so small photos (119×158 pixels) are useless. This is the uploader's request, although two years after uploading. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, mere advertisement. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: It is blatant advertising used only on a now-deleted highly prmotional page on enwiki. I also deleted other similar images from the same uploader. Ed (Edgar181) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal unused CV with no foreseeable, educational use ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Wikipedia is not place for CVs. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Karan Malhotra recent single tracks Show Stopper and Tu 18 Main 20 with Sahil Arora have been smash hits- Karan Malhotra and Sanam Puri coming up with a brand new album soon which still untitled- 2014-05-21 23-44.jpg
[edit]
Unused personal image (no indication album or artist is notable) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, author and copyright holder is wolfproductionofficial.picsart.com, who is not the uploader. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't find source file File:Human anatomy ru.jpg. Must be deleted as a "file with no source". Teofilo (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC) it is OK now. request withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- ru:Файл:Human anatomy ru.jpg ? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's ok. It's a derivative work. 95.27.121.181 05:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Это голые люди мой сын в 8 классе писал билеты и наткнулся 217.19.208.98 12:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept, это не причина что-нибудь удалить. На Викискладе нет цензуры, об этом пишут в Commons:Чем не является Викисклад. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently not own work 4ing (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. Definitely not the uploader's own work. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently photo of photo, not own work. No real photographer, no source, no permission, no publication data. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This picture is of me and was not approved by me to be on this site. I would like for it to be removed. 99.68.24.177 19:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - picture is likely out of project scope anyway. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination High Contrast (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not have any category. Juanmallanos (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything, but it is uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it says 1950, not 1850! FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: From 1950. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to use it anymore because even if it is my own public domain work, it seems I still have to prove to two bigots that I am ok publishing it, so now I a m not happy and I want it off here. If someone wants it it can always go to my site to download it. Guilleamodeo (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keeping as per my talk page on en - just ask me if you really want it deleted Ronhjones (Talk) 20:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: As per my talk on en wiki Ronhjones (Talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason for opening a DR. If you are the uploader, just rename the file using the Move feature. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. After that CeeGee uploaded correct file under new name. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
per watermark somewhat unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
see: http://a2zmoviesgallery.blogspot.de/2014/05/madhurima-hot-photo-gallery-madhurima.html Berthold Werner (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture , out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader Rafael Leyva Barboza (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in es.wiki and uploading some personal photos, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
An unused duplicate of File:VBMPavilion.tif which differs only in cropping & contrast. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, resolution of this file is 3948×2393 pixels, but the other has 4287×2772. The other has also better colors. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope, see en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:XxMeggersxX Sven Manguard Wha? 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader XxMeggersxX (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia except userpage in en.wiki and uploading two personal files, which are used nowhere except on the userpage. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Файл уже был загружен на сайте выпускники МГУКИ http://utc-mguki.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/nazarov.jpg в феврале 2011 года, откуда, возможно и взят. Кроме того встречается на сайте http://www.mjcc.ru/UserFiles/Image/nazarov.jpg в меньшем разрешении. но с указанием даты изменения 11.01.2008. Dogad75 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, I delete also derivative of this file:Nazarov Vladimir,V..jpg. Taivo (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
apparently a selfie of a very bored person, not of any use to Wikimedia websites (he describes himself in the filename as a successful actor, singer and artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by ויקיג'אנקי (talk • contribs) 2014-05-21T22:51:32 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
1 = Prommotional or spam | 2 = Commercial, non-free | Unused personal}} picture , out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, unused personal photos. No useful edits from uploader. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal type photo, no indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hoax image - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, hoax is obvious. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Prommotional or spam picture , out of Project Scope.
- File:Cover-Subconscious.jpg
- File:78 rpm EP.jpg
- File:Logo Leo Rebollo.jpg
- File:Portada-sesion-Leo-Rebollo.jpg
- File:Leo Rebollo fed.jpg
- File:Beatport artist Leo R...jpg
- File:Alive Alcoba Club.JPG
- File:Monster By Leo Rebollo.JPG
- File:Logo LCARecords New.JPG
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO Cabinna SKYY.jpg
- File:Alive Leo Rebollo.jpg
- File:Lona Leo Rebollo y Carlos Gaytan.jpg
- File:Doblea Radio.jpg
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO Electro,box Ixtapaluca.jpg
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO Kolors.JPG
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO Planet holliwood.JPG
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO Electro,box.jpg
- File:Leo en bday luis.jpg
- File:Alive carma.jpg
- File:KENNY Y LOS ELECTRICOS AND LEO REBOLLO.JPG
- File:OMAR AND LEO REBOLLO.JPG
- File:G MIND LEO, CARLOS.jpg
- File:LEO REBOLLO AND ERICH ENSASTIGUE.JPG
- File:LCA DJS.JPG
- File:BLUE PARROT.JPG
- File:MAYA Y MARIA KARUNNA AND LEO REBOLLO.JPG
- File:DJ LEO REBOLLO.JPG
- File:Beatport artist Leo R.4.jpg
- File:Beatport artist Leo Rebollo...jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all - as an addendum, many of the album covers appear to contain images that are potential copyright violations. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The user were uploaded more files before this DR. Delete all the files by this user pero the same reason. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this is so promotional spam, that I delete all them on the spot. I delete also File:DJ-Leo-R-HD.jpg and then are all the Leorg's uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Clausskeel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Byrommelvega (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hyung Kun Yoon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
- File:IDs and Share of Three with Footco.JPG
- File:BLONDE AND RED CONQUERORS.jpg
- File:Blown up Pu'Ar.jpg
- File:Jesus and HIS greatest match all UNDER ONE.jpg
- File:Self Portrait of Influences.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely (3 files, not numbered) grabbed from Google Earth/Maps or (5 files, numbered) from an unknown video source.
- File:Weaverton Ariel.jpg
- File:Audubon Ariel.jpg
- File:Audubon Heights Ariel.jpg
- File:Henderson, Ky Ariel 5.jpg
- File:Henderson, Ky Ariel 4.jpg
- File:Henderson, Ky Ariel 3.jpg
- File:Henderson, Ky Ariel 1.jpg
- File:Henderson, Ky Ariel 2.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nomination, not own work. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. We can always ask WikiProject Kentucky for free alternatives. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Hendo1270 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hendo1270.
Spezial case:
- File:Urban.jpg (tagged by me with {{Panoramioreview}}), considering http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11560040 (appears to be user's account, uploaded 06/27/2008) but previously published via http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc43778.php (Submitted on 4/10/2008 by "kept private") = http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles43778.jpg (identical exif). Note also similar the Panoramio washing of File:Birdseye view of Henderson, Ky.jpg via http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18449400 (uploaded 2009) via http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv15650.php (submitted on 10/12/2005, picture by JOHN H. COLLETTE) = http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles15650.jpg (last modified: 2008, identical exif)
- File:Crossing The Bi-State Vietnam Gold Star Bridges.jpg
- File:Sunset at the river front in Henderson, Ky.jpg
- File:Ellis Park Race Track.jpg
- File:John James Audubon Museum.jpg
- File:Down town.JPG
- File:River Day.jpg
- File:Downtown Urban.jpg
- File:Urban.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's reasons. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nomination, not own work. Only File:Down town.JPG has EXIF data, but COM:PRP applies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per the other discussion. We can always ask WikiProject Kentucky for free alternatives. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Created by error, since I intended to create a category, not a page Khruner (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, author's request on creation day. Taivo (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:When he was at high school 2014-05-20 23-21.jpg
- File:A photo of Vanlong and his girlfriend 2014-05-20 23-16.jpg
- File:Join the khmer traditional wedding, Cambodia 2014-05-20 23-10.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No camera data. Collages have no author or license of individual photos. Taivo (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Natalie-Marie Hart (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The files are used in en.wiki on userpage. But this is self-promotional user: she has no other edits except on the userpage. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope, used on page that is nominated for speedy deletion Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This image is not too simple for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image? Out of project scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Previously published on the web, e.g. here in 2013 (where they say the source is "Web"), therefore {{Own}} in doubt. Uploader: If you are the copyright holder, please carefully follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution, no metadata, looks professionally shot, therefore {{Own}} in doubt. If uploader owns the copyright, please follow the directions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
fair use material, some homepage material Motopark (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal type photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think, that the logo surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: self-created photography manual. BrightRaven (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal type photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution, not yet presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal files are out of project scope. This is simple logo of non-notable person and the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
promotional, not used, private album picture Motopark (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image; COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope Storkk (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
promotional, not used, private album picture Motopark (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture , out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The page description says the author is the subject (Rachel Corrie), which is physically not possible. Even if the immediate source (frontpagemag) called it public domain (which it didn't) there's no reason to think they had any authority to do so. Rob (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Not related to Wiki Loves Earth Ghana. Image promoting personal interest. Enock4seth (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image is dated 1976 with an unknown photographer and a 3.0 license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image dates to 1962 with unknown photographer and a 3.0 license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe own work. The logo surpasses threshold of originality. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution, not yet presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
![07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-Taivo-2014-05-22T07:29:00.000Z-File:Escudo_de_"El_Carmen".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-Fastily-2014-05-30T08:54:00.000Z-File:Escudo_de_"El_Carmen".jpg){kind=link}
Author is not the uploader, but Aditya Chopra (this is written on file itself). The uploader is blocked for copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Self promotional / personal contact data. Out of scope. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image without a subject on any wiki project; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Can't be from 2012. Was on the internet since circa 2007-2008 [1]. Small copy with no exif data. Not likely own work of uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Fake using true-type font. This is not a signature Yanguas (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Léonard Lissandre is dead in 1953. copyright violation. 82.124.246.135 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
![15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-82.124.246.135-2014-05-22T15:02:00.000Z-File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"Faucheur_au_repos"..JPG){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-Fastily-2014-05-30T08:54:00.000Z-File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"Faucheur_au_repos"..JPG){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Russavia as no license. Well, there is a PD-old-100 license, but that seems not apply for this photo of a person who died in 1950. JuTa 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
cannot be "Own work", it is a picture from somewhere, so improperly licensed at least Bramfab (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This is small photo without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, appears professionally shot, therefore {{Own}} in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but true licensing status is unclear - the melody being performed would still have been under copyright in Andorra as of date of restoration (so likely still under copyright), and there is more than one performer heard on this particular recording (so it's unclear whether the uploader is able to release the rights). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture , out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Previously published widely on the web, e.g. here, therefore {{Own}} in doubt. Uploader: If you are the copyright holder, please carefully follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Léonard Lissandre is dead in 1953. copyright violation. 82.124.246.135 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
![15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-82.124.246.135-2014-05-22T15:02:00.000Z-File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"La_baigneuse",_d'après_Falconet..jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
![08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/22#c-Fastily-2014-05-30T08:54:00.000Z-File:Leonard_Lissandre,_sculpture_"La_baigneuse",_d'après_Falconet..jpg){kind=link}
No indication this is {{PD-Mexico}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No metadata, looks professionally shot, therefore uploader's assertion of {{Own}} in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please carefully follow the directions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
EXIF data states photographer is a David White, and the copyright holder is NZ Magazines, yet the uploader is Emma Izatt. Evidence that the uploader is legally able to relicense the image needs to be recorded by following the steps at COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This is unused photo about non-notable band, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
incorrect key map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psubhashish (talk • contribs) 2014-05-21T11:39:54 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No proof of permissions Mlpearc (powwow) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image is from 1952, which is the 50th anniversary of the village, with an unknown author and a 3.0 license. It may be from the book: Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952. Historical Committee of the Semi–Centennial. 1952. as stated on en:History of Briarcliff Manor. At present in 2014, the book was published only 62 years ago. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
1958 picture. The photographer is unknown. No information about the publication. BrightRaven (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
as indicated in the watermark visibile in the lower right corner this photo comes from a website, so copyviol infringiment Bramfab (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution (Facebook res), missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked. Gunnex (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a television screen capture and not {{Own}}. Storkk (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image from after 1963 (notice zip code in Post Office sign) with unknown photographer and a 3.0 license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, appears previously published on tineye, therefore {{Own}} in doubt. Uploader: if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Image is from 1974 to 2009 with an unknown photographer and a 3.0 license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution, not yet nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture , out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused art of non-notable artist is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
copyviol from http://www.ladigetto.it/permalink/19404.html Bramfab (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No proof of permissons Mlpearc (powwow) 20:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Palace of Republic and the surrounding square (the year of creation 2001), design by architect M. Pirogov et al. Jarash (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Palace of Republic and the surrounding square (the year of creation 2001), design by architect M. Pirogov et al. Jarash (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
As stated on the page where this image is in use, it dates to around 1930, too late to be a PD-old-auto-1923, and with an unknown photographer, the 3.0 license isn't right either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused pesonal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. This picture is a part of a movie! Bilderling (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Frame from the movie. Can't be "own work" Bilderling (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of COM:SCOPE Storkk (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2051 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image is and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 00:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in 1956 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This seems like a clear COM:POINT case. There seems to be a mad rush to delete any URAA image under any pretense whatsoever, no matter how outlandish it might be, as long as it fits the formal rules. Our goal should be to keep files if at all possible, not delete them if at all possible. —Ynhockey (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the source is the National Photo Collection, which probably publish this photo before 1989. Ovedc (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The fact is, if the image was created by the government in 1956 then the copyright under Israeli law expired on December 31, 2006. See clause 42 here (Hebrew). —Ynhockey (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See Hana's explanation above. Oyoyoy (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1956 must have been unpublished nowhere for 34 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. COM:PCP -FASTILY 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
no proper author, no proper source, small photo without metadata. Has also derivative work File:Highway 4 gore point.jpg. Taivo (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope, personal photo TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2078 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No date and source of first publication is given (as required by {{PD-AR-Photo}}). Will be in copyright in Argentina if not published before June 1, 1994 and will be copyright in the US if not published before March 1, 1989. Additionally will be copyright in the US if published between 1978 and February 1989 and the publication contained a copyright notice.
Absent proof of when this was published and if necessary, the proof the publication did not have a copyright notice, this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 00:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2078 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
No date and source of first publication is given (as required by {{PD-AR-Photo}}). Will be in copyright in Argentina if not published before June 1, 1994 and will be copyright in the US if not published before March 1, 1989. Additionally will be copyright in the US if published between 1978 and February 1989 and the publication contained a copyright notice.
Absent proof of when this was published and if necessary, the proof the publication did not have a copyright notice, this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image? Out of project scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The photo depicts makeup for catgirl. I am not a makeup specialist, but maybe this is in scope. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Taivo Maybe that little red thing in the edge of the photo is a cat ear. Either way, without very close examination, it's not clear that this is catgirl makeup. If you told me that this person was dressing up, I would have guessed goth, to be honest. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose CutOffTies (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in en.wiki on user page. This is an active user with a lot of good work. Taivo (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The 'user page' is a copy of an article the user with "good work" conveniently created when it was clear the article was going to be deleted for a lack of notability. I didn't know that being an active user gives you the right to use Wikimedia to store images of non-notable subjects. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per CutoffTies FASTILY 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone's odd way of getting around that anime characters are copyrighted, this is a series of eleven triangles, suppoedly the abstract representation of underwear. Almost certainly never going to be used, and out of scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also for deletion:
- File:Eila Panties.svg
- File:Erica Panties.svg
- File:Francesca Panties.svg
- File:Gertrud Panties.svg
- File:Lynette Panties.svg
- File:Minna-Dietlinde Panties.svg
- File:Mio Panties.svg
- File:Perrine-H Panties.svg
- File:Sanya Panties.svg
- File:Yoshika Panties.svg
- Category:Strike Witches (which will be empty once these are deleted)
- Delete all - not very useful for WMF projects. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The image's description and the image itself don't seem to match up at all. This is out of project scope Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete V7Stick (talk · contribs) uploaded a set of photos about catgirls, but this file is probably erroneously in the set. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Futuretrillionaire as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No evidence that this photo was first published in China. INeverCry 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No reason to assume that when AP published this in the US they did not follow the copyright notice rules and will therfore still be copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 00:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Hanay (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't follow, the issue is not publication, but the assumption the PA did not follow US copyright rules. LGA talkedits 04:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Copied here: wikilivres:File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
no proper source, no proper author, small photo without metadata. But the file is heavily used. Taivo (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The conventions for uploading images to En.wikipedia in 2007 were a little different than the conventions for uploading images to Commons in 2014. For that matter, there could have been additional information on the En.wikipedia file description page which was not necessarily copied over to the Commons file description page, given the often informal and ad-hoc nature of transfers to Commons in 2008. Furthermore, the image is not necessarily that "small" given that it's very likely a decapitated torso-and-upper-legs excerpt from a beach scene snapshot. I think that there needs to be something a little more concrete behind such copyright suspicions in the context of this particular case. AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Cropped from http://gallery.bikini-dare.com/jenna/06/indexFrPrn.html = http://gallery.bikini-dare.com/jenna/06/preview07.jpg (watermarked with "2005(1?) Dare Production"). Considering that several shots from the same model are available at this site, most likely copyrighted by Dare Production/bikini-dare.com (considering also http://web.archive.org/web/20131029032609/http://bikini-dare.com/ = archived since 2002advice: content may be offensive for some readers) Gunnex (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in that case delete of course... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2055 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- We have been around this discussion too many times, with too many editors, and I'm too tired to go through the whole explanation again. There is absolutely no copyright problem with this photo, taken in Israel 53 years ago by the Israel Government Press Office. It is in the public domain here, there, and everywhere. I would appreciate if you would check previous similar discussions before using deletion templates. Oyoyoy (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image is and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in 1960 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than when the actor Aharon Meskin was received Israel Prize by the prime minister of Israel David Ben Gurion. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Here we go again... See Hana's remark. Oyoyoy (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to keep, it was for exactly this type of picture that the US Congress passed 17 U.S.C. § 303 in the hope that they would be published, there is nothing at all to suggest that this picture has ever been PD in the US. LGA talkedits 05:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry if I don't realy understand the policy here, but if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1960 must have been unpublished nowhere for 29 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Publishing has quite a specific meaning in US copyright law, and the vast majority of photographs ever taken would not have been deemed published as they are not distributed to the public. So it is entirely possible that this was never published until very recently. LGA talkedits 07:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the source is the Israeli Photo Archive, which probably publish this photo before 1989. Ovedc (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – the legal definition of "publish" (at least in Israeli law, which is relevant here) is to make available to anyone other than the copyright holder. The GPO, which took this picture, makes it available to other bodies by default. It does not appear that further evidence is needed here. Hanay also raises a very important and valid point. —Ynhockey (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. COM:PCP -FASTILY 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Additional comment as I have been challenged by the nominee for this closure, and the comment applies to three similar deletion requests. What was not added to this deletion request was a link from an associated discussion taken to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, which would have been helpful rather than to sit in isolation. Either way, it is problematic for the same user to continue to list and fight for a work to be deleted. That is not the purpose of having an opinion in these discussions. The principle behind reopening a discussion should ideally be undertaken by a non-involved person, or by the same person where new information comes to hand (as expressed in the surrounding box). There is no life or death here, the obvious get deleted or kept easily, the remainder are decided on weighing opinion. No one dies, there is no $1M riding on this decision, it is simply closed until we have better alternative opinion.
- With regard to the points. While the evidence requirement is imposed upon the contributor of an image, it is to a policy written by community, and if the community sees that there is suitable evidence or knowledge about a work this can override the absolute requirement for evidence. It is the community's policy and it has the right to exclude components from 100% compliance, so the commentary by the Israeli community that the works have been published and that they are well known works should be heeded by the nominator and closing administrator. Further, there is a lot of tossing around of "precautionary principle" at times, and it was used in this case. If you the examples there are read, it is clear that they do not apply, and the description put in place by the community is "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted and apart from the nominee, there was no significance in the doubt, in fact it was significance in its opinion to keep. If an admin believes that precautionary principle applies, then that should be clearly expressed in a closure, and it is my believe that where they are going contrary to the opinion it should be prior to a closure to give procedural fairness.
- So with these four files, it is "PD-Israel" and accepting the evidence of the community's opinion, they were published at a point of time that makes them public domain in the US, so "PD-US". — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tasawar.ahmad12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work. Probably grabbed from google view ~ Nahid Talk 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This image contains information about the location of Зооботанічний комплекс «Басань»(https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зооботанічний_комплекс_«Басань»). It is made based on google maps. If the information about the image has a bug, please fix them. But this image realy need, to make better page Зооботанічний комплекс «Басань» (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зооботанічний_комплекс_«Басань»)User:Vladimir.tm8
- That means the right of this COM:DW work belongs to Google and you have no authority to release this work under CC license. ~ Nahid Talk 07:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you help me? How can i change the license?
What should i do with information block:
{{Information
|date=2014-05-22 09:31:53
|source=Own work
|author=Vladimir.tm8
|permission=
|other_versions=
}}
User:Vladimir.tm8
- license changing is not the fact. The fact is this work belongs to Google if and only if the Google agrees to release it under compatible license its okay then. Otherwise, it probably be deleted. By the way, You can ask experienced graphics lab members to make a map for you. I think this solve the case. Regards! ~ Nahid Talk 14:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Losy historii
[edit]Losy historii (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
- File:Dworek z 1770 roku, Ekonoma dóbr brwinowskich z rodziny Nowosielskich ( Ślepowron) Brwinów..jpg
- File:Jeruzal - Mazowsze koścół Marii Antoniny Nowosielskiej i Kazimierza Rudzińskiego.jpg
- File:Klasztor o. Paulinów we Włodawie powstały z inicjatywy Ludwika Konstantego Pociaja oraz Antoniego Nowosielskiego ( Ślepowron) kasztelana nowogródzkiego, Oboźnego WXL,Strażnika Polnego WXL.jpg
- File:Kokczyński Tomasz.jpg
- File:Lubcza, dwór Nowosielskich i Sapiehów h. Lis.jpg
- File:Lubcza n. Niemnem, dwór Nowosielskich h. Ślepowron i Sapiehów h. Lis.jpg
- File:Marcin Szymczak-Nowosielski.jpg
- File:Marianna Nowosielska ( Ślepowron) w dniu 28 maja 1942 r. córka Maksymiliana.jpg (1942 photo, claimed own work)
- File:Marianna Nowosielska w 12 VI 1944r..jpg (1944 photo, claimed own work)
- File:Marianna Nowosielska w 1945 r. 13 VII 1925 + 2 XI 2004 córka Maksymiliana Nowosielskiego ..jpg (1945 photo, claimed own work)
- File:Park podworski z XVII-XIX w. w Jureczkowej jest położony na stoku wzniesienia Ruiny Zamkowe rozplanowane na rzucie zbliżonym do prostokąta. Z dawnego układu przestrzennego zachowała się droga dojazdowa.jpg
- File:Teofilia córka Stefana Nowosielskiego h. Ślepowron sędziego mielnickiego ( 1687-96) posła ziemi mielnickiej 1674, ufundowała koścół..jpg
- File:W tym parku podworskim stał dworek, wybudowany ok. 1770 r. Tutaj urodził się Feliks Nowosielski, belwederczyk jeden z prz.jpg
_Brwin%C3%B3w..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_kasztelana_nowogr%C3%B3dzkiego,_Obo%C5%BAnego_WXL,Stra%C5%BCnika_Polnego_WXL.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_w_dniu_28_maja_1942_r._c%C3%B3rka_Maksymiliana.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_pos%C5%82a_ziemi_mielnickiej_1674,_ufundowa%C5%82a_ko%C5%9Bc%C3%B3%C5%82..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
They are small and without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Malik stopher (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal picture , out of Project Scope.
- File:Me myself and i.jpg
- File:Mr Malik.jpeg
- File:Stofher et emmanuel.jpg
- File:Liksto.jpg
- File:Young me.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2068 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per M:Legal and Community Advocacy/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge Natuur12 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
When Pescado 2 by Pescado Rabioso was released it contained the correct copyright notices (see here) therefore this image will still be in copyright in the US. Unless it can be shown how this image has entered the PD in the US this should be deleted. LGA talkedits 00:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of a presumably proprietary mail program, with the primary focus being an email; the email does not appear to be written by the uploading user. —Microchip08 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is enough long text for literary copyright. OTRS-permission from Cathy Rogers is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
redundant to File:Juan Manuel Fangio memorial sign.jpg. I do not request deletion of both files, because in my opinion the plaque does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, Low resolution ~ Nahid Talk 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:NatiSythen
[edit]NatiSythen (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 01.jpg (used, can be kept – Taivo)
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 02.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 03.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 04.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 05.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 06.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 07.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 08.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 09.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 10.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 11.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 12.jpg
- File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 13.jpg
I consider them too dark for use. Taivo (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok, that's your opinion. Do you know the meaning of "low key"? --Nati aus Sythen (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Well this images were taken in the context of the 10. Fotoworkshop Nürnberg, a Wikimedia meetup and a photography workshop. Also this a good example of Low-key lighting and of nude photography using this technique. Also File:AktstudienLowKey 10FWS 01.jpg is in use in DE wiki in Low-key-Fotografie, so this images are not "too dark for use" but are the result of a deliberate, conscious decision to use dark and light in a effect of ~chiaroscuro to emphasize the contours of the model. Tm (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Have you looked at Category:Low-key lighting? There are a lot of photos, where something can be seen. And among them are some completely black photos, where actually nothing can be seen. They can be taken whereever, but if the files have too low quality, then they are out of project scope. OK, one of files is used, it can be kept. Taivo (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, kept one Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Kaushikiari
[edit]Here are both files, uploaded by Kaushikiari (talk · contribs) and not yet deleted:
I suspect copyright violation. The photo is small and without metadata. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
RFC consensus has determined this image is a misuse of statistics / correlation without causality. It was added by a sock puppet and gets re-added to articles periodically. Please delete it so we can be done with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth 173.13.200.181 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll add an earlier discussion as well from Jimbo Wales talk page [2].Mattnad (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose the RFC is an EN:WP matter. The graph shows correlation, arguably, but not causality. If there is a problem with its use on EN:WP upload a blocking image there with the same name. Rich Farmbrough, 13:25 23 May 2014 (GMT).
Kept: Hmmm this is not EN wiki so per above Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Image is Creative Commons Share-Alike Non-Derivative and Chase Alias is an Immersion Art Character of David S Pollack. David is a Notable Figure in Immersion Journalism. Jim . . . . (ChaseAlias) (talk to me) 8:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note, please, that ND licenses are not permitted on Commons, so without a license change it could not stay in any event. As for notability, David Pollack does not appear on the first page of Google, even after removing the football player of the same name -- that's a pretty good test of notability. This appears to be a simple violation of COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of the File:Laszlo Toth 1972.jpg. The uploader opposes speedy deletion and says that it isn't duplicate: different proportions, no grain etc. IgorMagic (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: I see no harm in keeping the file Natuur12 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
photo taken inside St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City State – not in Italy. So, that photo isn't licensable under the PD-Italy — danyele 00:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laszlo Toth 1972.jpg. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Files of User:Bubito Liga
[edit]Bubito Liga (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
,_toma_area.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
They are small and without metadata. I suspect, that Bubito Liga is not real photographer as claimed and the photos violate real photographer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Dennysalberto7
[edit]Dennysalberto7 (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
- File:Aereopuerto Internacional la Chinita.jpg (Is it copyrighted art? Permission from artist is needed.)
- File:Puente Rafael Urdaneta desde arriba.jpg (out of scope due to bad quality)
- File:Trujillo por la tarde.jpg (due to bad quality) Taivo (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a modern artwork, so permission of the artist is necessary. There is no FOP in the US for artworks. BrightRaven (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am the artist and I also took the Photo and everyone has permission to use the photo except that some might consider this self-promotion. Bfpage (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- In this case, the image can be considered as out of scope, unless you can be considered as a notable artist. BrightRaven (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in France. I am not sure, that the sculpture is enough old. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello !
I an new on Wiki ...so may be I don't know: the Photo is my personnal Work on a very public site .
The author of the statue was Josette Hébert-Coëffin, née le 16 décembre 1906 à Rouen et morte le 3 juin 1973 à Paris, est une sculptrice, graveuse et médailleuse française. You realy mean that there may be a Problem ? if so, who shouls I consult and where can I get autorisation ?
concerning the other Files File:Rue d'Armaillé Girard 1820.jpg and File:Rue d'Armaillé Goujon 1866.jpg
They are public !! they come from Gallica the public site of Bibliothèque National de France http://gallica.bnf.fr/ I extracted a part of the 150 year old maps with comments I thougt it was enough to put on wiki ! Did I miss something ? what should I put on the page as comment to confirm this ?
- If the author Josette Hébert-Coëffin died in 1973, then his sculptures are protected with copyright until 2043 (70 years after death). Permission from sculptor's heirs is needed. What consernes the other files (from 1820 and 1866), then the authors are dead more than 70 years and they are free to make photos. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted made by Timo Hannunen, see source http://www.tampereenseurakunnat.fi/kirkko_tampereella/uutiset_ja_media/artikkelit/artikkeligalleria/kuolleitten_kaupunki Motopark (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a standard gravestone. Link to the sculptor's page in Register of the Artists' Association of Finland [3] (in english). -Htm (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Jon4th4np
[edit]Here are all contributions of Jon4th4np (talk · contribs):
These are logos of football clubs. In my opinion, they surpass threshold of originality. Author is claimed Jeremias Camp. If this is true, then OTRS-permission from Camp is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot, therefore uploader's assertion of {{Own}} dubious. Storkk (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I add for deletion File:Raemarc Dulay.jpg due to same reason. Both are probably out of project scope. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Guilleamodeo is the uploader and Guillermo Amodeo appears in the image. It is unlikely, therefore, that this is actually "own work" as claimed. In order to keep this, we will need a license fromt he actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't you request a bit awkward ? That photo was taken by my wife using my iPhone at my request. Could you please tell me how it cannot belong to me ? Using your argument, if I have written "with a member" instead, you will have never requested the deletion because you didn't know it was me with them.(Guilleamodeo) (talk to me) 15:20, 20 May 2014 (GMT)
- Not awkward at all. It is very common for new users to claim "own work" when it is not. In fact this is not your own work and you do not own the copyright, your wife does. We occasionally stretch the point in these circumstances, so I will withdraw this DR, but please do not do this again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nom . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to use this file anymore and the subjects will not be happy if they here but not in our clubs pages, so please delete it. Guilleamodeo (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per overall discussion, uploader request. --Krd 14:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Principessa del velo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks
- File:ANGELO e DEMONE di ARGENTINA VERDERAME.JPG
- File:FARFALLE in METAMORFOSI di Argentina Verderame.JPG
BrightRaven (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Ahsankhan142
[edit]Here are all contributions of Ahsankhan142 (talk · contribs):
They are out of project scope as unused personal files. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WrestlingManFan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images, no metadata, and look professionally shot, therefore uploader's assertion of {{Own}} doubtful. Uploader: if you are the copyright holder of these images, please follow the steps on COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Byron Carmello Inc (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Trex2001 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added one file. Now are all Byron's contributions nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Pierusama
[edit]Here are all files, uploaded by Pierusama (talk · contribs) and not yet presented for deletion:
- File:Gaétan Lelièvre.jpeg (author Assemblée nationale du Québec)
- File:GustaveLemieux.jpeg (author Gustave Lemieux)
- File:HenriLemay.jpeg (author Assemblée nationale du Québec)
- File:Joseph-leonide perron.png (author Joseph-Léonide Perron)
- File:MichelLeMoignan1977.jpg (author Musée de la Gaspésie)
These photos have different sources and different authors, but they are all claimed works of USA government employee. It is diffcult to believe, because depicted persons are Canadian politicians. Commons needs an explanation. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep File:GustaveLemieux.jpeg and File:Joseph-leonide perron.png as out of copyright pre-1946 Canadian photos and delete File:Gaétan Lelièvre.jpeg, File:HenriLemay.jpeg and File:MichelLeMoignan1977.jpg, as Canadian photos too recent to be out of copyright and not freely licensed at their respectives sources. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: As above Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Pierusama
[edit]- File:Maurice Duplessis à Cap-Santé - 1954-06-28.png: The author Paul-Émile Duplain [4] died in 1978. The photograph is under copyright in Canada until 2029, more than 50 years after the author's death.
- File:Maurice Duplessis à Cap-Santé 2 - 1954-06-28.png: Author Paul-Émile Duplain. Idem.
- File:Portrait de Maurice Duplessis.jpg: The author Gabriel Desmarais (1947-1991) died in 1991. Photograph under copyright in Canada until 2042, more than 50 years after author's death. No commercial use without authorization from the heir, as specified in the source (P795,S1,D2491).
- File:Maurice Duplessis - 1953.jpg: Author Gabriel Desmarais. Idem (P795,S1,D1935).
- File:Alcide Courcy.png: Author Gabriel Desmarais. idem (P795,S1,D11911).
- File:Henri Jolicoeur, mai 1955.png: Author Gabriel Desmarais. Idem (P795,S1,D3499).
- File:Alexandre Chouinard.png: Author Gabriel Desmarais. Idem (P795,S1,D3944).
- File:Guy Fortier.jpg: Author Gabriel Desmarais. Idem (P795,S1,D11635).
- File:Camil Samson.png: Photo Marcel Laforce, Photo l'Action. The photograph is from circa 1970. Its copyright can't be expired in Canada. Its source notice (P428,S3,SS1,D44,P315) has the warning: no reproduction without prior authorization from the rights holder.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Files of User:Roddickafc
[edit]Here are both files, uploaded by Roddickafc (talk · contribs) and not yet presented for deletion:
- File:Ammanford AFC Badge.jpg (suspicious own work, surpasses threshold of originality, needs OTRS-permission)
- File:South Wales Premier Cricket League 2012 Champions.png (small photo without metadata, copyright violation is likely)
I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shah Mehmood Khan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Malik Dawod.jpg
- File:U16 players with me and Malik Dawod.JPG
- File:Aman Tournament (11).JPG
- File:Me with Ijaz Ahmad.jpg
- File:Best fielder in FATA Tournament receiving award frim me.JPG
- File:Peace Cricket Academy1, 18 Feb 02.jpg
- File:Me with players of peace cricket acdemy.JPG
- File:Me in peace cricket academy.JPG
- File:FM 101.jpg
- File:Man of the series player receiving Trophy from me.JPG
- File:Abdullah Cricket Club.jpg
- File:Peacecricketacademy@gmail.com (16).JPG
- File:President Momand Club with Kuram President.JPG
- File:22 Aril 2014 (1).jpg
- File:President Mohmand Club.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep At least one seems to be of the uploader with w:Ijaz Ahmed (cricketer), which makes it in scope. I gather the others are also photos of potentially notable cricket players and teams (though I don't know the sport). --GRuban (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing permission Natuur12 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Ahmer Jamil Khan
[edit]Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
This is routine request for small photos without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photos are so small? Can you upload bigger versions, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload versions with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep
- The first image is a really old crop of the original, I do not have the original anymore. The cropping was necessary to separate the person in question from others in the picture.
- The second image was created from an old camera phone, that's the highest resolution it had.
There is no copyright violation. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
kept: Trusted user who gave a good explanation for the missing exif-data and the small size. No reason not to believe him Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iris.Minten (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Text documents which should be replaced by wiki markup.
- File:12 Vergaderverslag 20-05.pdf
- File:11 Vergaderverslag 13-05.pdf
- File:5 Vergaderverslag 18-03.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 11-03.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 4 maart.pdf
- File:Bespreking proef zonnepanelen.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 4-03.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 25 februari.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 18-02.pdf
- File:Vergaderverslag 11-02.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Responding based on request at v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Deletion_request_on_Commons. These files are consistent with an engineering course that uses Wikiversity each semester. Typically the files are uploaded to Wikiversity, but it appears this team used Commons instead. I'm not sure who the course instructor is, but I noticed that there was an additional file uploaded yesterday that included 'Final' in the name. Assuming that this is, indeed, a spring semester course that is just ending, I would request that you leave the files until 1 June 2014 to ensure the students receive their final grade. Then delete if necessary. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is another problem. Authors of these files are claimed Steven and Koolen, but the uploader is Iris.Minten. Does Commons needs OTRS-permission from Koolen and Steven? Taivo (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest moving the files to Wikiversity where their expected place is (it should not break anything in Wikiversity) and resolve their copyright status there. Ankry (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Moving them won't sole a unclear copyrightstatus and they are out of scope here Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Statue of Juan Manuel Fangio (Buenos Aires)
[edit]These files are in Category:Statue of Juan Manuel Fangio (Buenos Aires):
- File:Fangio statue.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel Fangio por Joaquim Sabaté.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel Fangio Puerto Madero back.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel Fangio Puerto Madero front.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel Fangio Puerto Madero side.jpg
- File:Monumento a Fangio.jpg
- File:MonumentoaFangio.JPG
- File:MonumentoaFangio1.JPG
There is no freedom of panorama in Argentina for sculptures. The sculpture was created in 2005. The sculptor Joaquim Ros Sabaté was born in 1936 and is still living. Permission from sculptor is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I know, an OTRS ticket should have been sent by Ros Sabaté giving permission to publish the images here. Otherwise, the photos are copyright infringment. - Fma12 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Onlynudes
[edit]Here are all files, uploaded by Onlynudes (talk · contribs):
- File:Desiderium series 1.jpg
- File:Desiderium series 2.jpg
- File:Desiderium series 3.jpg
- File:Desiderium series 4.jpg
- File:Desiderium series 5.jpg
They are unused art of non-notable artist and so out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- keep. We have tons of unused art of non-notable artist, most files are not used. Anyway are very good educative example of nude photography technique.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 15:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Well this images are a good example of Low-key lighting and of nude photography using this technique, so this images are not "too dark for use" but are the result of a deliberate, conscious decision to use dark and light (and B&W for that matter) in a effect of chiaroscuro to emphasize the contours of the model. Tm (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion policy states in chapter "Out of scope": "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." Such files can be deleted. They do not illustrate well low-key photography, in appropriate category:Low-key lighting is a lot of better photos. Unfortunately Pierpao is correct: we have tons of unused art of non-notable artists. And they are deleted for tens and tens every day. Taivo (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Vabadussild
[edit]- File:Tartu from the River Emajogi.jpg
- File:Tartu vabadussild.JPG
- File:Vabaduse sild 2007.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2007 1.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2007 2.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 1.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 2.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 3.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 4.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 5.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 6.jpg
File:Vabaduse sild 2008 7.jpg(No bridge here – Taivo)- File:Vabaduse sild 2008 8.jpg
- File:Vabaduse sild4 2008.JPG
- File:Vabaduse sild 20-11-2008.JPG
- File:Vabadussild.JPG
- File:Vabadussild.jpg
- File:Vabadussild1.JPG
- File:Vabadussild kevadise suurvee ajal 2010.JPG
- File:Vabadussilla ehitus.JPG
Category:Vabaduse sild under construction(Will not become empty – Taivo)
et:Vabadussild (Freedom bridge or Liberty bridge) was built 2007–2009. As much as I know, all the architects are still living. There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ehitustegevust kujutavad fotod ei ole kindlasti materjal kustutamiseks. Ülejäänu puhul on see suht juuksekarva lõhkiajamine. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I nominated too lot of photos. Some earlier photos about building of the bridge maybe do not show enough copyrightable details. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Taivo. Rsk. No-ma-ei-või. Enam kui pooltel neist piltidest ei olnud silda ollagi. Kuhu on sul nende piltide kustutamisega kiire, mis Eestis tehtud? Rääkimata sellest, et näen juba mitmendat aastat vaeva, et Eestis hakkaks kehtima panoraamivabadus ja see on juba üsna lähedal. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mul on küsimus,et miks korraldatakse üldse mingeid fotokonkursse(Tartu teemal,kultuurimälestised jne.)kui need pildid pärast lähevad niikuinii kustutamisele.Ei pea silmas oma Vabadussilda(polnud ka suurem asi pilt).Ilme Parik 14;48, 18.07.2014
- @ Taivo. Rsk. No-ma-ei-või. Enam kui pooltel neist piltidest ei olnud silda ollagi. Kuhu on sul nende piltide kustutamisega kiire, mis Eestis tehtud? Rääkimata sellest, et näen juba mitmendat aastat vaeva, et Eestis hakkaks kehtima panoraamivabadus ja see on juba üsna lähedal. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I nominated too lot of photos. Some earlier photos about building of the bridge maybe do not show enough copyrightable details. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Павелковская Яна Юрьевна (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. I think photographer identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Шведова5.tif *
- File:Чувственный.jpg
- File:Фото Яны Павелковской 2006.jpg *
- File:Шведова.jpg
- File:Ирина Шведова Америка.jpg
- File:Shvedova5063.jpg
- File:20100217-IMG 2154.jpg
- File:2010 г.Фрагмент афиши.Фото Яны Павелковской.jpg *
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Most files have the same camera Canon EOS 5D, but three files (marked with asterisk) have no camera data. Resolution is always different. Some files are small, but some files are very big. I am not sure, that they must be deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no problem with them. Photoes uploded by the author.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept some deleted some Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jesmar as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo of group Daft Punk Yann (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Some rare typos seem to be handwritting (what would make them copyright worthing) but in fact, most of the fonts used today are made of vectors, standareized and easily downloable as free files (just like this case). Fma12 (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Orange-kun as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The obviously similar image to Daft Punk logo created with copyrighted font
I converted this to a DR because there is no such thing as a "copyrighted font" in the US -- the USCO rules do not allow the copyrighting of fonts. I do not know the French law on the subject, but it is clearly not a {{Speedy}}.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have uploaded Daft Punk logo in .svg format to Commons about three years ago. So what's the difference between my file and this one? PNG? Or I can just type DAFT PUNK in Adobe Illustrator using this font and then save my svg and upload it as a author to the whole world? It's ridiculous, isn't it?--Orange-kun (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 02:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- By its own admission, it is probably not legally binding, see www.copyheart.org.
- We require that licenses be irrevocable, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, point 4, "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." The copyheart license says nothing about being non-revocable.
- Keeping it as a template on Commons will mislead people into believing that it is an acceptable license.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep silence is not a reservation of right of revocation. it's about as clear as non-lawyers could make it: nothing misleading here. if you allow the GFDL which clearly does not apply to photographs, how can you not allow peoples' custom licenses? Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep And by the way this debate should not be in a deletion request since it is a broader debate about which licences are acceptable for commons. Léna (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Revocable licenses are not acceptable on Commons. Until Copyheart meets the requirements the template can't be hosted on Commons. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake 82.156.69.47 23:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept, no proof is given, that this is uploaded by mistake. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Het was per vergissing geplaatst. 82.156.69.47 14:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
kept Als dat zo is kan je hem ingelogd met het account waarmee je hem geupload hebt opnieuw nomineren. Natuur12 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I have new pictures made up of a higher resolution 82.156.69.47 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you show that you are User:Berlusconi?
Deleted: Poor quality, not used out of Commons. Yann (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2047 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:DIU after request on COM:UR. --Alan (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image is and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in 1952 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than. In the picture you can see 2 member of the Knesset Finance Committee in the Knesset cafeteria. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Is this a war of attrition? This 62 year old picture is clearly in public domain, in Israel and around the world. Oyoyoy (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to demonstrate that it is PD in the US (as per COM:L), it was for exactly this type of picture that the US Congress passed 17 U.S.C. § 303 in the hope that they would be published, so it really is is not clear that this image has ever been in the Public Domain in the US. LGA talkedits 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1952 must have been unpublished nowhere for 37 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly PD in Israel, unclear status in US; according to WMF legal opinion, such images don't present a problem, unless there is a reason to believe that it's copyrighted in the US. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that the WMF has issued a legal opinion that the problem is only with images that are certain to be copyrighted in the US. For images where there is reasonable doubt, there is no legal reason to delete. If the only reason for this deletion is a certain quirk of Commons policy that tries to be holier than the Pope, then (as I stated multiple times in the main URAA discussion) what every Commons user should be trying to do is change the policy, not delete the images. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The only way that it is not copyright in the US is if it was published in the US before 1989 and that publication did not have the correct copyright notice. Now given there is nothing to suggest publication in Israel or anywhere else before that date, let alone the US, I don't think there can be much no doubt that this image is in copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that the WMF has issued a legal opinion that the problem is only with images that are certain to be copyrighted in the US. For images where there is reasonable doubt, there is no legal reason to delete. If the only reason for this deletion is a certain quirk of Commons policy that tries to be holier than the Pope, then (as I stated multiple times in the main URAA discussion) what every Commons user should be trying to do is change the policy, not delete the images. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See explanation above. Ovedc (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989 -FASTILY 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2047 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:DIU after request on COM:UR. --Alan (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image became and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in January 12, 1952 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the source is the National Photo Collection, which probably publish this photo before 1989. Ovedc (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See Hana's explanation above. Oyoyoy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1952 must have been unpublished nowhere for 37 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. -FASTILY 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The public domain claim can't be substantiated. There's no proof that this was published before 1977 without a copyright notice. The uploader didn't describe the provenance or authorship. The version sold on eBay may be a derivative work. Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep here is the back of photo which has a stamp of August 14 1974 the date it was published. it was provided under the source maybe if you clicked the link before nominating it for deletion you would have seen it. Dman41689 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying so promptly. Sorry, I should have made this clearer: I don't dispute the date on the back of the print, my point is that this doesn't tell us anything about the first publication. What you have uploaded seems to be the file copy of a photograph used to illustrate a piece by Bruce Johansen published in the Baltimore Sun (or one of its affiliates). As a photograph published in a newspaper, it was certainly copyright in 1974. You can check with feedback@baltimoresun.com (ask for the archives desk) or reach out to the Tribune legal people but I'd be very surprised if they would let the fact that someone sold the print 39 years later on eBay change their copyright. - Pointillist (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok first of all this photo is from Seattle Times newspaper as stated on the ebay link which also states that "These photos are original, not reproductions or reprints" since this photo is the original photo the copyright would be either on the front or back of the photo, or have the copyright info embed into the digital file, or listed under the description section of the ebay link, which it is not therefor it is in the public domain and is free for us to use. Dman41689 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had forgotten Johansen used to write for the Seattle Times too. The key point is that the copyright notice would have been in the newspaper, not on the print. For this reason, the correct thing to do is to check their archive for mid-August, i.e. around the date stamped on the back of the photograph, to find the story with the pic printed next to it. Then you can establish whether that issue of the Seattle Times had a copyright notice on it. If there was no copyright notice anywhere in the paper, you are good to go! However, if there was a copyright notice in that issue, then your PD claim fails. The fact that the original print has now come on the market is irrelevant because (a) the Seattle Times probably still holds the copyright (when the Chicago Sun-Times sold its archive they retained "all the intellectual property, all the copyrights," per this) and because (b) the archives are now owned by John Rogers who sells on eBay under the names "heritage-entertainment" and "Argenta Images" and AFAICS all his prints are sold with the warning "By purchasing a photo from Argenta Images, copyright does not transfer. We are selling these photos as collectibles only and no copyright is implied." Sorry, but if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is! - Pointillist (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok here is the search result (the article cant be accessed without registering with their site even if I did you wouldn't be able to see it) but you do see the bottom of the image (it is cropped from this original photo) their is no copyright on the bottom or the sides of the image. Dman41689 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- What did you search for? I don't think it will let me see your search result, but maybe I can get there by entering the same search criteria. - Pointillist (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I put Bruce Pasternack in search and I put 1974 in limit by date sections then hit the search button. Dman41689 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I went to http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives, and searched for: Bruce Pasternack in All Text, limit by date: 1974 but got no results... aargh! - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok here is the search result (the article cant be accessed without registering with their site even if I did you wouldn't be able to see it) but you do see the bottom of the image (it is cropped from this original photo) their is no copyright on the bottom or the sides of the image. Dman41689 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had forgotten Johansen used to write for the Seattle Times too. The key point is that the copyright notice would have been in the newspaper, not on the print. For this reason, the correct thing to do is to check their archive for mid-August, i.e. around the date stamped on the back of the photograph, to find the story with the pic printed next to it. Then you can establish whether that issue of the Seattle Times had a copyright notice on it. If there was no copyright notice anywhere in the paper, you are good to go! However, if there was a copyright notice in that issue, then your PD claim fails. The fact that the original print has now come on the market is irrelevant because (a) the Seattle Times probably still holds the copyright (when the Chicago Sun-Times sold its archive they retained "all the intellectual property, all the copyrights," per this) and because (b) the archives are now owned by John Rogers who sells on eBay under the names "heritage-entertainment" and "Argenta Images" and AFAICS all his prints are sold with the warning "By purchasing a photo from Argenta Images, copyright does not transfer. We are selling these photos as collectibles only and no copyright is implied." Sorry, but if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is! - Pointillist (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- ok first of all this photo is from Seattle Times newspaper as stated on the ebay link which also states that "These photos are original, not reproductions or reprints" since this photo is the original photo the copyright would be either on the front or back of the photo, or have the copyright info embed into the digital file, or listed under the description section of the ebay link, which it is not therefor it is in the public domain and is free for us to use. Dman41689 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying so promptly. Sorry, I should have made this clearer: I don't dispute the date on the back of the print, my point is that this doesn't tell us anything about the first publication. What you have uploaded seems to be the file copy of a photograph used to illustrate a piece by Bruce Johansen published in the Baltimore Sun (or one of its affiliates). As a photograph published in a newspaper, it was certainly copyright in 1974. You can check with feedback@baltimoresun.com (ask for the archives desk) or reach out to the Tribune legal people but I'd be very surprised if they would let the fact that someone sold the print 39 years later on eBay change their copyright. - Pointillist (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep here is the back of photo which has a stamp of August 14 1974 the date it was published. it was provided under the source maybe if you clicked the link before nominating it for deletion you would have seen it. Dman41689 (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2074 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 'Restored URAA isn't reason for delete pictures Ezarateesteban 12:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No date and source of first publication is given (as required by {{PD-AR-Photo}}). Will be in copyright in Argentina if not published before June 1, 1994 and will be copyright in the US if not published before March 1, 1989. Additionally will be copyright in the US if published between 1978 and February 1989 and the publication contained a copyright notice.
Absent proof of when this was published and if necessary, the proof the publication did not have a copyright notice, this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 19:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2045 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image became and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken between 1948-1950 when Colonel Aharon Hoter-Yishai Was Military Advocate General of the IDF and was published than. The picture was taken from here You need to remember that there was not internet than, so you can not find evidence in the internet. There was a time that all the publication was done by books newspapers and magazines. Hanay (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you think it was published you need to show that, the COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate that and it is he uploader or someone wishing to retain the image. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). -- Prokurator11 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The reason for this DR is there is nothing to indicate that this image is not still in copyright and its copyright in US and did not need the URAA to have a copyright restored that it never lost and it's copyright in the US is as a result of the en:Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. The status of copyright in Israel has no link to the status of the copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 22:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See explanation above. Oyoyoy (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1950~ must have been unpublished nowhere for 39~ years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly PD in Israel, reasonable doubt in US. Per WMF legal opinion, no imperative to delete. Also see comment below. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that the WMF has issued a legal opinion that the problem is only with images that are certain to be copyrighted in the US. For images where there is reasonable doubt, there is no legal reason to delete. If the only reason for this deletion is a certain quirk of Commons policy that tries to be holier than the Pope, then (as I stated multiple times in the main URAA discussion) what every Commons user should be trying to do is change the policy, not delete the images. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. According to your own argument, more than 30 years passed between 1950 and 1989, therefore the image should have been published before 1989. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The mere access to view the files after 30 years would not be publication it would have to include the ability to make and distribute copies.
- The only way that it is not copyright in the US is if it was published in the US before 1989 and that publication did not have the correct copyright notice. Now given there is nothing to suggest publication in Israel or anywhere else before that date, let alone the US, I don't think there can be much no doubt that this image is in copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 07:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See explanation above. Ovedc (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete — I've spent quite a few hours scouring photo archives and library stacks for evidence of pre-1989 publication of this photo, hoping to short-circuit this debate by uncovering a publication that could be used as evidence that the photo is PD in the US. Unfortunately, I failed to find such evidence. Hopefully someone with access to archives with more extensive Israeli documents will be more successful than I. Unfortunately, as Commons:Licensing makes clear, it is essential that uploaders identify the year and location of publication when uploading public domain material. Without evidence that this photo is PD in the US I think we have to delete this photo. —RP88 12:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989 -FASTILY 19:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously a "photoshopped" image (sharp blur in the outer contrast line) and is thusfore no value 88.69.28.15 11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Author's answer :
What the?? It's a picture I took myself of myself. There's no Photoshop at all involved. You're dreaming, Sir. What do I have to do to prove it to you? Fortunately, I have other photos taken the same day at different angles. I'm flattered that you think my penis cannot really exist, but it does, so get over it.
-The author of the photo and owner of that penis you envy so much. There, enjoy! http://boitenoire.ca/proof/
No consensus to delete... -FASTILY 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It's my photo and I want it removed from Wikimedia Commons. Longone1978 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, low quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE --Zenwort (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Zenwort. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
xnfbfbglxxnbcnnlckcjcjcn bcjclclxjvjcjzjckckcjxj 2800:A4:2283:C900:D90D:45A1:1312:848E 03:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. --Achim (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)