Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/06/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_c1953.jpg){kind=link}
_-_1951.jpg){kind=link}
![49 File:Cover "Träum weiter".jpg](#File:Cover_"Träum_weiter".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![97 File:Amelia Earhart as "Lady Lindi".jpg](#File:Amelia_Earhart_as_"Lady_Lindi".jpg){kind=link}
_2011-12-22.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8691603231).jpg){kind=link}
text only, some homepage material Motopark (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a free image [1] Shev123 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdarkroom.baltimoresun.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FAFPGetty-187941416-760x494.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdarkroom.baltimoresun.com%2F2013%2F12%2Ftaylor-swift-fall-out-boy-and-neon-jungle-rock-the-2013-victorias-secret-fashion-show%2F&h=494&w=760&tbnid=sPk7Xin7a9jIhM%3A&zoom=1&docid=YKFa-A_qWOhsWM&ei=zmOcU_7MHYKd0QW_sIHAAw&tbm=isch&client=opera&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=264&page=1&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=0CEoQrQMwDg){kind=link}
Deleted: clear copyright violation JuTa 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
All of these images are personal drawings or part of a made-up language (deleted at es:Pokiwotl). Commons is not a web host.
- File:POKIWOTL.jpg
- File:Tako nawatl.jpg
- File:Bbaaahhh tako bel.jpg
- File:Papantlaipatlankawak.jpg
- File:Salidando LATINO.jpg
- File:Yakatiak.jpg
- File:Puntuación.jpg
- File:POKIWOTL WOYUKIL.jpg
- File:POKIWOTL necesario para nahuatl.jpg
- File:Ŋy.jpg
- File:Ŋyaŋ.jpg
- File:Ŋaŋ.jpg
- File:Ŋya.jpg
- File:Ŋa.jpg
- File:5 ways.jpg
- File:LetrAdepokiwotl.jpg
- File:Aŋ.jpg
- File:5 formas.jpg
- File:Tlahtek pokiwotl.jpg
- File:SELTI explicado.jpg
- File:Pokiwotl.jpg
- File:Washiŋton.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. JuTa 10:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
want it deleted as I uploaded it 197.111.223.243 00:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Taivo on 14 June. Trijnsteltalk 12:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal images. See COM:SCOPE.
- File:This image is belonging to Mr- Aziz Kamran and Indian business tycoon and young model 2014-06-14 01-13.jpg
- File:This image belongs to Aziz Kamran an actor and young entrepreneur- 2014-06-14 01-10.JPG
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal images; see COM:SCOPE.
- File:En Bogota , Colombia.JPG
- File:En Cape of Good Hope, Suda frica.JPG
- File:En Barcelona, España.JPG
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Low quality penis by driveby uploader. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - no educational value, bad quality. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS image Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Quick Deleted per similar earlier deletions. Very common object which Commons has many good quality photos of; no need for poorly photographed blurry snapshot -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Ich will das es gelöscht wird Suggerbrot (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
interiur de tabagie -brouwer adriaen 216.189.181.67 03:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, unused. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal party picture. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Blue background, red text. Very simple image. Not used. Not providing value for Commons? Mippzon (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Simple, self created, unused logo. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
J'avais importé cette photo de moi et je n'aime plus. J'aimerais savoir si je peux la supprimer ? Je vous remercie. Cdlt, Matthieu Matthieu 75007 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused personal picture. Par ailleurs, si votre autre photo personnelle n'a pas d'usage sur les sites Wikimedia, elle risque d'être supprimée aussi. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personnal photo, out of scope Cjp24 (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (msg) 04:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 14:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this photo qualifies as a 2-D reproduction as it is claimed, if one considers that it shows the quite ornate frame which is clearly 3-D. Rosenzweig τ 10:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the frame, so it should be all right now. Kleon3 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: 2D now. Yann (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_c1953.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_c1953.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright owner did not understand Wikimedia Commons licensing policy when they asked me to upload this. They now wish for it to be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_c1953.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by NahidSultan. Yann (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_c1953.jpg){kind=link}
_-_1951.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_1951.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright owner did not understand Wikimedia Commons licensing policy when they asked me to upload this. They now wish for it to be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_1951.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by NahidSultan. Yann (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_1951.jpg){kind=link}
This diagram has problems with educational usefulnes, because it implies several blatantly wrong statements:
- implies that Linux kernel directly interfaces with user space software;
- implies lack of keyboard and/or mouse input for servers and embedded devices.
Provided that it does not highlight any concept in more or less accessible way, I believe it should be deleted. – Czarkoff (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep According to Commons:Scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, this file must be kept because it's in use in other Wikimedia projects. If you think it shouldn't be used, you need to go to those projects and convince local communities to stop using it before requesting its deletion in Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)- Keep it does not imply any of your claims. It is explains in a visual matter, how the hardware periphery and the en:Shell (computing) are related to one another. It also shows, how the Linux kernel is used on different types of computers, and puts this into relation with the user-space software. I could go as far as calling this deletion proposal a blatant stupidity. My router, which happens to run Linux, does not have a keyboard, e.g. It is supposed to be managed via HTTP/Telnet/SSH. ScotXW (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use, so in scope. Yann (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal profile picture, not used, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal unused photo, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal unused picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Very low quality picture, not used, easily repleacable. Abujoy (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Pitke (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Also may be a copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. As indicated, taken from http://ediciones-valnera.com/Emilio_Pascual.htm (archived since 2008) = http://ediciones-valnera.com/img/Emilio_Pascual2.jpg (last modified: 2008). Uploaded by UrielPascual (talk · contributions · Statistics) who (per user name) might be a relative of portrayed es:Emilio Pascual. The indicated site is maintained by the publisher "Ediciones Valnera", needing permission via COM:OTRS. Gunnex (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo; likely copyvio, too. Lupo 14:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work from File:Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo.jpg, unused and out of project scope. Abujoy (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not uploader's own work. All over the web, including http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/who-have-pcc-ed-joyce-chu-before-4703646-3.html. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal image -- not the same image as the previous DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Half naked selfie (personal picture) that is not in use. Does not provide any value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems like some kind of test image. It is not in use and does not provide value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Web resolution, professional image, available at lower resolution here: [2]. Doesn't appear to be self-created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
A screenshot from video, not a free image IndianBio (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Extremely small image, not used. Not valuable. Mippzon (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader says, it's his own wirk. I don't belive that. Image could be made old looking - but I think it is really older. And Uploder tells no date. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Files: File:Collegium Novum UJ.jpg, File:UJ-CM 2.jpg, File:UJ-CM 3.jpg, File:UJ-CM 4.jpg are copy from Coleggium_Medicum_UJ
Bartek444 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/9806540/Paula-Wilcox-this-week-Im....html. Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
nicht erkennbar, dass der Urheber die entsprechende Lizenz erteilt hat. Jbergner (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
![17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/06/14#c-Jbergner-2014-06-14T17:13:00.000Z-File:Cover_"Träum_weiter".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
![23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/06/14#c-Steinsplitter-2014-06-20T23:38:00.000Z-File:Cover_"Träum_weiter".jpg){kind=link}
As indicated this is a reproduction of an artwork by es:Ezequiel Linares (1927—2001), an Argentine artist. Without permission copyrighted till the end of 2071. Gunnex (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hurd Hatfield as Dorian Gray in the 1940s movie of The Picture of Dorian Gray.[3] Copyright status unknown to me; provenance unknown. No info about publication. Unclear whether this is from a trailer (possibly without © notice, but that would need evidence, too), or from the film itself (probably with © notice). Lupo 12:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the uploader of this composite is the copyright holder of all of these images, making this unsourced and unauthored file a probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely a promo picture by " Canal Sur Radio" for es:El Pelotazo, a Spanish radio program. Gunnex (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Home made logo that is not in use. Does not provide value for Commons. Mippzon (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Professional appearance; user already uploaded one copyvio; I doubt this is self-created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused logotype, small and quite poor quality. No value for Commons. Mippzon (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Private family picture. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Private family picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused image. Looks like a poor quality scan of a front page of something. Mippzon (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Some kind of promotion. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Small, poor quality, unused landscape image, not providing any value for Commons. Mippzon (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, not used, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, uploaders only contribution. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of a photograph. See COM:DW. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image. See COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Raffinatezza e qualità! Il duca della mondanità bolognese in una sua espressione conturbante 2014-06-14 17-21.jpg
[edit]
Out of COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Own work seems dubious. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Flickrwashed; the Flickr source image was uploaded today, the same photo appeared on news sites in 2016: https://punchng.com/n40bn-fraud-efcc-arraigns-nyako-son-others/ Belbury (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal profile picture with no value for Commons. Mippzon (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not own work, probably copyrighted by FIFA or the Colombian Football Federation. B1mbo (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Chirk railway station (waiting room)
[edit]- File:Waiting shelter, Chirk railway station (geograph 4024122).jpg
- File:Waiting shelter, Chirk railway station (geograph 4024126).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-mattbuck (Talk) 07:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Web resolution; every other image by this user has been a copyvio; I doubt the authorship and license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a crop from a screengrab from an Arab(?) TV series or movie from 1981.[4] According to COM:CRT, movies are copyrighted for 50 years since publication in Saudi Arabia. Maybe I got the country wrong, but in any case, we'd have to know what this is, where it comes from, including the country of first publication of the film. Lupo 14:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused and not categorized picture showing some kind of file system. Mippzon (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal picture Lupo 10:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The uploader of the picture asked to delete it in a message he left (long ago, but it seems that noone paid attention). I don't find deleting this picture very problematic as it is not in use and a very small, not significant one. Ldorfman (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, only 107×120 pixels, the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, small size and low resolution image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
See COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brunno9106 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Both files uploaded on 25.10.2009.
- File:Dydo.jpg --> sourced with a 404-Facebook link, attributing copyrights to "Dydo Huga Flame". At https://myspace.com/dydohf/mixes/classic-dydo-hugalizzala-370814/photo/98905036 the photo is credited with "foto by debora barnaba" = https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/85/0b4f5d42f46f480a9d508ac147b97d8a/full.jpg (last modified: 07.2009)
- File:HugaFlame.jpg --> sourced with "www.hugaflame.com" (404), attributing copyrights to "hugaflame.com". Near to upload date 10.2009, this site was configured with "© 2009 Copyright Hugaflame.com". At https://myspace.com/dydohf/mixes/classic-huga-hugalizzala-370813/photo/98904904 the photo is also credited with "foto by debora barnaba" = https://a4-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/97/fd2d7bcb817b4fd1a95ff9741c68863a/full.jpg (last modified: 07.2009)
Permission via COM:OTRS needed.
Gunnex (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Three images of same coat of arms (?) but none are in use, none have source or author. Missing source it's impossible to tell if the author has been dead for 70 years or not as claimed in the license.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Automotive Multimeters
[edit]Looks to me like commercial operating intructions and not own work of the uploder as stated. Should be confirmed through COM:OTRS.
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P00.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P01.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P02.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P03.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P04.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P05.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P06.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P07.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P08.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P09.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P10.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P11.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P12.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P13.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P14.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P15.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P16.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P17.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P18.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P19.jpg
- File:E04-023 Automotive Multimeter Manual P20.jpg
JuTa 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
None of these files are used, they have very small resolutions, no EXIF data, and no description. The uploader tried to create an article at es-wp which was subsequently speedily deleted (in 2011). Since then there was no activity. Some of the uploads were deleted before on similar grounds, see here.
.PNG){kind=link}
- File:Untitledss.PNG
- File:Las Colias (5).PNG
- File:Las Colias (4).PNG
- File:Las Colias (3).PNG
- File:Las Colias (2).PNG
- File:Las Colias (1).PNG
- File:Las Colias.PNG
- File:Quisqueya (6).PNG
- File:Quisqueya (5).PNG
- File:Quisqueya (4).PNG
- File:Quisqueya (3).PNG
- File:Quisqueya (2).PNG
- File:Quisqueya (1).PNG
- File:Quisqueya.PNG
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
AFBorchert (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Raulito85.
- File:Castillo alcuetas.jpg (thumb) --> obviously grabbed from http://www.monumentalnet.org/fotografos/1313.php (Autor: Luis Ángel Martínez Cancelo) = http://www.monumentalnet.org/castilla_y_leon/leon/villabraz/alcuetas/torre_de_alcuetas.php?alb=1&fot=Luis%20%C1ngel%20Mart%EDnez%20Cancelo = http://www.monumentalnet.org/castilla_y_leon/leon/villabraz/alcuetas/fotos/LE-CAS-504-1313001.jpg
- File:VillaverdedeArcayos.jpg --> mysteriously watermarked with "www.de-leon.com"
- File:Carrubueis.jpg (logo) --> copyrighted (as indicated) by "Álvaro Lobato Fuertes", licensed with {{Cc-by-3.0}} (source missing) and IMHO also out of scope of PD-textlogo (or PD whatever).
Gunnex (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nadia luluk (talk · contribs)
[edit]We definitely appreciate the contributions of all users, and a small number of personal uploads is OK. But this is too many - these images fall outside the scope of things we host.
- File:Balon kliwonan.jpg
- File:Ibnu,nisa.jpg
- File:Pak ato,.jpg
- File:Lek sikar dan adiknya.jpg
- File:Nakiyah pawit.jpg
- File:Poto lapangan kliwonan.jpg
- File:Wanto dan isteri 5.jpg
- File:Kliwonan balon wetan.jpg
- File:Fitroni,st khuriah,mudhrikah,slmt idl adha,amd muhasim,murtadlo,isnaini,khuzanah..jpg
- File:Poto lapangan,.jpg
- File:Rombongan anak2 dan keluarga.jpg
- File:Keluarga besarku2.jpg
- File:Keluarga besar1.jpg
- File:Mbah dul kakung,putri.jpg
- File:Isnaini,khusnul,uswatun,fitroni,adha,..jpg
- File:Remaja musola kliwonan.jpg
- File:Lapangan kliwonan,karangluhur..jpg
- File:Lapangan kliwonan,karangluhur1.jpg
- File:Nurusibyan musolla.JPG
- File:Lapangan kliwonan,karangluhur3.jpg
- File:Nurusibyan musolla1.jpg
- File:Panggung pemuda maulidan era 80an.jpg
- File:Qosidah nurrusibyan.jpg
- File:Sunatan masal.jpg
- File:Santri kliwonan.jpg
- File:Maulid nabi.jpg
- File:Santri kliwonan1.jpg
- File:Khitan masal.jpg
- File:Jamaah Nurussibyan1.JPG
- File:Santri kliwonan khatam.jpg
- File:Mbah dul rayi,lukman,uzi.jpg
- File:Wanto&teman.jpg
- File:Wanto&isteri,.jpg
- File:Bocah,bocah.jpg
- File:Fitroni,htpt.jpg
- File:Fitroni,aji2.jpg
- File:Fitroni,preman.jpg
- File:Fitroni,begawan.jpg
- File:Fitroni,hambyah.jpg
- File:Fitroni,p.raden.jpg
- File:Hambyah,fitroni.jpg
- File:Slamet hamyah.jpg
- File:Mulyadi.jpg
- File:Fitroni,air.jpg
- File:Isnaini,apes.jpg
- File:Isnaini,kawah.jpg
- File:Isnaini,bambu.jpg
- File:Hafidul Quran.jpg
- File:Fitroni,musofan,paidah.jpg
- File:Khusnul,nisa,anu.jpg
- File:Fitroni,motor.jpg
- File:Fitoni.jpg
- File:Khusnul.jpg
- File:Farida pasha.jpg
- File:Fitroni,fathurohman.jpg
- File:Safi'i.jpg
- File:Isnaini,macan.jpg
- File:Isnaini,uswatun hasanah.jpg
- File:Isnaini,bergaya.jpg
- File:Anu,isnaini,fitrono.jpg
- File:Ngamir,syafi'i,mulyadi.jpg
- File:Isnaini,silat.jpg
- File:Isnaini,nampang.jpg
- File:Isnaini,baca.jpg
- File:Isnaini.jpg
- File:Mbah dul.jpg
- File:Khoirul muhlasin(bpk kyai).jpg
- File:Isnaini,ngamir exis.jpg
- File:Hanifudiin exis dalam doa.jpg
- File:Adha,ngamir,isnaini,khoirul,kliwonan.jpg
- File:Mbah minah.jpg
- File:Isnaini,sukur,pariyadi.jpg
- File:Mbah Dulpangat kakung&rayi.jpg
- File:Farida pasa.jpg
- File:Lek mahrun.JPG
- File:Atik.JPG
- File:Gus hasim.JPG
- File:Fitroni,slamet.JPG
- File:Fitroni.JPG
- File:Kliwonan halal bi halal dan hut RI ke 50.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Maxi.d --> 7x "own works" = 5 copyvios.
Gunnex (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The artwork depicted on the ball is independently copyrightable under United States law (since it is separable from the ball). This image is therefore a derivative work of such non-free artwork. It's a close call, but I don't think the artwork is de minimus either. RJaguar3 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Yes the design on the ball is independently copyrightable. LGA talkedits 23:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also adding :
- and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adidas Brazuca 2013-12-05 18-33.jpg is also relevant here as well. LGA talkedits 00:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The ball's decorative design is independently copyrightable, since its appearance is not de minimis, this image is a derivative work of the design. An image of the same ball was previously deleted on Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adidas Brazuca.jpg, and there is no reason why the result here should be different. RJaguar3 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Yes the design on the ball is independently copyright-able. LGA talkedits 03:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted Recreation of content deleted per community consensus
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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 19, 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 12:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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 19, 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 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){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 19, 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 12:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Insufficiant evidence that this file is PD. Plus the flickr license is incorrect. Unless there is some evidence that this file is public domain in both the US and the country of origan it should be deleted under the com:PCP Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
![19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/06/14#c-Natuur12-2014-06-14T19:13:00.000Z-File:Amelia_Earhart_as_"Lady_Lindi".jpg){kind=link}
- Delete The nominator is correct. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose The image is clear published under the license of 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). That is here documented:
- | Some rights reserved (enable JavaScript)
- This image is historical and the public has a right to see it. There is no evidence that this license is incorrect. At least the nominator has given no reliable reasons for his opinion that this license is wrong. Therefore my question: What is the claim for this explanation? --Tri-l (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the flickr accountholder took the photograph from here as you can read at the file discription at flickr this leaves the file with an unclear copyrightstatus. So we need some evidence that either the file is PD or that the flickr-account is in fact the copyrightholder. The file discription says Borrowed from this site: www.navigabile.it/StorieAlVolo/Personaggi/Earhart.aspx. When you are not the copyrightholder the CC-license is invalid. Natuur12 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph was published on the 14th November of 2006, 8 years ago. And no possible copyright holder has contradicted this publication under the license we can see in this long time. That is the confimation and a broad hint for the rightness of the published license. The photo was shot more than 80 years ago. that is another circumstantial evidence for its legitimacy to PD. The original publisher is a public museum in Milano, Italy. Thus it is clear, this picture is full legal published with the right license. It is beyond any dispute, this image was published lawful. --Tri-l (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ehhh, no. The account holder at flickr even admits that he/she borrowed the image.... Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. But she has released it under a public license. Therefore she is responsible for this license. And no one has contradicted this in eight years. Do we have privileges for some people in this world? One has the right to publish, and another one has not the same right? One has to go to gitmo, and the initiator is free? Do we have equal rights for all people? It is common law that an right holder lost his right after a time when he did not contradicted. And the law holder has not contradicted because there was no such a right. Do we have no common law on the internet? --Tri-l (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ehhh, no. The account holder at flickr even admits that he/she borrowed the image.... Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph was published on the 14th November of 2006, 8 years ago. And no possible copyright holder has contradicted this publication under the license we can see in this long time. That is the confimation and a broad hint for the rightness of the published license. The photo was shot more than 80 years ago. that is another circumstantial evidence for its legitimacy to PD. The original publisher is a public museum in Milano, Italy. Thus it is clear, this picture is full legal published with the right license. It is beyond any dispute, this image was published lawful. --Tri-l (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the flickr accountholder took the photograph from here as you can read at the file discription at flickr this leaves the file with an unclear copyrightstatus. So we need some evidence that either the file is PD or that the flickr-account is in fact the copyrightholder. The file discription says Borrowed from this site: www.navigabile.it/StorieAlVolo/Personaggi/Earhart.aspx. When you are not the copyrightholder the CC-license is invalid. Natuur12 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like COM:LL --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete tineye finds many copies of this image all over the internet but most have no copyright status indicated. I also found it amongst the historical photos on the official Amelia Earhart family website but again no status is named. Uuless they can confirm its origins and status we have to assume the source for this version is flickrwashing. Ww2censor (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
![09:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/06/14#c-Fastily-2014-06-21T09:31:00.000Z-File:Amelia_Earhart_as_"Lady_Lindi".jpg){kind=link}
COM:TOO#United Kingdom: a lot more complex than for example the Edge logo in the example. (Was tagged from User:Stefan4 as speedy).
- I changed the speedy as DR. It is questionable
, because the company get to an Dutch and now to a Indian company.This logo is also not anymore active,I mean the copyright is switched to other country!? If this logo is copyvio than you can also remove completely {{PD-simple}} for UK. → Perhelion 11:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)- The source country is the country of first publication and does not change if a company is merged with a company from another country. As British Steel was a British company, it is most likely that the country of first publication is the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. @Stefan4: could you start DR's in future on such things, we can track them that way too. russavia (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not much aware of the UK copyright, so I read something (so correct me please). There are some main differences to Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos (as the given precedent), this logo is not anymore in use, it is more than 25 years old (1969). The UK law says about artistic registered designs (threshold of originality) only up to 25 years protection is available?Trademark is also a design So Trademark and Fair use, threshold of originality, don't apply not anymore? → Perhelion 13:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, a trademark is not a design. I'm not sure where you are reading that. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meant could be, as it stays under w:Threshold of originality "such as trademarks or design patents (particularly in the case of logos)." which falling within the 25 years. Anyway this is not a trademark anymore. If this logo is nevertheless copyright protected, why then trademark copyright in UK exists? → Perhelion 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- w:Design patents cancel copyright in the United Kingdom as far as I can tell. I think that this was used as an argument in the Lego brick case which is mentioned under COM:TOO#United Kingdom. In other countries, copyright and design patents exist side by side, which is why you see French courts fining companies for posting pictures of chairs on their websites in violation of the copyright of the chairs (see [5]). A logo is normally only subject to trademark protection, which is not the same thing as a design patent. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meant could be, as it stays under w:Threshold of originality "such as trademarks or design patents (particularly in the case of logos)." which falling within the 25 years. Anyway this is not a trademark anymore. If this logo is nevertheless copyright protected, why then trademark copyright in UK exists? → Perhelion 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete According to en:British Steel the company was a UK one at all times when this logo was in use; that means the source country must be the UK (I am not aware of any mechanism by which the source country of a work can change, it is set at the point of creation/publication). Given that the source country is the UK, and that a UK court has afforded protection to the Edge logo (see here) there can be no doubt that the same court would also extend protection to this logo if asked to. LGA talkedits 06:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The question is how long? (Sorry you don't comment my linked source, is it false? I stroked out the already answered questions by Stefan4) Also, you tell that the EDGE logo (change a single stroke on an "E" letter of an existing font, moreover, exactly in the manner as in other existing fonts) get 75 years after the dead of the author with a threshold of originality of lower than an chimpanzee is still protected? This is clear an insult to the intelligence and the freedom of every man, that shows who ruled this planet. This does not mean that the (steel) logo looks very good. → Perhelion 06:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I seem to recall for the UK that it is 70 years from the date of death of the person who designed it. Yes the threshold of originality for countries that derive their copyright law from the UK (i.e. most of the British Commonwealth excluding Canada) is exceptionally low, bordering on non-existent. The only requirement is that it originates from a person, so your chimpanzee is out of luck there. There is an even lower example from Australian courts, where this is afforded copyright protection. LGA talkedits 07:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the Aboriginal Flag is not comparable, because they is not protected of threshold of originality. Anyway, what could be the reason that this clear UK precedent is not linked in the threshold of originality article? → Perhelion 07:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow, the Edge case is listed @ Commons:TOO#United Kingdom. LGA talkedits 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Take this!? (PS: HTML tag, is it ok!?) → Perhelion 07:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The question is how long? (Sorry you don't comment my linked source, is it false? I stroked out the already answered questions by Stefan4) Also, you tell that the EDGE logo (change a single stroke on an "E" letter of an existing font, moreover, exactly in the manner as in other existing fonts) get 75 years after the dead of the author with a threshold of originality of lower than an chimpanzee is still protected? This is clear an insult to the intelligence and the freedom of every man, that shows who ruled this planet. This does not mean that the (steel) logo looks very good. → Perhelion 06:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems to exceed TOO for the UK FASTILY 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
YLSS has requested that this be speedy deleted. As he has been repeatedly been told, deletion will not happen until the image is no longer in use, so converting to regular deletion request so that he has a chance to do so. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to update that "test 2" page in user space. It is a immensely redlinked already, and if it's owner doesn't update it in any way, apparently he doesn't need that. All other pages that used that icon I did update. YLSS (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with the renaming to STqy, so agree it should be deleted. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The previous DR was Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Drawings_by_children; the fact that a bulk category delete was denied has no relevance to this individual drawing. There doesn't seem to be any educational value for this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This should be a mass DR; please include this statement in all related DRs. The previous DR was Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Drawings_by_children; the fact that a bulk category delete was denied has no relevance to this individual drawing. There doesn't seem to be any educational value for this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment i dont know how to create a mass DR, if thats what you are suggesting should have been done.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
collage based on primary text, essentially out of scope: amateur art, not educational, not useable Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
original collage, based on a source text, but by a nonnotable collagist, thus personal and out of scope. the prevoius mass deletion was closed as keep, but for admin reasons. this file is NOT by a child, obviously, and should never have been included in that mass deletion (which was too broad anyway) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Second nomination by this editor: i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably based on a work from the cited book. the copy is by a non-notable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. The just concluded deletion was in error. this file should not be here. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as inappropriate, and likely out of scope due to its lack of fidelity to the source material. Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has the full set, some of which are fine. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this project, otherwise all the childlike images were closed as keep, as in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
_2011-12-22.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2011-12-22.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Argentina LGA talkedits 12:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
_2011-12-22.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
_2011-12-22.jpg){kind=link}
No encyclopedic or educational merit. User's own design. User has a history of uploading his own artworks and passing it off as historical artifacts. See the archive of his sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia for reference. 舎利弗 (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Support This file should be deleted, especially the original uploader made a wrong map without any reference. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use so all arguments other than copyrightconcerns must be ignored Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Map with no historical or educational value. User has a problematic history of uploading copyvios and passing off his artwork as historical content. See his English Wikipedia profile and his sockpuppet investigation page (at the same wiki) for reference. Deletion was previously declined by an administrator because file was in use. That is no longer the case now. 舎利弗 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lobo as no source (No source since). The photo has a very poor quality, and it is unlikely to be legitimate content. Lobo (howl?) 19:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
None of these images were taken in Argentina and are all of unknown author, there is nothing to suggest that Argentina is the source country for the works and that the copyright term is based on Argentine law. So absent more information these need to be deleted under the COM:PRP.
- File:Manifestacioncontralaguerrademalvinas1.jpg
- File:Manifestacioncontralaguerrademalvinas2.jpg
- File:Kissingeryrogers.jpg
- File:Manifestacionescontralaguerralondres.jpg
- File:Manifestacionescontralaguerralondres2.jpg
- File:Protestascontralaguerralondres3.jpg
- File:Manifestacionescontralaguerralondres3.jpg
- File:Judithhart.jpg
- File:Matswilander.jpg
- File:Matswilandercropped.jpg
- File:Pertiniyconti.jpg
- File:Sandropertini.jpg
- File:Brunoconti.jpg
LGA talkedits 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Uncelar copyright status. Reproductions of artworks by different Spanish painters.
- File:TripticoRojo.jpg + File:FragmentosDeCirculo.jpg + File:Izquierdazo.jpg are artworks by es:Juan Manuel Seisdedos Romero (1954—) a living Spanish painter. Permission needed.
- File:MelocotonesBodegon.jpg + File:ElCaliche.jpg are artworks by es:Antonio Brunt Rodríguez (1904—1974), a Spanish painter. Without permission copyrighted till the end of 2044.
- File:ClaustroSantiagoCaleraLeón.jpg + File:Traseldescorche.jpg are artworks by es:José María Franco Gutiérrez (1936—), a living Spanish painter. Permission needed.
- File:Chapa001JLS.jpg = artwork by es:Jesús López Santamaría (1942—), a living Spanish painter. Permission needed.
Additional nominating:
- File:LogoFundacionALO.gif = Logo of Fundacion Escultor Leon Ortega, configured with "© Fundacion Escultor Leon Ortega - Todos los derechos reservados". As indicated, authored by "gurumelos.com" which redirects to http://www.amandaleon.com/ (= art designer Amanda León, possibly the creator of that logo). Permission needed, as the logo is IMHO out of scope of PD-textlogo (or PD-whatever).
- File:ClaustroSantiagoCaleraLeón.jpg
- File:Traseldescorche.jpg
- File:ElCaliche.jpg
- File:MelocotonesBodegon.jpg
- File:Izquierdazo.jpg
- File:TripticoRojo.jpg
- File:FragmentosDeCirculo.jpg
- File:Chapa001JLS.jpg
- File:LogoFundacionALO.gif
Gunnex (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
These files should have a permission by the artist
37.5.3.217 10:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of File:07. Camel Profile, near Silverton, NSW, 07.07.2007.jpg, all over the Internet. Since we don't know who first created this, we cannot comply with the GFDL or CC-BY-SA requirements of crediting the author. In any case, this derivative is unlikely to be "own work" of uploader. Lupo 14:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded 11.2010. Unclear copyright status: Film covers of films directed by es:José Luis Viloria (1924—):
- File:SilosPorDentro.png (2010)
- File:ElRaptoDeTT.jpg (1963)
and
- File:JLV.jpg, showing the director, cropped from previously published via http://villarcayo.net46.net/vol08/vol08_10.html (07.2010, by Iñaki) = http://villarcayo.net46.net/vol08/fotos/20100721.jpg
Permission(s) needed.
Gunnex (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded on 23.11.2011 by Sir yakin (talk · contributions · Statistics) the photo was previously published via http://www.colpos.mx/web11/pdf/Registrado/Jesus_Moncada/Glosa%20curricular.pdf (created 10.2011, page 1). http://www.colpos.mx is the official site of the school "Colegio de Postgraduados" (Colpos) where the portrayed person is or was the director. Gunnex (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 37.5.3.217 11:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Bryan Michael Noeding.jpg Markemarksmith (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment COM:COPYVIO Image from here in 2009. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Not Charbonneau, but rather James Beckwourth. Low-res crop of File:James_Beckwourth.jpg. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Much lower quality than the other file. However, the other file is unsourced and poorly described. If someone can help complete that, it would be a good thing. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have upgraded File:James Beckwourth.jpg prior to the deletion of this image. The picture is circa 1856 and was in at least one edition of his book. Two online sources were found, both were credited on source line as the images appear nearly identical. I leave it to other editors to determine which of the two should be kept for source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: see comment in discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Available on the web before upload here and copyright attributed to B-Cycle. ELEKHHT 05:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No source provided to establish that this actually is a US military photo. Given that the US military very rarely releases images of Delta Force in action, this cannot be assumed to be a US military image, or even a factual image. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
© Michael Putland per metadata (possibly w:Michael Putland), confirmation needed through OTRS whether this is the uploader. Higher resolution version here. January (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
this is a copyrighted image lifted directly from "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures" by Barry Cox Mr Fink (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I had no idea. I found it on an open-wiki (as the description says) were there was no indication that this was the case. G S Palmer (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader operated in good faith, but image is copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Found elsewhere online; unlikely to be own work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I find the license "Public domain This work is in the public domain in Afghanistan according to The law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers (Copy Right Law). (unofficial English translation) because: It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago, or It is any other form of protected work and more than 50 years have passed since the death of the last surviving author and the date of original publication." not apparently applicable to this color image of a 2010 Afghani politician. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Stifle (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Unknown copyright status of the photograph. See COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan4 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Stifle (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation unless permission obtained from Boosters Inc. or school officials (since they probably received the rights). Nominating to give uploader Octaviogonz (talk · contribs) opportunity to contact COM:OTRS if he thinks he can get permission. Closeapple (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Note that {{subst:npd}} is available for this situation. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The book cited as source was not published in 1908 as claimed, but in 1925, a second edition in 1928. The photograph shown in this file does not appear anywhere in that book. So obviously something is quite wrong with the source and probably also the year given in the description. Because of this, and since we don't know anything else about the author and the year of creation/publication, the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- See also the duplicate File:Kaiserstraße 29 in Heilbronn.jpg, uploaded by another user and suddenly claimed to have been "taken by one of my ancestors". Sorry, but I don't buy that. Photos uploaded by multiple sockpuppets (probably of User:Messina), first with fake sources, then suddenly claimed to have been taken by family members? This is extremely dubious, and unless authorship can convincingly be asserted through the OTRS process, both files should be deleted per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No reason to assume that United Press International did not comply with US copyright rules and as there is no proof that this image is PD in the US should be deleted as per COM:L & COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Del: This image was part of a batch restore, and the exact contents weren't known back then (only the filename). Whilst some images could be kept, not all of them were. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 03:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status Stifle (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright 2012 Fennell Photography 37.5.3.217 09:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio per EXIF Stifle (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No source provided to establish that this actually is a US military photo, or to verify that it depicts the subject it is claimed to depict. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Google search reveals this image is marked "AP" in the lower left corner, not US gov. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not valid military Stifle (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A file unused since 2007, transferred to Commons without source or category in 2012 and still unused is probably outside of COM:SCOPE . Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The "splatter" effect in the letters (compare the "L") makes this more than just a text logo. In the UK this would certainly be sweat of the brow and copyrightable, and we'd not treat it as too simple in the US. Masem (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
letters are dirty,rest is ok. Is too simple.--EEIM (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The dirty-ness of the letter is the problem. If it was part of the font (some which do have embedded dirty-like effects), which would have been easily shown by the 2 "L"s, that might have been okay, but the creativity is the addition of that effect to the font. That might barely pass in the US but in the UK and other sweat-of-the-brow countries, this would be copyrighted. --Masem (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
where Skyfall-Logo from ,USA is ok ,but is UK or Australia you right,delete.--EEIM (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-textlogo. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Very small, low resolution crest, not in use since in the project. Uploaded in 2007. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Text material in use on user page of user not active since 2010. If this were needed again, it could be duplicated in markup. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS Stifle (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Claimed to be a declassified photo taken by the CIA taken during the early years of the Vietnam War - despite the fact that the version photographed didn't exist until much later. The source link is a dead link and the link claimed to state that it is a CIA photo does not include the photo and makes no claims about its public domain nature. There is no evidence available that this image is public domain. Nigel Ish (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: PD status doubtful Stifle (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Text material in use on user page of user not active since 2010. If this were needed again, it could be duplicated in markup. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Even inactive users are entitled to have their user page look they way they want it. This would be hard to duplicate in markup. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Text material in use on user page of user not active since 2010. If this were needed again, it could be duplicated in markup. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Even inactive users are entitled to have their user page look they way they want it. This would be hard to duplicate in markup. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
EXIFː Copyright holderː Copyright© 2012 Fennell Photography 37.5.3.217 09:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It does not work Winstonza (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: contributor request, unused file — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|File:Panoramica26314.JPG. Same image, though file type mismatch prevents speedy deletion — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality icon, not used anywhere. Mippzon (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: poor quality, unused, and no obvious educational value — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
this is my picture and I uploaded it to wikipedia a long time ago before I knew what it was, I don't want my picture on here any longer 68.203.24.100 20:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason to delete — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation: lynwood-high-school-13.jpg via [6]. Nominating for deletion (instead of speedy) in case Octaviogonz (talk · contribs) had permission and can document it for COM:OTRS. Closeapple (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KTthePEREZident_playing_guitar.jpg Mippzon (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Duplicate}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Copy violation NiTenIchiRyu (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: not evidently own work of contributor, from published work — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
this is my picture and I uploaded it to wikipedia a long time ago before I knew what it was, I don't want my picture on here any longer 68.203.24.100 20:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason provided for deletion — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
_(8691603231).jpg){kind=link}
_(8691603231).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplikate of File:Trondhjems Mekaniske Værksted Tørrdokk i Nidelven (1930).jpg Blue Elf (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(8691603231).jpg){kind=link}
Kept: treated as duplicate, kept this version, deleted the other — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
_(8691603231).jpg){kind=link}
image used only by promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: promotional with no obvious educational value — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad copy of File:Palais-Royal.jpg. Because of png/jpg new version was uploaded as a new page Hausratte (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see no reason to delete the original png version. It's part of the history of the site. BTW, we might want to rename the new jpg image's File page since it is not sufficiently descriptive. This approach will preserve the original image's File page history on Commons. Just add descriptive links to the other versions field. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I notice the prints are different, with significantly different captions. They probably represent different states of the plate. All the more reason not to delete this file. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
został wgrany lepszy zamiennik tego zdjęcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arweeen (talk • contribs) 2014-06-12T13:08:26 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Fastily JuTa 12:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deu (talk • contribs) 2014-06-13T16:33:57 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Fastily JuTa 12:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deu (talk • contribs) 2014-06-13T16:33:16 (UTC)
Kept: by User:Fastily. JuTa 12:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Deu as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Requested by the uploader Steinsplitter (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep since 2011 on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete National Archives of Georgia has very similar Logo. My work does not base on this logo, but on a low quality photo of a georgian ornament in the book: მ. თევზაძე, ქართული ორნამენტი II, თბ. 2009. But the National Archives of Georgia uses this ornament since 2007 as a non-free Logo. I did not knew this, but a worker in the Archives asked me to delete this file and I'm agree, because practically I have no copyright. please, delete the file. — Dawid talk 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. –BruTe Talk 13:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep If you did not infringe on the Georgian National Archives' image, their request is invalid. Fry1989 eh? 21:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- But even the book I have used presents the low quality graphic ornament erroneously as a Georgian ornament from the 11th century. In reality, the book itself violates copyright, because this ornament was formed in 2007 by Georgian National Archives artificially from details of some real medieval ornaments. — Dawid talk 18:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as requested by uploader. Very probably copied from a non-free work that was believed to be free. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
No description and not self-explanatory. Thus no educational value. Unused image. Torsch (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep it looks like a representation of a 55 seat parliament, without any of the dots change for parties. It will do as a base, doing no harm. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 01:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This flickr account only has two images. Is this own work by the flickr acount owner? Leoboudv (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 01:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We have enough nudity/sexual images on Commons. I think those are obviously for personal exhibition purpose, out of scope
- File:Savanna Lee (14373243855).jpg
- File:Savanna Lee (14373244085).jpg
- File:Savanna Lee (14393420053).jpg
- File:Duo4Fun beautiful nude wife Veronica BJ and HJ to cum facial set (14100083897).jpg
- File:Mary cum face (10732724363).jpg
- File:ROB BROWN BLOWING A COUPLE OF HIS BUDDIES (6928585115).jpg
- File:Double Blowjob (7161773001).jpg
- File:Rob Brown- Sperm Fountain02690tgreenCoverR (6957588865).jpg
- File:Mary takes john's cum on her face (10104588084).jpg
File:Summer time (14185012716).png- File:Fellatio (5498711362).jpg
- File:Duo4Fun wife cum facial (14280309524).jpg
- File:Babysitter LORETTA BLAKE - Pinellas Park, Florida (14127444088).jpg
File:Dancing night! (12980318153).pngFile:Dancing night! (12980731104).pngFile:Dancing! (12222724824).pngFile:Back home. (14433730693).pngFile:Snapshot (12327038244).pngFile:A blue afternoon (14020118304).pngFile:Blue Afternoon (14016634021).pngFile:D12 (14317755934).jpgFile:D12 (14138612789).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Morning ☼ (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I may disagree with you. First, in the case of facial cumshots, Commons only have drawings and 3 photos of the same subject (same woman), it doesn't cover the homosexuality, as there wasn't any nor even a drawing showing a man with facial cumshot. Second, Savanna Lee photos that I uploaded doesn't include nudity and covers the school fetish category, which are very few photos there, once again it isn't realeated to nudity, so the nominator didn't spend time to look at them. Third, Second Life erotic art is art made in Second Life virtual world, which makes a difference because it's a specific topic (Category:Erotic scenes from Second Life). Four, also in Second Life erotic scenes, there were no examples of ladyboy/shemale images, so I added them to cover the topic. Five, there was only one photo showing a threesome fellation, so I added 2 more photos to universalize the topic. Six, also about Second Life erotic art, there were few or very little examples of sexual intercourse in that virtual world, so I added more to cover the topic. Seven, about handjobs, there were only close-ups, drawing and mannequins as example of the topic, but no photo explicity showing heterosexual or homosexual act, so I added one. Eight, there were no photo in Category:Upskirt that shown a pantyless women viewed from behind, so I added one., Nine, I don't have any connection with the subjects, I just found them searching at Flickr, so no personal exhibition purpose on my side. Ten, they all fall into scope as examples of topics, which it's needed to universalize but not unify (as just have only one example), and I tried to cover topics that weren't showing and cover details that matter, as heterosexuality and homosexuality. Besides these 10 points that Mr. Morning Sunshine didn't see, I see also other things that Morning Sunshine didn't do with this nomination:
Not assuming good faith, not even looking to photos that are not sexuality related;- Examing the photos before nominating, as all my uploads were included in a mass deletion without a rational criteria;
- Possible attack or disrespect because the account is new;
- Possible censorship from the nominator;
Lack of knowledge, as the nominator may not know what are virtual worlds and also may not know what is erotic art by different mediums.(explained below)
Therefor, I think the nominator failed as an administrator too, as he was not an example of Commons policies, as per mentioned above, and also making me wonder what are really the nominators intentions (and if he ever read Commons:Project scope), which to me looks like reducing the number of sexuality related files, in which it sounds to me applying some censorship rather than cleaning examples.Summarizing, I was trying to cover topics that had few or none examples, as a person to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, but I found censorship. It seems it's not the Wikimedia Commons I used to know. --ESRR (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)- I have withdrawn images from the game Second Life as per Template:Second Life, however, I will keep the remain to see the opinions from other users/administrator. I never attack anyone because they are new. You may misunderstand me, I don't say that you exhibit yourself here, I refer to the Flickr user--Morning ☼ (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I got it now. I may agree with you that they may been exhibiting theirselves, that's why I looked to several images, but they are few in the homosexual matter, and, the photos of facial cumshots, I tried to get an example of the sperm all over their face not just the mouth (both male and female). It is a delicate matter, I may agree with you in that. I just wanted to add examples that shown the cumshot fetish, to show explicitly (as no doubts they were) heterosexual/homosexual sex acts (the handjob), the school girl fetish with different clothes than they are in the category. If there are better examples that cover those, be my guest to delete them. I just wanted to cover topics with images that could add a different point of view or any kind of difference that matter to the topic. Thank you for your explanation, Morning Sunshine! --ESRR (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn images from the game Second Life as per Template:Second Life, however, I will keep the remain to see the opinions from other users/administrator. I never attack anyone because they are new. You may misunderstand me, I don't say that you exhibit yourself here, I refer to the Flickr user--Morning ☼ (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Since some administrators like to spam my talkpage and not participating in the deletion request by providing their opinion, I have a question to make. Since when File:Savanna Lee (14373243855).jpg and other examples at Category:High-heeled shoes on legs are related to Commons:Nudity? Are we going back in time to the times where showing knees were forbided? The images I uploaded about Savanna Lee are images of a dressed woman, no nudity can be found. She is dressed with a miniskirt (Category:Miniskirts), a shirt and something on top, so I don't see any nudity. If it is, then File:Clara Morgane 1.jpg is about nudity too, which I think it's not right and possible a censorship act (which can be seen as an abuse of authority/rights). Be rational, have knowledge, that's why all wikis were created. --ESRR (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Question - do any of these images, which identify several of the subjects by name (!), actually pass the muster of our resolution of images of identifiable people? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I like, I love people that go straight to the point. About your question, I only know what everyone can see looking at the flickr stream. The photos there are about the same subject (presumely the flickr user, which has been tagged in the majority of photos) in different kind of poses and in different kinds of clothes. I can presume that the subject have consented permission, but I can't be sure of that, as well as the majority of photos at flickr. I do accept if the images are deleted because of that uncertainty, which would be a rational reason. But, if so, do not only focus on newcomers or only new uploads, there are several already existing photos in worse situations. About the notability as I read on the provided link, in the Category:Schoolgirl fetish I see more "known" people (pornstars) than unknown people, so I see an unbalanced weight there, in my opinion. For example, Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, did the flickr user provided an evidence of permission of the models, since they are several models and some of them in nude poses? --ESRR (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Examples
- --ESRR (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, the purposes of those images are only personal exposure. Fma12 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I will vote keep if ESRR shows that these images can be used in a manner providing education to one of our projects. Is there a reason he hasn't tried to add any of them to an article yet? Special:CentralAuth/ESRR shows not even an attempt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete no obvious educative value, quality of photos is reasonably poor. Flickr uploads of rubbish is pretty tiresome. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: some deleted, rest kept, per discussion FASTILY 01:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Image was formerly no source, uploader has changed source to "Trademarked by Sunrise Studios/Registrado por los Estudios Sunrise". Dibujado por Cheposo" The latter claims that the uploader drew the image, but the "trademark" portion of this is troublesome. Another image of this type is uploaded at Wikipedia], labeled "Title screen of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. Copyright © by Sotsu Agency and Sunrise Inc. Copyright © Bandai Entertainment, Inc." I see too many copyright symbols attached to this to be comfortable with the current statement of "own work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 2014-06-12T17:30:41 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No FOP in Argentina LGA talkedits 13:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Mappa contenente alcuni errori, sostituita da una in formato svg e in stile unificato (File:Mappa tranvia Lodi-Soncino.svg). Sono l'autore di entrambe. Friedrichstrasse (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded on 11.12.2011 by 1-upload-user Joyero (talk · contributions · Statistics) the photo (showing the Minister of Electricity and Energy of Ecuador es:Esteban Albornoz) was previously published (even cropped) via http://cubanews.cubaverdad.net/2011/07/ecuador-expands-power-agreements/ (07.2011, Copyright Cubaverdad 2011. All Rights Reserved) = http://cubanews.cubaverdad.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ecuador-expands-power-agreements.jpg (per file path uploaded in 07.2011). Gunnex (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Update: The file is authored with "MEER" which possibly stands for "Ministerio de Electricidad y Energía Renovable" = potentially grabbed from the official site http://www.energia.gob.ec/. Gunnex (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No source provided to establish that this actually is a US military photo Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mail is out eventually we can get a license.--Sanandros (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Image found here larger than the version we have but later in date than the Commons version. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- yea got answer but i could't find the photographer but could find the guy of the physical owner of the pic.--Sanandros (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If permission from the photographer to host this image under a free license is recieved via COM:OTRS, we can restore this FASTILY 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
possible copyright violation, seems identical to photo on http://www.klausduschat.de/sites/fotos0403.htm Sebari (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
nicht erkennbar, dass der Urheber Ingo Pertramer die Lizenz erteilt hat Jbergner (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
La imagen puede ser reemplazada por File:Estación de tranvías (Constitución - Plaza Monserrat).png que tiene mejor definición — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsapucai (talk • contribs) 2014-06-13T12:51:48 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: done FASTILY 17:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely own work - see this web page from 2008 http://wadbring.com/historia/sidor/eriksberg.htm 83.254.245.201 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I changed the description. Still, i doubt the Wadbring page is from 2008. I spotted the image there shortly after i uploded my version around 2012, and then it had a different description of their images. I think Bengt Wadbrings image is taken from wikipedia commons.--FBQ (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since you are not the author, I also changed that to coincide with the template you added. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The image is pretty common in old litterature, but the Wadbring page is the only other i found on the net, and its so close to mine so i think its copied from commons. My guess is that its taken during the opening of Erik's shrine in 1913.--FBQ (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since you are not the author, I also changed that to coincide with the template you added. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks ok, but missing obvious source/permission; tagged as such. -FASTILY 17:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The poster says this is from Mughal-e-Azam (1960). The img is not PD as per URAA Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nargis Dutt do not exist in a film poster of which you are citing. The film Mughal-e-Azam was originally planned by director K Asif with actor Chandra Mohan and Nargis. Some portion was shot, but Chandra Mohan died in 1949. Then director replaced Chandra Mohan and Nargis with Dilip Kumar and Madhubala and film was re-shot. The image of Nargis is from shelved movie and certainly taken before death of actor Chandra Mohan i.e 1949. Abhi (talk) 19:19, 14 June 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 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not according to our Chem-Drawing style, various alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused file, description says "see filename" but that translates to a relatively meaningless English string " EMC Schirmbox for DUT P1210009". Uncategorized. Used only in uploader's gallery, I don't see an educational purpose to this image without description and category and nominate it for being out of COM:SCOPE, must be realistically useful for educational purpose. Note many of user's other uploads descriptions read "see filename", are missing source and uncategorized. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not the very best base description. But it was easy to fix the information template and add a category. This image is not out of scope, see usages of the term in the English Wikipedia. Raymond 18:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I fixed about two dozen of this user's other images and was unable to figure out Schirmbox. It still isn't in user and I don't see the utility of the image without a better description of why it would be considered educational. If a better explanation exists as to why this image should be hosted here, such as date, utility of the object, type of cables, etc., then I'd withdraw. As it is, this is a metal box with wires sticking out. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per Ellin - not clearly in scope FASTILY 17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Отсутствует разрешение на использование логотипа под указанной лицензией Dogad75 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
公司認定違反智慧財產權 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tp61i6m42008 (talk • contribs) 2014-06-13T09:50:59 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
