Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/06/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_aka_Lost_In_Hopes_And_Dreams,_is_an_Australian_band_from_Melbourne,_They're_genre_is_Metalcore-Post_hardcore,_2014-06-17_18-40.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-06-17_18-03.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![270 File:Elios Zunini inventore della parola "FIGO"--La parola "FIGO" e stata forgiata in Italia nel 1976 presso Appiano Gentile---Elios Zunini era stanco di sentire che il sinonimo femminile "FIGA" veniva usato in modo dispregi 2013-06-17 03-59.jpg](#File:Elios_Zunini_inventore_della_parola_"FIGO"--La_parola_"FIGO"_e_stata_forgiata_in_Italia_nel_1976_presso_Appiano_Gentile---Elios_Zunini_era_stanco_di_sentire_che_il_sinonimo_femminile_"FIGA"_veniva_usato_in_modo_dispregi_2013-06-17_03-59.jpg){kind=link}
_&_other_things_(by_Paul_Anderson).jpg){kind=link}
![288 File:Hey this is may photo"NARAYAN SINGH KORANGA" DATE OF BIRTH -5 JAN 1987 BERON ON BHANAR TIMLA BAGER (BAGESHWAR), INDIA 2014-05-30 08-07.jpg](#File:Hey_this_is_may_photo"NARAYAN_SINGH_KORANGA"_DATE_OF_BIRTH_-5_JAN_1987_BERON_ON_BHANAR_TIMLA_BAGER_(BAGESHWAR),_INDIA_2014-05-30_08-07.jpg){kind=link}
,_in_late_1930s.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![322 File:Paris, Parc des Buttes-Chaumont " Nuit Blanche " Rune Guneriussen 2009 (4883589398).jpg](#File:Paris,_Parc_des_Buttes-Chaumont_"_Nuit_Blanche_"_Rune_Guneriussen_2009_(4883589398).jpg){kind=link}
Please remove the first version of this file in order to hide personal information in the bar code. Whisper of the heart (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks copyrighted Mattythewhite (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Of course it is. [1] © Shaun Botterill/Getty. Lupo 06:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope, local politician whose article on nl-wiki was not retained after evalation due to lack of relevance MoiraMoira (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as copyvio (screenshot of tv program). JurgenNL (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, out of scope and no license at all JuTa 04:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of a license plate, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of a Jumbo Jet, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of a Jumbo Jet, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of a Jumbo Jet, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of an F-16, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo of F-16 fighters, it is well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is an interesting subject, well in scope, although the photo is needlessly (?) blurred. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
this file is not uncomplicated enough to be free from copyright restrictions Vera (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Insignia of the Swiss Air Force: belolw ToO. Ruthven (msg) 09:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a nonetheless interesting subject, well in scope, too bad the photo is so blurry. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a usable photo, well in scope, even if poorly framed. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a nonetheless usable photo, well in scope, although sadly blurry. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good enough photo, well in scope, if a tad blurry. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
̠This picture was the title of Skynews No 10, 2005 (November 10th) stating on the inner coverː Copyrightː Schweizer Luftwaffe (top left first text on inner cover on top of the content table. This is a known problem with this user. Find the magazine atː https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/5878813/axalp-airshow-maintenance-spezialausgabe-skynewsch Anidaat (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Had been published in 2010 https://www.rts.ch/info/sciences-tech/2295405-un-avion-franchit-le-mur-du-son-en-valais.html copyvio Anidaat (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - see also https://www.rts.ch/2013/01/23/16/54/2295413.image?w=2000&h=1327. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good enough photo, well in scope, if only a bit misframed. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good enough photo, well in scope, if only a tad blurry. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
this file is not uncomplicated enough to be free from copyright restrictions Vera (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This has recently been kept in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Insignia of the Swiss Air Force where Vera used the same argument. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per De728631. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
no permission, PD-Coa-Switzerland does not apply Krd 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 02:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. It is a derivative of something that is in public domain: Therefore, keep. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- On what basis are Swiss coats of arms in the public domain? The template {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} appears to be based on {{PD-Switzerland-official}}, but it is not at all clear to me that coats of arms would be covered by {{PD-Switzerland-official}}. It is unclear whether a), c) and d) cover images or whether they only cover text. Similar provisions in the laws of other countries are inconsistent with regard to images contained within such documents. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No idea on what basis, but then the issue to be solved is not about File:FlSt2old.jpg but about {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}}. If the latter is okay, then the former is too, if the latter is spurious, the former will be mass-deleted. No need for this separate DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- On what basis are Swiss coats of arms in the public domain? The template {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} appears to be based on {{PD-Switzerland-official}}, but it is not at all clear to me that coats of arms would be covered by {{PD-Switzerland-official}}. It is unclear whether a), c) and d) cover images or whether they only cover text. Similar provisions in the laws of other countries are inconsistent with regard to images contained within such documents. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as per Tuválkin. Yann (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good photo enough, well in scope, while its framing may be criticised. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good enough photo, well in scope, if a bit lacking in framing. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good enough photo, well in scope, even if a bit blurry and slightly misframed at the right edge. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a good photo, well in scope, even if slightly chopped at the right. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a very blurry photo of an interesting subject, well in scope. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a very blurry and somewhat misframed photo, although in scope. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a poor photo, although the subject is well in scope. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a perfectly good photo, well in scope. The only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a poorly framed photo, but well in scope. However, the only reason to delete it was a serious concern to assume bad faith from the uploader, based on the notion that the disparity of cameras and scanners reported in the EXIF data of his/her uploads implies copyright violation of third parties. That kind of concern cannot be evaluated in separate, isolated DRs such as this one, and indeed, upon exemplary (if seldom) questioning, the uploader proven to satisfaction personal authorship of most (if not all) uploads. No concievable reason to even file a separate DR for this one. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why should someone owning the copyright upload only part of the picture he says he owns? Here is the complete picture: http://m1.daumcdn.net/cfile201/R400x0/22348C395277C617173DD3 Other Mowag pictures uploaded by this user had been published in the 1970ies in a book. All of them are copyvio. Caumasee (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg] & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Originally nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hornet Driver. Split into indivudal DR for independent discussion, if applicable. FastilyClone (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC) With this 2 Pictures File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Mobilephone.jpg & [File:Photo made by Hornetdriver with Sonycam.JPG] all photos made with the N8 Mobilphone and the Sony cam should be defintiv out of question. Hornet Driver (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FastilyClone (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
fehlerhafter upload Marqd (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request shortly after upload. JuTa 04:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Onuma_Roten_Night2_Large.JPG Mippzon (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate processed Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright © 2014 - Livingly Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ITf4CgBMNPC/Tony+Awards+Meet+Nominees+Press+Reception/iqLJgI45LsS/Annaleigh+Ashford Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation JuTa 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Quiero borrar la imagen porque el resto de las demás permanecerán borradas hasta que las vuelva a subir a esta pàgina. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
obsolete, negative charge misplaced Kopiersperre (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: No reason for deletion. If the structure have some issues, please edit the SVG and the upload the correct version instead of requesting a deletion. Also, the file is currently in use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Replaceable by File:CatFsulf.png, which appears to resolve the "negative charge misplaced" problem (same fileformat and similar overall design choices). Its only use is a talk-page discussion about exactly this layout problem the nom mentioned and the replacement is by the same editor to resolve it. Amitie 10g, what svg are you talking about? For example, File:Dicyclohexyl(2-sulfo-9-(3-(4-sulfophenyl)propyl)-9H-fluoren-9-yl)phosphonium hydrogensulfate 200.svg, which is not the subject of this nom, does not have the problem the nom mentioned--it would be another reasonable replacement, but has different choices about how to diagram the sulfate/sulfonate groups. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
propyl)-9H-fluoren-9-yl)phosphonium_hydrogensulfate_200.svg){kind=link}
- @Amitie 10g: , I'd be interested in any further comments/responses you have here. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks. --Leyo 00:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Contains chemistry errors and there are suitable corrected replacements. Ed (Edgar181) 14:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Actor Suresh IDEA Actor,Producer,Director, Film & TV Industry ,Indian film Accostion Mumbai.jpg
[edit]
promotional description, promotional file name Motopark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
promotional description, promotional file name Motopark (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:(LIHAD) aka Lost In Hopes And Dreams, is an Australian band from Melbourne, They're genre is Metalcore-Post hardcore, 2014-06-17 18-40.jpg
[edit]_aka_Lost_In_Hopes_And_Dreams,_is_an_Australian_band_from_Melbourne,_They%27re_genre_is_Metalcore-Post_hardcore,_2014-06-17_18-40.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_aka_Lost_In_Hopes_And_Dreams,_is_an_Australian_band_from_Melbourne,_They%27re_genre_is_Metalcore-Post_hardcore,_2014-06-17_18-40.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:COPYVIO, DW of ©2013 1HDWallpapers.com - All rights reserved at http://1hdwallpapers.com/dark_stormy_sea-wallpaper.html, plus the letters of a band name. No apparent educational use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotional image, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work from non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded purely to vandalize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Phillips_(historian) Dwpaul (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Baum wurde gefällt 134.91.226.12 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete images of thing which exist no longer, in fact, that is even more reason to keep them as a historical record. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: agreed—as self-defeating a rationale as I’ve ever seen. Much of the value in such geolocated images derives from their ability to document changes in the landscape. (I have added a dated category, to underline the point.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per above -Pete F (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Macht den Baum nicht uninteressanter -- Steinsplitter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a screencap - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Dana on her way to save starving children in Africa- Isn't she amazing? 2014-05-29 10-57.jpg
[edit]
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Edmondston-Alston House Porch with 3 rocking chairs.jpg Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO and advertising for essay company, see description. Image is from Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-108795002/stock-photo-college-professor-lecturing-group-of-students-in-classroom.html?src=pp-photo-108795065-6 Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2602:306:B8A9:B0:70D7:71C9:8D80:D3A1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative of a 3d work, copyright is presumably held by Hasbro as clearly stated in file title Krd 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Other horrifying violations
[edit]
Will the following be deleted, too?
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1957%2BHasbro%2BFearless%2BFireman%2BSpinner.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1957%2BHasbro%2BFearless%2BFireman%2BGames%2BSet%2B1b.JPG
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cootie!_(2292357571).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fisher_Price_People_(2368245247).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NERF_N-Strike_Elite_Strongarm.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
There are probably at least 700 or 800 more. Shall I continue? -- Thekohser (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all 6 files listed above, all seem to be clear copyright violations. @Thekohser: , thank you for adding to the nomination -- and please do continue, there is a firehose of non-free content uploaded to Commons every day, and we do our best to keep up with limited volunteer resources. Help is very much appreciated. -Pete F (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS. Unused personal photo. ~ Nahid Talk 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unidentified person, no description, no usage. Poor quality. Tine (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Although it is entirely possible that this 1973 image is "own work" as claimed, it looks like a studio portrait and the uploader is a new user, so I think a little more explanation is in order. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
copyright [2][3] Mavrikant (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gennadiy_Aygi.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
EXIF credits "© Stuart Pettican 2013". Copyright not likely held by uploader, who seems to be the subject. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder or can get the photographer to confirm the license, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: There is now an OTRS ticket in progress and discussion with the uploader, but it is not yet resolved. -Pete F (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope SamuelFreli (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Album cover - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Passes COM:TOO because of the photographic element on the right, and copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized image of presumably living and recognizable juvenile with no educational utility and no guarantee this is own work of uploader as there is no meta data and it looks like a selfie. Possible COM:COPYVIO and out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Joshua Alberto Sanchez Chavez---Nacio- En Tepic-El 23-Agosto-1999--Twitter- @JoshuaAlbertoUk-Instagram- @ JoshuaAlbertoUK-Facebook- Joshua Alberto-YouTube- Joshua Alberto- 2014-06-16 20-11.jpg
[edit]
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks like a screencap of some sort: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused pure text bio/CV PDF, not realistically useful for an educational purpose - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work; other uploads of this user were copyvios. Lupo 15:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
_2014-06-17_18-03.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-06-17_18-03.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
_2014-06-17_18-03.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
_2014-06-17_18-03.JPG){kind=link}
Unused pure text PDF, not realistically useful for an educational purpose - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused picture. Background image may not be created by the user? Mippzon (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unsalvageable. Not useful. Lupo 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope, local politician; article on nl-wiki was not kept after evaluation MoiraMoira (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I want this image to be removed because it is non-free license Vcalsam (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small picture, poor quality. No description, no ship name, no location, no usage. Tine (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Album cover - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a photo of a photo, therefore unfree COM:DW russavia (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Book/magazine cover - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- speedy Delete, likely copyright violation -Pete F (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
EXIF credits Nelson Cardenas as photographer. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
An unused blurry and badly exposed image with description "skin" outside of COM:SCOPE for quality and educational usefulness. No category is not a reason for deletion but the lack thereof prevents any understanding of the utility of the upload. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused pure text PDF - out of scope. If the contents are in scope for a sister project, this should be recreated as text there. Storkk (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the author has been dead for 70 years for this full color stabilized oblique air photo given author "St. George's International" with an uploader name implying connection with this school in Rome. Unlikely to be user's own work as stated and more likely a professional air photo. Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Album cover - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poster for a film, not user's own work, presumably unfree and possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:This is Ryan Cliffin and he is a real jerk- He thinks it ok to break tradition- 2014-06-16 14-06.jpg
[edit]
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC) -- Deleted Jean-Fred (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO: Derivative work of http://www.gmo-ap.jp/ir/pdf/20130321kabu_j.pdf from 2013, not own work of uploader, note choppy photoshop cut out and attempt to paste on plain background. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:The famous clown in Russia- Born in singapore in 1992 , but because of some personal problems, he commit suicide by eating 1 ton of shit- After his death , his body was thrown into the drain until the police t 2014-06-18 00-46.jpg
[edit]
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per Ies and, per description and filename, this is an smearing attack to the depicted person.Tm (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Diego Grez return fire 17:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not a simple text logo so it contains textures and other elements that made it original enough. - Fma12 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Diego Grez return fire 17:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata. All the uploader's other contributions are vandalism, so I delete all them speedily. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No indication that uploader created the animal icons or the "poster of the play" shown in this image, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, letterboxed, looks like a screencap: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Claimed as "own work", however there is no evidence that the uploader maintains the copyright for this image. All previous images uploaded by this editor have been copyright violations. Ponyo (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angharatwyth (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
These were uploaded in an attempt to be used at the An Tir SCA Culture wiki at wiki.antir.sca.org. They were not uploaded as a "private photo album" but
to be used on an actual wiki. However, our wiki does not want to embed external images anyway, so it's all a moot point and I can delete these files. --Angharatwyth (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Бу одам 05 14 2010 дан тортиб то узбек киргиз жанжали тугагинуча- Киргизистон учунчи кучларига хизмат килиб келган- узи яшаб 2013-06-17 04-27.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
File:کتاب کلوب مشتریان، نویستده محمد ناگهی-نخستین کتاب با موضوع کلوب یا باشگاه مشتریان در ایران-انتشارات نظری 2014-05-30 03-32.png
[edit]
Book cover - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alejandra coronel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Clipart of handshaking, all widely published online. Unlikely that the same person is the artist or copyright holder of all three. Uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brion VIBBER (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:--Selfie-- of a --software engineer-- 2014-06-17 13-47.jpg
- File:Commons app v1.0 for Android.jpg
- File:Sweet testing goodness.jpg
- File:Jfkdkddkkddkdkdkd.jpg
- File:So I put an iPod in your iPod.jpg
- File:Yo dawg I heard you like iPods.jpg
- File:Super test photo!.jpg
- File:A quickie test upload delete me please.jpg
- File:Test to be deleted 2013-09-01 16-39.jpg
- File:Some bugs for testing deleye me.jpg
- File:Test photo delete me soon.jpg
- File:Google TV app switch menu with Commons app.jpeg
- File:Keyboards are awesome 2013-07-01 13-32.jpg
- File:Somewhere in Amsterdam test post.jpg
- File:Test test test delete me.jpeg
- File:Screenshot of UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons.png
- File:Trackpad test image.jpeg
- File:Commons-iOS demo 2013-04-15.webm
- File:WiFi testing for the win.jpeg
- File:Awesome.jpeg
Amitie 10g (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cacatuadelcante (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:El Cacatua del Cante pa' los ñeryyy.jpg
- File:Marti.jpg
- File:La Martu del Cap.jpg
- File:Antoña.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, watermarked, and looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
حفيداي باتريك وبريتي من ابنتي وهما توأمان وعمرهما الان عام واربعة اشهر
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Atalayaproducer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo/fan photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:RH-ghgt.jpg
- File:RHgtt.jpg
- File:Rhdc.jpg
- File:Rhds.jpg
- File:RH-DSC05267.jpg
- File:RH-DDSC05267.jpg
- File:RH-sDSC05283.jpg
- File:RH--DSC05281.jpg
- File:RRllDSC05257.jpg
- File:6d37a274RHH.jpg
- File:RH-EVTL.jpg
- File:Rommel H. Youknow.jpg
- File:RMML HNTR.jpg
- File:Rommel-HUNTER-ABRIL.jpg
- File:RH-hunter abrril22.jpg
- File:Wallapaper Rommel Hunter 033.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter.jpg
- File:Cover-recodo.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter wall 22.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter wall.jpg
- File:Rommel-Hunter FB.jpg
- File:Rh-yea.jpg
- File:Rh-androi.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter junio 2014.jpg
- File:RH-ss-1.jpg
- File:Backgrund-rommelhunter junio2014.jpg
- File:RH-Pasarela.jpg
- File:Rh-eli.jpg
- File:Rommel-Hunter 2014 lista.jpg
- File:Rh-eeeli.jpg
- File:Rh-eliss.jpg
- File:Rh-Evento.jpg
- File:MotoRh.jpg
- File:Youtube-cabezal-JUNIO 2014 22.jpg
- File:Y como es e23l¡'.jpg
- File:Y como es el¡'.jpg
- File:Y como es eL Para youtube.jpg
- File:Y como es e22l¡'.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter -Evolucion y talentoo.jpg
- File:Logo-Rommel Hunter Evolucion y talentologoo 15.jpg
- File:RH-covers sincero corazon.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter Evotalent.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter pozo 1.jpg
- File:Ahora que no me perteneces.jpg
- File:Rommel Hunter febrero tress.jpg
- File:Rommel-Hunter2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photos, out of scioe
- File:Мясников Олег.jpg
- File:Черноус А.В..jpg
- File:Левченков Михаил.jpg
- File:Дмитрий Родионов.jpg
- File:HapB.jpg
- File:Skrin.jpg
- File:LogA.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Satpking. Both files related to es:Distrito de Puente Piedra and (as indicated) most likely grabbed from http://munipuentepiedra.gob.pe/ (still active, official site of "© Municipalidad Distrital de Puente Piedra. Todos los derechos reservados.") or puentepiedraperu.com/ (404, archive from 2009) = "Copyright © 2007. PuentePiedraPeru.com".
Gunnex (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jacques Filippi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Painter died in 1962. I think heir identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Affiche exposition André FILIPPI.jpg
- File:Marguarido.JPG
- File:La mort de gauthier.jpg
- File:Page de var matin.JPG
- File:Creche André Filippi.jpg
- File:Bois-gravé sollies.jpg
- File:Andre-filippi gravant.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Heidari.amirmahdi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Low resolution photos of unidentified subject. Have better alternative as generic illustrations.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CreativeNia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Nia Anglade.jpg
- File:Eclispe.tif
- File:Eclispe and Night.png
- File:Coyote Regions Banner.png
- File:Coyote Regions Comic.png
Amitie 10g (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CreativeNia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal drawings
- File:Eclipse vs Night.png
- File:Quentin CRC.png
- File:Coyote Regions Map.tif
- File:Eclipse CRC.png
- File:Night CRC.png
- File:Dusty CRC.png
- File:Venus CRC.png
- File:Solar CRC.png
- File:Luna CRC.png
INeverCry 04:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marianasoarespc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Jogo e desenvolvimentismo.ogv
- File:Meu Filme-youtube-obj-desen.ogv
- File:Aula 13.2.jpg
- File:Aula 13.1.jpg
- File:Aula13.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Theamagdayao (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Owen Brown (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ.jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (14).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (12).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (13).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (11).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (10).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (9).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (8).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (7).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (6).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (4).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (5).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (3).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (1).jpg
- File:LUIS CARLOS SANCHEZ (2).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}
.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}
Amitie 10g (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielBellXD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Valeriewinehouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of the photos appear to meet Commons:Project scope: unexplained, mostly-blurry photos of people of no known fame. One appears to be a self-made pass of some kind; 9 of them appear to be "selfies" of someone; 2 are an unidentified child. (Some coordinates show the pictures as being near 67th St. and Broadway. Saturday Night Live is at 30 Rockefeller Plaza (effectively 49th St. & Avenue of the Americas.))
- File:SNL robbie 01.jpg
- File:SNL robbie 02.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 03.jpg
- File:SNL robbie 05.jpg
- File:SNL robbie 06.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 07.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 08.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 09.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 10.jpg
- File:SNL robbie 11.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 12.JPG
- File:SNL robbie 13.JPG
Closeapple (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enriquecorte12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self prommotional or spam picture(s), out of Project Scope.. Used in es:Wikipedia's article tagged for Speedy delete.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Amitie 10g (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dr.jagdish (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Alok Mehta.jpg
- File:Rockpainting Hoshangabad.jpg
- File:Rockpainting Bhimbetika.jpg
- File:WhitePigeon.jpg
- File:Tejendra sharma.jpg
- File:Diwakar varma.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replaceable by File:Fulvene.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as only svg with "all implicit" style (one of the formally recommended ones by Wikipedia MOS and IUPAC). It's the direct analog of File:Fulvene numbered.svg except without the numbering (uses same style, layout, etc.), so it's a useful companion when discussing nomenclature. This change is a great example of why the proposed replacement is not as good: the context is two different representations of the pi bonding (resonance/delocalization), but the change made one of the images have different stylistic choices (implicit vs explicit CH2). "Change of representation for unchanged meaning" is confusing for non-chemists (and even college students when learning this), rather than keeping "everything the same that is the same", so that differences that matter are more evident. DMacks (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: There are good reasons to keep images which are stylistically different. Different language wikis can prefer different styles. Ed (Edgar181) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
copyvio. So are all images uploaded by this user.
- File:Arabs in Madagascre.PNG
- File:اليوم الاول.png
- File:Frist day 1.png
- File:Second day 2.png
- File:Third day 3.png
- File:Fourth day.png
--Kathovo (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Previously published at [4][5] credited © Germany.info; by Z. Garcia, author name Zacarias Garcia also appears in metadata. Confirmation needed through OTRS if this is the uploader. January (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
User Germanbo is the German Embassy, the copyright owner of this work, and can therefore place it on Wikimedia with the CCA Share Alike license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanbo (talk • contribs)
- Please can you send confirmation to OTRS as described in COM:PERMISSION. January (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The description of the file "Artist's impression..." combined with this being the uploader's first and only contribution makes me dubious this is indeed his or her "own work". I'd like the uploader to clearly confirm he or she is the author and/or copyright holder of this work. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unchecked upload from nl:wp, date 2007-11-07. No educational purpose, personal picture, associated page was deleted in nl:wp in 2007: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd_20071214 Tine (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
many results http://www.tineye.com/search/20953140da817e15bc25ddbcd464f620d8dbd2c7/?pluginver=firefox-1.1 Hystrix (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused pure text PDF - out of scope. If the contents are in scope for a sister project, this should be recreated as text there. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
EXIF data states Author as "Marcelo Ferreira/CB/D.A Press", whereas uploader is Loucas mourelho (talk · contribs). Storkk (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In acccordance with the request raised earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devika Rani.jpg Vivvt (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sem fontes que confirmem a licença livre! Leosls (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio: Doubtful that the uploader is the author of the original picture Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (& completely mis-categorized) Ariadacapo (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Elios Zunini inventore della parola "FIGO"--La parola "FIGO" e stata forgiata in Italia nel 1976 presso Appiano Gentile---Elios Zunini era stanco di sentire che il sinonimo femminile "FIGA" veniva usato in modo dispregi 2013-06-17 03-59.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (& completely mis-categorized) Ariadacapo (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, unlikely own work (& completely mis-categorized) Ariadacapo (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Indeedous, i was surprised to see this DR in less than 24 hours of upload. I was supposed to add/replace this as a profile pic in one of the wiki project. As i went offline due to a long powercut here, i unable. If i do so now in the middle of DR, it may tantamount to shoehorning. Hence i'd wait for the final output. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Apparently someone needs this FASTILY 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose Iketsi (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
File missing source, author, and date. (This obviously old photo was not taken on August 29, 2012 by Trendfactory who claims this as his own work to be licensed under CC-bY-SA.) Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination – New file uploaded with source and date information provided. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 21:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn FASTILY 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
no permission 91.64.223.183 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Watermark indicates it was created by "JEDEC". Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio admitted by the uploader (See) Trizek from FR 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (& completely mis-categorized) Ariadacapo (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad quality scaned version of File:Benthophiloides brauneri.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, redundant -Pete F (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
_%26_other_things_(by_Paul_Anderson).jpg){kind=link}
_%26_other_things_(by_Paul_Anderson).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unusable for wikipedia Berthold Werner (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
_&_other_things_(by_Paul_Anderson).jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: The machine on this photograph, "BOSS DR-5" is a fewer sample of most recent (ca.1993) dedicated accompaniment machine (i.e. drum machine with bass & chord accompaniments for individual lesson or solo performance). And, on the article "music sequencer" on English Wikipedia, this photograph is needed to describe the variations of "accompaniment machines". This photograph should be kept until more clear BOSS DR-5 photograph is available. --Clusternote (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: It seems that this meets COM:SCOPE, unless there are better free images of the Boss DR-5 than this file and the ones derived from it, such as File:BOSS Dr.Rhythm Section DR-5 (clip).jpg. --Closeapple (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Image is in focus and usable, I believe. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
_&_other_things_(by_Paul_Anderson).jpg){kind=link}
unused user portrait 91.64.223.183 08:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks like a video still: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
this image is from a trailer of a British film not an American film it may not fall under the copyright tag given 69.124.39.237 14:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Status of file is very dubious. 1) resolution is low; 2) image looks like cropped image from soviet paper (1970-s): link, image; 3) many files of uploader were previously deleted because of copyright violation. Dinamik (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded 08.2007 the file is licensed with {{Copyrighted free use provided that|person who wants the image ask permission from http://www.occm.org.mx; only validates for the people who have the mexican nationality}}. Considering http://web.archive.org/web/20070611050803/http://www.occm.org.mx/curriculum.html (06.2007, no free license visible) = http://web.archive.org/web/20070623060615im_/http://www.occm.org.mx/images/img_matus.jpg, permission (as indicated) needed. Gunnex (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Hey this is may photo"NARAYAN SINGH KORANGA" DATE OF BIRTH -5 JAN 1987 BERON ON BHANAR TIMLA BAGER (BAGESHWAR), INDIA 2014-05-30 08-07.jpg
[edit],_INDIA_2014-05-30_08-07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_INDIA_2014-05-30_08-07.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and (as the file is currently configured) {{PD-Venezuela}}-fail because authorship and publication details were not provided. Even as anonymous or pseudonymous work copyrighted +60 years since publication. Gunnex (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; the image is all over the internet, see http://blog.lib.umn.edu/isoke001/engaging_justice/2012/11/israeli-palestinian-conflict.html and http://humanrightsdefenderralphbunche.weebly.com/thesis-statement.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Medicago lupulina. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, appears to be a TV still: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.64.223.183 08:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
,_in_late_1930s.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_in_late_1930s.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The year when the photo was taken is unknown Vivvt (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
,_in_late_1930s.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
,_in_late_1930s.jpg){kind=link}
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Medicago lupulina. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Jerry Rice catching one of Steve Young's six touchdown passes in Superbowl XXIX 2014-05-29 23-46.jpg
[edit]
Small size, no metadata, looks like a TV screencap: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
copyright violation from http://www.nashvillelifestyles.com/entertainment/tobymacs-favorite-local-spots Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are already many good images in Category:Trifolium campestre. I uploaded this to ask for identification on german Wikipedia and see now the category is rather crowded and this is probably unnecessary. Biodehio (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Cover of a book, so OTRS needed (it might be the author of the book who upload the image) Shev123 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Film poster - copyright not likely held by uploader. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
False licence. Very unlikely that it is the uploader's own work. However, given the age of the subject (Plaek Phibsunsongkhram, 1897-1964, became Field Marshal in 1941), I guess that the picture was taken in the early 1940s, so it might be in public domain by now. I am not an expert on Thai copyright law though. RJFF (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Emmanuel Debarre was born in 1948 and is still alive. No FoP in France. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 20:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not using this pic anymore. Melanie tipton (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: While this is a quasi-duplicate of File:Melanei tipton photo 8.jpg (a user page image), it lacks the tacky, unencyclopedic frame, making it suitable for wider use, and its filename is devoided of typoes. While the depicted person may not be notable (nothing at en:Melanie Tipton), maybe we have here a future Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin, and we’d like to have an image of her earlier years — one that is licensed beyond any doubt: The deletion rationale above implies that this photo was originally uploaded with full consent. The deletion rationale above, on the other hand, is unaccetpable for a DR, though, as Commons is not a free hosting service for each uploader’s needs (omg, conservative person using a “liberal biased” outfit to mooch off some free hosting!), but an arena for crowd sourced curation of donated media. In short: License is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested deletion of unused, out of scope file FASTILY 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I want to delete because of bad quality. Żyrafał (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted text. No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literary work. Vantey (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- この看板に書かれている内容それ自体は、既に公知の事実であり、独自性は無い。看板自体が著作物と言うならば、店舗看板も著作物であり、それが背景として写った写真の掲載も許されないことになるだろう。私には判断が付きかねる。--Nisanyongo (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality image showing people turned away from the camera. Does not provide any value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused picture. Background image may not be created by the user? Mippzon (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal party picture. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
poor quality - screen glare/reflection Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: It is an only photograph showing details of control rooms of legendary RCA Studio B, including their current multitrack recorders (iZ RADAR 24tr digital multitrack recorder, Studer A80 1/4” 2tr analog recorder). It should be kept to show historical transition of music recording technology. --Clusternote (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Did you come back to the Wikimedia Commons ? If so, you should better to update {{retired}} statement on your page. sincerely, --Clusternote (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
poor quality:excessive screen glare. "Keep" decision in [deletion debate] was based on a false premise: another image (equally poor IMHO) is at File:API 2098 (32in,16bus,24mon, API550A&550eq) - RCA Studio B.jpg Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
_-_RCA_Studio_B.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: As I already pointed out on the previous your request,
- The details of control rooms, especially their current recorders:
- iZ RADAR 24tr digital multitrack recorder
- Studer A80 1/4” 2tr analog recorder
- The details of control rooms, especially their current recorders:
- are not found on the other photographs even on:
- Thus I prefer to keep this image. --Clusternote (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this seems to have been edited out, so I guess fixed -FASTILY 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It's no PD-UA-exempt ShinePhantom (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, PD-UA is wrong, but what license should be here. And who should give permission if it is the song of football fans, and it sings by thousands of people? Should we get thousands of permissions?--Anatoliy (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you listen this file? from "muzmo.ru © 2009-2014"? and with arrangement by author? No need to get thousands byt must need just one ShinePhantom (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Вы действительно верите, что ее впервые исполнили в 2009 году???--Anatoliy (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- А причем здесь это? Она лежит на сайте, который нигде не пишет ни про одну свободную лицензию и содержит охраняемые копирайтом материалы, она в авторской обработке и с явно авторской аранжировкой. Каким боком оно совокупно вдруг стало народным творчеством? ShinePhantom (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Вы действительно верите, что ее впервые исполнили в 2009 году???--Anatoliy (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you listen this file? from "muzmo.ru © 2009-2014"? and with arrangement by author? No need to get thousands byt must need just one ShinePhantom (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ГОВОРЯТ У ВАС НЕТ ЦЕНЗУРЫ. ЗАМЕЧАТЕЛЬНО, СЛУШАЙТЕ ТОГДА, ВЫ АБСОЛЮТНЫЕ МУДАКИ И КЛОУНЫ ПИНДОСОВ. СОБСТВЕННО ВЫ И САМИ ПИНДОСЫ И ЕСТЬ. КРЕТИНЫ ,КОТОРЫЕ СИДЯТ В БЕЛОМ ДОМЕ - ДАУНЫ И ЛУЗЕРЫ РУКОВОДЯТ ВАШИМИ БЕЗМОЗГЛЫМИ ГОЛОВАМИ. ПОЭТОМУ ТАК И СХОДИТЕ С УМА. КОНЕЦ ВАШ БУДЕТ ПЕЧАЛЕН. ВАС ЖДЁТ ПСИХУШКА. - ЯРУССКИЙ
Oppose The song has no author. It is free. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ОСТВАВИТЬ!!! - БЕЗ ВАРИАНТОВ!!!
p.s. ла-ла-ла 46.211.129.151 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ОСТАВИТЬ!!! ОСТАВИТЬ!!! ОСТАВИТЬ!!!
- Oppose The song has no author. It is free.--Gasdine (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- just text. What about music? ShinePhantom (talk) 05:31, 20 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 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image quite identical with File:Paris, Parc des Buttes-Chaumont " Nuit Blanche " Rune Guneriussen 2009 (4882976843).jpg Tangopaso (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Emmanuel Debarre was born in 1948 and is still alive. No FoP in France. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 20:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
derivative work to non-free photo ShinePhantom (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No informative description, no educational purpose - and if I understand the dutch description correctly, it was ment just temporary for a diskussion Tine (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot from a privileged position. Suspected copyright violation. Storkk (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with the request raised earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruby Myers.jpg Vivvt (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but this isn't the diocese's arms. This is the coat of arms of it's bishop, Michele Castoro. There is already an SVG version (File:Coat of arms of Michele Castoro.svg). This can be deleted now John Ronn talk 11:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader is not the first owner of the copyright, in other words it is not the permission of the copyright holder. And this file is not the public domain, because this photograph was published in 1998. Therefore it cannot host on Commons.-Y.haruo (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Also, the file page says "This photo was taken by a man,who appeared out of nowhere i was dubious about him but he said dont worry ill send it to you and he did," which means it's not "own work" of uploader, and copyright would belong to the unnamed photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with license template: IMO it is above the threshold of originality. OTRS permission from Author/Editor required. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Das Foto des 1971 verstorbenen Nitschke wurde nicht 2014 fotografiert, sondern vor 1971. Der Urheber von 1971 ist jedoch noch keine 70 Jahre tot. daher vermutlich URV. Jbergner (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a copyvio. A Google search for the photo turns up several occurrences, e.g. here, all marked "AP Photo/Eric Anderson". The uploader claims that it's his/her own work; but the username suggests a first initial and surname, which aren't "E. Anderson". None of the pages at which I found the AP photo describe it as being CC-licensed. -- Ammodramus (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Further search turns up the photo at the Omaha World-Herald website, where it's attributed to "Eric Anderson/Cloudedlens.com". I don't find this particular photo at Clouded Lens Photography, but there're a number of other storm photos, and a copyright-2014 notice. I suspect that Anderson hasn't yet uploaded this photo to his website. -- Ammodramus (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed," this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
dasadasdasdas Zubas dani (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a valid reason for the DR. If you really want to delete your uploaded file, please use {{Speedy}} instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested deletion FASTILY 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France russavia (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a crop of File:Wolf Vostell 1990.jpg with very poor downsampling. Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe just make it a redirect? - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 18:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Per the recent Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 map.jpg, the MMRDA licence does not appear to allow derivative works because it uses the words "Material ... may be reproduced free of charge ... without requiring specific permission ... subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner". Apologies if I've missed any files.
- File:Overcrowded Mumbai local train (1).jpg
- File:Mumbai local train interior (1).jpg
- File:Mumbai suburban railway emu 13.jpg
- File:Mumbai suburban railway emu 12.jpg
- File:Mumbai suburban railway emu 11.jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail train decorated with flowers.jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail train 3.jpg
- File:Western Express Highway metro station.jpg
- File:Virar (West) skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Vasai skywalk 4.jpg
- File:Vasai skywalk 3.jpg
- File:Vasai skywalk 2.jpg
- File:Vasai skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Santacruz skywalk 2.jpg
- File:Santacruz skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Ghatkopar (West) skywalk 5.jpg
- File:Ghatkopar (West) skywalk 4.jpg
- File:Ghatkopar (West) skywalk 3.jpg
- File:Ghatkopar (West) skywalk 2.jpg
- File:Ghatkopar (West) skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Mumbai skywalk 4.jpg
- File:Mumbai skywalk 3.jpg
- File:Mumbai skywalk 2.jpg
- File:Mumbai skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Dahisar skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Borivali (West) skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 11.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 10.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 9.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 8.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 7.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 6.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 5.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 4.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 3.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 2.jpg
- File:Bandra (West) skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Bandra (East) skywalk 1.jpg
- File:Western Express Highway 6.jpg
- File:Western Express Highway 5.jpg
- File:Eastern Expressway Highway (4).jpg
- File:Eastern Expressway Highway (3).jpg
- File:Eastern Expressway Highway (2).jpg
- File:Eastern Expressway Highway (1).jpg
- File:Kurla–Kalina flyover on LBS Marg (2).jpg
- File:Kurla–Kalina flyover on LBS Marg (1).jpg
- File:Suman Nagar flyover (4).jpg
- File:Suman Nagar flyover (3).jpg
- File:Suman Nagar flyover (2).jpg
- File:Suman Nagar flyover (1).jpg
- File:Sion flyover (2).jpg
- File:Sion flyover (1).jpg
- File:Lalbaug flyover.jpg
- File:King's Circle flyover.jpg
- File:Barfiwala flyover (4).jpg
- File:Barfiwala flyover (3).jpg
- File:Barfiwala flyover (2).jpg
- File:Barfiwala flyover (1).jpg
- File:Surya Dam satellite view.png
- File:Surya Dam (4).png
- File:Surya Dam (3).png
- File:Surya Dam (2).png
- File:Surya Dam (1).jpg
- File:Maswan pick up weir.jpg
- File:Kawadas pick up weir.jpg
- File:Dharavi Sports Complex (3).jpg
- File:Dharavi Sports Complex (2).jpg
- File:Dharavi Sports Complex (1).jpg
- File:Kurla Telephone Stores Bus Q-shelter.jpg
- File:Kherwadi Junction Bus Q-shelter.jpg
- File:Chheda Nagar Bus Q-shelter.jpg
- File:Milan Rail Over Bridge (RoB).jpg
- File:Waghbil flyover (2).jpg
- File:Waghbil flyover (1).jpg
- File:Patlipada flyover (2).jpg
- File:Patlipada flyover (1).jpg
- File:Panvel flyover (2).jpg
- File:Panvel flyover (1).jpg
- File:Kapurbawdi flyover.jpg
- File:Mithi River MMRDA Site Visit (1).jpg
- File:Mithi River (4).jpg
- File:Mithi River bridge (1).jpg
- File:Mithi River (3).jpg
- File:Mithi River (2).jpg
- File:Mithi River (1).jpg
- File:Water Fountain in BKC (2).jpg
- File:Water Fountain in BKC (1).jpg
- File:Mounds in BKC (2).jpg
- File:Mounds in BKC (1).jpg
- File:Garden in BKC (2).jpg
- File:Garden in BKC (1).jpg
- File:Central Mediance in BKC (2).jpg
- File:Central Mediance in BKC (1).jpg
- File:Majas resettlement colony in Mumbai.jpg
- File:SCLR double-decker flyover model.jpg
- File:Mumbai Cricket Association in BKC.jpg
- File:Asian Heart Institute in BKC.jpg
- File:Hotel Trident in BKC.jpg
- File:Diamond Bourse in BKC.jpg
- File:Road inside BKC (1).jpg
- File:NABARD, Deutsche Bank and ICICI Bank buildings in BKC.jpg
- File:NABARD and ICICI Bank buildings in BKC.jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail station Concourse Level (1).jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail train at platform (1).jpg
- File:CCTV at a Mumbai Monorail station (1).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail tracks 2.jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail coach interior 2.jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail coach interior 1.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 7.jpg
- File:Pink and blue Mumbai Monorail trains at platform.jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail train 2.jpg
- File:Blue Mumbai Monorail train 4.jpg
- File:Blue Mumbai Monorail train 3.jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration (4).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration (3).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration (2).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration (1).jpg
- File:Wadala Depot monorail station (1).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration plaque (3).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration plaque (2).jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail Line 1 first phase inaguaration plaque (1).jpg
- File:Sahar Elevated Access Road near Terminal 2.jpg
- File:Sahar Elevated Access Road 1.jpg
- File:Entrance to Azad Nagar station.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro bridge over the Western Express Highway 1.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 12.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 11.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 10.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 9.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 8.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 7.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro bridge over the WEH under construction.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 6.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 5.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 4.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 3.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 2.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro Line 1 trial run 1.jpg
- File:Mumbai Metro train crossing bridge over WEH.jpg
- File:Sahar Elevated Access Road under construction 3.jpg
- File:Sahar Elevated Access Road under construction 2.jpg
- File:Sahar Elevated Access Road under construction 1.jpg
- File:Eastern Freeway - 3.jpg
- File:The Eastern Freeway in Mumbai 1.jpg
- File:The Eastern Freeway, Mumbai at night.jpg
- File:JVLR in Mumbai.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 6.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 5.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 4.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 3.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 2.jpg
- File:Pink Mumbai Monorail train 1.jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail tracks 1.jpg
- File:Green Mumbai Monorail train 1.jpg
- File:Green and pink Mumbai Monorail trains 4.jpg
- File:Green and pink Mumbai Monorail trains 3.jpg
- File:Green and pink Mumbai Monorail trains 2.jpg
- File:Green and pink Mumbai Monorail trains 1.jpg
- File:Blue Mumbai Monorail train 2.jpg
- File:Blue Mumbai Monorail train 1.jpg
- File:Mumbai Monorail train at platform 1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_9.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_8.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_skywalk_1.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}
.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}
.png&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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
.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}
Green Giant (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all 161 files per nom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Incorrectly licensed images from the KB Flickr stream, pt 2
[edit]- File:Buchelius (8056756846) (2).jpg
- File:De grote Nederlandse letterproef (8056753511) (2).jpg
- File:De grote Nederlandse letterproef (8056755140) (2).jpg
- File:De grote Nederlandse letterproef (8056755205) (2).jpg
- File:De laatste schreeuw (8056755727) (2).jpg
- File:De laatste schreeuw (8056757414) (2).jpg
- File:De laatste schreeuw (8056757498) (2).jpg
- File:De vier uitgaven van De Heuvelpers (8056751225) (2).jpg
- File:Een verjaardagsboeket voor Marlies Louwes (8056754796) (2).jpg
- File:Guido Gezelle, De rave (8056758018) (2).jpg
- File:Lucebert (8056754285) (2).jpg
- File:Prentenboek (8056754908) (2).jpg
- File:Simon Carmiggelt (8056753705) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Avalon Pers (8056756342) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van de Eenhoorn pers (8056752818).jpg
- File:Uitgave van De Heuvelpers (8056752576).jpg
- File:Uitgave van De Uitvreter (8056755034) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van De Uitvreter (8056756704) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Eliance Pers (8056756466) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Hester Verkruissen (8056752287) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Hester Verkruissen (8056753654) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Het Gonst (8056753833) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056751453) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056753432) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056753548) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056754081) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056754696) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056755848) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van In de Bonnefant (8056756088) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Pepel Press (8056756978) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Renildis Handpers (8056752541) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Spectatorpers (8056754565) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Statenhofpers (8056753918) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Statenhofpers (8056754004) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Sub Signo Libelli (8056751939) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Sub Signo Libelli (8056755418) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Sub Signo Libelli (8056755831) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Uitgeverij Snood (8056754448) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgave van Yeats Sisters press (8056752773) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van De Heuvelpers (8056752432).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van Het Eikelpersje (8056752916).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van Kunera Pers (8056751363) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van Mikado Pers (8056752407) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van Pastei (8056755311) (2).jpg
- File:Uitgaven van private press De Zilverdistel (8056750879).jpg
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All these files are from Category:Private press images from Royal Library, The Hague and were unfortunately falsely tagged on Flickr as CC-BY-SA, while both the subject is still in copyright and the photographs themselves are not free. The same case as with the previously deleted set here.
--
Husky (talk to me) 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Logos of Club Sarmiento de Ayacucho
[edit]Not "own work" but copyrighted by the Argentine club. Furthermore, the emblems are above the ToO: (not "simple shapes" so {{PD-textlogo}} would not apply in those cases):
- File:Club Atlético Sarmiento (Ayacucho).png
- File:Club Atlético Sarmiento de Ayacucho.png
- File:Laf.JPG
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Fma12 (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Fake license. Modern magazine's cover cant be free. By the way, this image isn't essential. Bilderling (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Uhovam uploaded several pictures on the same subject which were images grabbed from the internet. Moreover, there is no EXIF data in two of these files. Likely copyvios.
- File:Цех Красного в ЦСИ ВИНЗАВОД.jpg
- File:Best of Russia.jpg
- File:Panorama of Centre for Contemporary Art WINZAVOD.jpg
- File:CCA Winzavod.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unlikely grabbed from Internet: the versions available through Internet are newer than these uploads and noone with higher resolution. If we can talk about copyright violations, the uploader copyrights may be infridged by those through Internet who use theese images not attributing their source/author.
- Keep unless other arguments found.
- I rejected also {{speedy}} for another work of this uploader, with the same reason. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I still think the files from this uploader are copyvios. You are right about File:CCA Winzavod.jpg, the website where I found it copied it from Commons. Nevertheless, this image can be found here with the same resolution (but there is no date). Uhovam could also copy it from somewhere not indexed by Google Image or from a place where the image was deleted in the meantime. The fact is that Uhovam is not a reliable source. All of his images (except one) lack EXIF data. They are of different size and quality, so it is very difficult to imagine they are the work of the same person. Some were clearly copyvios: one had the watermark of a website; another one can be found on the official website of this art gallery (this one). So per COM:PRP all these images should be deleted imho. BrightRaven (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I rejected also {{speedy}} for another work of this uploader, with the same reason. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming these files as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Trendfactory (talk · contribs)
[edit]The source, date, and author of these files is either missing or false.
- File:Schaltzentrale Kraftwerk Rottweil.JPG
- File:Wasseraufbereitung.JPG
- File:Turbinensaal.JPG
- File:Kraftwerk Heute.JPG
- File:Garten Eden.JPG
- File:Kolossaal.JPG
- File:Kraftwerk alt von oben.JPG
- File:Villa Duttenhofer Rottweil.JPG
- File:Untere Pulvermühle.JPG
- File:Rottweiler Postkarte.JPG
- File:Obere Pulvermühle.JPG
- File:Max Duttenhofer.JPG
- File:Lageplan Rottweiler Pulvermühlen.JPG
- File:Kraftwerk.JPG
- File:Komplettansicht Rottweiler Pulvermühlen.JPG
- File:Kraftwerk Rottweil.JPG
- File:Industriegebiet.JPG
- File:Fuchslochmühle.JPG
- File:Explosion der Pulverfabrik.JPG
- File:Erweiterte untere Werk.JPG
- File:Veranstaltungsareal Kraftwerk.JPG
- File:Düneberger Postkarte.JPG
Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MOBILISHSCHOOL (talk · contribs)
[edit]stolen from all over the net
- File:學習姿勢.jpg
- File:Bamama.png
- File:Zandb.jpg
- File:Rhna.png
- File:Jbieand.jpg
- File:Obaphone.jpg
- File:Gag.jpg
- File:Medium 4814642375.jpg
- File:Medium 8122861845.jpg
Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
File:محمد الطميحي -إعلامي سعودي -مذيع أخبار ومقدم برامج في قناة العربية في دبي وكاتب اسبوعي في جريدة الرياض السعودية 2014-05-30 13-15.jpg
[edit]
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
This band seems to be unknown to google
91.64.223.183 08:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category Biyografi
[edit]- File:Dr.abdulvahap öztürk.jpg
- File:Mehmet emin emre.JPG
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMRE.jpg
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMRE.JPG
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMREe.JPG
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMREr.jpg
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMREt.JPG
- File:MEHMET EMİN EMREw.JPG
- File:Mehmet Tezçakın Mangal Başında.jpg
- File:Mehmet Tezçakın Sultanahmet Köftecisinin Önünde.jpg
- File:Mehmet Tezçakın.jpg
- File:Seyyit Nezir - Umur'dan.JPG
- File:Tarik-Cayir.jpg
Out of scope: All the images in Category:Biyografi seem to depict non-notable persons in the uploader´s surroundings. No probable educational use. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 17:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Not "own work". Posted in June 2011 at [6] and in Nov. 2011 at [7]. At panoramio, there's a larger version.[8] Picture apparently from before the civil war, which would place it in the late 1980s. Sooo, what about its copyright status? Lupo 22:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Somalia is not a member of the Berne Convention according to [9] (Adams & Adams: Adams & Adams Practical Guide to Intellectual Property in Africa, Pretoria University Law Press 2012, ISBN 978-1-920538-09-5, p. 491. Somailand IP Laws also says so (although more concerned about Somaliland than about Somalia). There does appear to be a Somalian copyright law (sort of): Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977. Text not found online. Lupo 05:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment See [10] 1974 Civil Code (Article 160) reads a little bit like Fair Use. It doesn't state at what point the copyright expires, only that after 15 years there's no penalty anymore. Since there doesn't seem to be any (c) law in Somalia (according to our template) I would go with PD-Somalia until further notice. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cornell's information page doesn't list Somalia in the special cases for "not protected", so I don't see an exclusion available. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 25 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 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
