Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/06/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Scan of a book JurgenNL (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Had to be a copyvio nomination instead of regular DR JurgenNL (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
No evidence for own work of the photograph and the icons. JurgenNL (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio JurgenNL (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Getty Images photos from copa2014.gov.br
[edit]These images are taken from the Brazilian government's 2014 World Cup portal - the site itself is licensed CC, but the photographs are all from Getty Images, like this photo (you can find the rest of the set here).
- File:Javad Nekounam 2014.jpg
- File:Mehrdad Pooladi.jpg
- File:Alireza Haghighi 2014.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 10.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 09.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 08.jpg
- File:Alireza Haghighi, Iran Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-12) 01.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 07.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 06.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 05.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 04.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 03.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 02.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16) 01.jpg
- File:Arena da Baixada, Iran Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16).jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16; fans) 05.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16; fans) 04.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16; fans) 03.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16; fans) 02.jpg
- File:Iran and Nigeria match at the FIFA World Cup (2014-06-16; fans) 01.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete all. Images aren't free, uploader made a mistake. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: (speedydeleted) Files not free (getty), copa2014.gov.br notified -- Steinsplitter (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Getty Images photos from copa2014.gov.br
[edit]Here's another ton of Getty photos from copa2014.gov.br (this time uploaded by Nоvа but it's easier to keep it to one DR)
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(31).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(40).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(39).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(38).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(37).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(36).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(35).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(34).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(33).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(32).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(30).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(29).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(28).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(27).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(5).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(26).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(25).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(24).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(23).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(22).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(21).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(20).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(19).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(18).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(17).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(16).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(15).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(14).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(13).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(12).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(11).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(10).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(9).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(8).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(7).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(6).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(3).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19(2).jpg
- File:Urugvay and England match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-19.jpg
--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Steinsplitter. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
No indication of user's own work on these files, no camera data. User's other images taken with camera which records metadata (other uploads are verified from flickr). Probable COM:COPYVIOs to fill in head shots in a series.
- File:Ange Postecoglou.jpg
- File:Sajjad Shahbazzadeh.jpg
- File:Homayoun Behzadi.jpg
- File:Hamid Derakhshan.jpg (found larger version i.e. here)
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- For File:Hamid Derakhshan.jpg, there is camera data. For other files, they are cropped and I think their data are lost. I will be search for original image and I will upload the originals. Tabarez2 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- File:Homayoun Behzadi.jpg is not my own work. It is uploaded under PD-Iran. Tabarez2 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment ::File:Homayoun Behzadi.jpg has your name as author. Please read PD-Iran, and verify that you have been dead 70 years and/ or provide the first date of publication for that license? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)- Sorry for mistake. I corrected it. Tabarez2 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept 3 per AGF, deleted 1 as externel source can be found. --JuTa 19:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. JuTa 02:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope. Maryse Selit selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts 67.230.140.124 19:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The delete nomination by this Anonymous User is vandalism and appears motivated by some personal agenda against Dr. Selit. A review of the User's IP address indicates their contributions to Wiki started on Nov 8th, when he/she nominated Dr. Selit' wiki article for deletion. From that point forward, this User has made daily delete contributions, all of which (except for one other, presumably to give the appearance of legitimacy) are targeted at this particular subject. Also, this User's stated purpose for deletion, that they are all "selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts", is false and defamatory to the subject. For example, these pics were taken by me and uploaded as such. However, this User claims they are "selfies" that have been "perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts". All false statements of fact that are provable as such. None of the pics I contributed were ever nominated for deletion by any one other than this Anon. User. Also, upon researching the pics contributed by other Wiki users, none of those were either. All deletion requests were made by this User starting Nov 8th. This User's ill-motivated behavior clearly violates Wikipedia's purpose, policies and rules and he/she should be blocked. Thanks. Lmatt123 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celeblawyersnyc for starters; your comments do not address the reason for deletion. 67.230.140.124 17:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As one involved in the last deletion request for these same pictures, I'd point out that
- (a) Wikipedia is not a personal photo album.
- (b) We must protect personal privacy rights. For each of the four images up for deletion, what is pictured is a notable male with one or more non-notable females. The images of the female/s in this and the other three photos up for deletion now are of a presumably living subject/s.
- (c)Wikipedia commons requires that the rights to the images must be absolute. In this case, ownership is disputed by the various uploaders; The author "Lmatt123" claims authorship, "Celeblawyersnyc" made the same claim previously. Not one of the four images contains any informative metadata.
- (d) Poor and low quality reduce the usefulness of many images to the project, including these which are of consistently blurry and poor quality
I will address specific points about each of the four under its own image heading.
- File:Donnie Wahlberg and Maryse Selit.jpg is also very blurry, and while it is larger, it's not educational or within wiki scope. We have other photos in focus of the notable male subject. This document's Metadata shows only that it is a *jpg file, there is no camera data. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jerry Stiller and Maryse Selit.jpg for additional comments. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ellin BeltzYour statement that these are "selfies" which have been "perpetually deleted and re-uploaded" are false and defamatory. Surely, a Wiki editor must know that a "selfie" is a pic taken by a person of themselves. Moreover, you also stated that "Wikipedia is not a personal photo album". By these comments, you are stating in no uncertain terms that Dr. Selit took these pics of herself (have you even looked at the pics?? How in the world could Dr. Selit have accomplished this task???) You also state that they were "deleted and reuploaded perpetually" (i.e. over and over again) when in fact they were NEVER deleted before your request on Nov. 10th and Nov. 19th! As noted when I uploaded the pics, they were taken by me personally. There are numerous pics of Dr. Selit on the web taken by Patrick McMullan and other photographers that have not been uploaded on here. For eg., the pics from last Sunday's Stage and Film Society Ball at the Plaza Hotel of Selit with Steve Buscemi, Stanley Tucci, Peter Gallagher, Juliana Margolies and others.
- Moreover, the Anon. editor's IP address under which they submitted my pics for deletion as well as Celeblawyers plus Selit's Wiki article, was researched and confirmed as belonging to you. So despite your claims that there are two editors who nominated Selit for deletion, both deletion requests on Nov. 10th and Nov. 19th were made by just you. I do not know or care why Celeblawyers did not respond to your nomination but, upon reviewing your history of contributions, almost all of which involve Dr. Selit (and clearly shows a conflict of interest based on Wiki rules), none of the pics uploaded by that user were the same as those I uploaded. As for the quality of my images, they have been shared without issue (eg, the Jerry Stiller and Dr. Selit pic was used by the article on Central Park). Interestingly, I can point to more than half the works on here that do not have meta data and are of poorer quality than my images. This is certainly not grounds for deleting the images and I am happy to provide enhanced versions of the images if need be. Lmatt123 (talk) 3:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
LOLLLL, Celeblawyer's pics were nominated for deletion by Ubcule (talk · contribs); your other accusations are fanciful at best, and not relevant to whether the photos should be deleted. It's moot whether they are "selfies" or simply portraits of a non-notable person. 67.230.140.124 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep -- we only have EIGHT photos of d. wahlberg, no need or reason to reduce it to 7. also, the anonymous-ip nominator is a deletionist suspected SOCKPUPPET on a spree, & apparently has an agenda of removing every single image of the other person in the photo. therefore, not exactly an objective judge. Lx 121 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Lmatt, I find your arguments confused. I didn't nominate these pictures for deletion. I have no history of contributions regarding Dr. Selit other than comments on deletion requests, so there is no possible conflict of interest. I am not the anonymous editor who did nominate these pictures this time, thus your claim of searching the IP address to me is also most confusing. I am also not the original nominator of the photos. I am certain the that the overworked image deletion editors would be happy for your help nominating pictures for deletion that you feel are out of COM:SCOPE by nature of their irrelevance to the project's goals, lack of quality or being "borrowed" from others.
- Lx 121, I don't see that here. I see the same images being uploaded over and over of a non-notable female with a series of notable males. The images are not of good quality and they have been through other deletion discussions. I am not a sock puppet, I am not the anonymous editor who has made the deletion nominations. I don't really think that reducing 8 photos to 7 is a problem. It's not the number of images that counts, it is that the project has better ones than these which are of dubious origin having been uploaded by multiple accounts all of whom claim ownership. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- this is a c&p of the SAME response, to the SAME reply posted on all of the DRs.
- i. "they have been through other deletion discussion -- & yet they are still here. so why are we wasting time doing this all over again?
- ii. "I don't really think that reducing 5 photos to 4 is a problem." -- well, I DO. commons is a media repository, it is our JOB to provide a range of material to choose from.
- iii. "There are many biographies on the project that have no image at all." -- a) commons is NOT wikipedia, so this observation is not directly relevant. & b) i'm, not clear what your point is? are you saying that you would support removing the ONLY photo from a bio, or that you don't feel that providing photos for biographies is important, or...?
- iv. "these which are of dubious origin" -- i REALLY don't think that you have a case for "dubious authorship" here; it's pretty clear what the source is. so that's a null-value arguement.
- v. "I have no history of contributions regarding Dr. Selit other than comments on deletion requests, so there is no possible conflict of interest." -- actually that does nothing to prove a "lack" of conflict of interest. you seem to be interested enough to lurk DR's about her photos. this is a side point, but i'm just pointing out that your agruement is again an invalid one.
- vi. when i see a single-purpose anonymous-ip editor, pursuing a clear & definite agenda (deletionist or not), as is the case here, then i think "SOCK-PUPPET" is a reasonavle suspicion, as per wp:duck. i have no idea whether it's you, or not, but i think it is pretty likely that it's SOMEONE who knows their way around the project(s).
- that said, i'm not ruling out the possibility of sock-puppet violations on BOTH sides here. but the authorship/rights to the photos really aren't in doubt. & perhaps we should investigate BOTH ways?
More hilarious and ill-founded attacks? Sheesh. I would welcome a sock investigation just to put the matter to rest; too bad there is no evidence! I'm still waiting for any of the keep voters to address the reasoning for the deletion: usused, out of scope. 67.230.140.124 02:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- comment: by the way, for a "random" anonymous-ip person, you really do show a REMARKABLE understanding of how things work on commons. what else is one to conclude, other than that you have spent rather more time here, than your user-history seems to indicate... [1] Lx 121 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- AND you turned up on wp/en around the same time, doing the same thing, with the same "freakish" knowledge of how things work on that wiki; INCLUDING citing obscure wp essays, in your edit comments. [2].
- NO WAY are you a "noob". Lx 121 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- & here you go, you wish is granted:
- 1. "unused" is NOT a rationale for deletion. "in-use" is a rationale to prevent deletion, unless a file has copyvio, or other serious problems.
- 2. the file IS NOT "out of scope". it fits into a number of subject-categories, among them, category:Donnie Wahlberg, which contains only 8 photographs, of which only6 are unique images, including this file.
- that being the case, "scope" dictates that we KEEP the file, at least until we can improve the range of d. wahlberg photos we have on file.
- Delete poor quality image of Mr wahlberg, with an unknown person, and no file info to indicate what this is, or metadata to help show the uploader was the photographer. we dont know if the unknown woman is ok with this image, and the image of mr wahlberg is of no use as long as we have better images.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- the "genesis" of this collection of images involved the creation of a promotional wp/en article for ms. selit. the article was properly removed but, given that, we can reasonably assume that the photos were "authorized".
- as for the quality, if you will take a careful look @ his category (8 images in total, but only 6 unique images; the other 2 being dervied works), you will find that this image falls into the same range as most of the others on file. commons' mission is to be a MEDIA REPOSITORY; that means offering a RANGE of materials, for people to use elsewhere, not just collecting "one-of-everything".
- when we have a better range of pics of this person, THEN it might be appropriate to re-consider this one. right now, since we only have the 6 views (including this one), a careful reading of scope would suggest keep, rather than delete.
- respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I offer the same comments I did on the other DRs:
There have been sockpuppet accusations on both sides here, so I did the necessary investigation and can say:
1) Lmatt123 is being disingenuous in saying
- "I do not know or care why Celeblawyers did not respond to your nomination..." (it's actually Celeblawyersnyc)
because Celeblawyersnyc is his or her sockpuppet. It appears likely that Lmatt123 and Celeblawyersnyc are not the same person, but work at the same large organization with central IT. (. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC))
2) 67.230.140.124, the nom here, is not Ellin Beltz. The IP does not show any related Commons user accounts. If there is anything false and defamatory above, it is the accusation of Ellin.
- let's see the results, pls? Lx 121 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete As for the merits of the DR, I see no reason to keep a poor quality image that includes a non-notable person whose images have been repeatedly uploaded and deleted as out of scope. The fact that Lmatt123 has used a sockpuppet as part of this extended campaign only adds to the reason to delete. If Ms. Selit wants to post images of herself on Facebook, that is what Facebook is for. Commons is for educational purposes and we don't need a blurred image of Donnie Wahberg embracing a non-notable person. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- comment -- we have EIGHT photographs of mr. wahlberg. one of those is a duplicate @ different resolution, so that means we really have 7. one of them is cropped from another, so that's now 6. none of them is especially brilliant, & all but 2 of them are of comparable resolution to the one under discussion here.
- AND it's easily within the top 4 pics in the category for showing a clear view of wahlberg's face.
- AND it's the only one where he is smiling...
- the whole point of commons is to provide a SELECTION of free media files. not just "one of each". UNTIL/UNLESS we can increase the number of photos we have on file of this person, it behoves us to keep the few that we have (as per scope).
- and there is no point on harping that it's "a fan pic", or that the other person in the photo is "non-notable" (which, btw is a WIKIPEDIA policy; not entirely relevant to commons...). yes, it's not the best-quality photo, but it's still entirely useable.
- for example, a wiki-quotes piece about wahlberg might use all of the pics we have on file, depending on the length/number-of-quotes. an article about fandom, celebrity meet & greets, something about nkotb then & now, eighties/nineties teen idols, or etc.
- Lmatt123's claims about supposedly having identified Ellin Beltz's IP as the anonymous user behind the CelebLawyersNYC images nomination are particularly silly, since- as was pointed out- the history shows that I (Ubcule) was the one who nominated it, i.e. *not* "67.230.140.124", whoever they are! (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- ummm, NO, the history of THIS DR quite clearly shows that it was started by the anonymous-ip-person [3] Lx 121 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please pay attention. I quite clearly referred to "the CelebLawyersNYC images nomination" (which I did start), not this one (which I obviously didn't). This was a response to Lmatt123's claim that "Moreover, the Anon. editor's IP address under which they submitted my pics for deletion as well as Celeblawyers plus Selit's Wiki article, was researched and confirmed as belonging to [Ellin Beltz]"- which was, of course, risible, since it's quite clear that I- and not that anon IP user- nominated CelebLawersNYC's upload. Ubcule (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- As for the image, my problem is as much the ambiguity surrounding it, since we're supposed to err on the side of caution where the origins and/or rights aren't sufficiently clear. Ubcule (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- as for the image, it seems pretty clear from the above (including the sockpuppet investigation), that the source is the same, is connected with ms. selit, & by all reasonable probability has the rights to the photographs. Lx 121 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Lmatt123's claims about supposedly having identified Ellin Beltz's IP as the anonymous user behind the CelebLawyersNYC images nomination are particularly silly, since- as was pointed out- the history shows that I (Ubcule) was the one who nominated it, i.e. *not* "67.230.140.124", whoever they are! (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is no "reasonable probability" in COM:PRP. These images have been uploaded several times by several different users and deleted at least twice before after deletion nominations, one of which was by Ubcule, the latest one by the anonymous editor who is not me. These images were once attached to a Wikipedia page about Ms. Selit which was also deleted for lack of notability. The history of the repeatedly reappearing images is cogent to the current deletion discussion on which I still vote delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- actually, yes, there IS; prp is not a license to erase anything unless it can be proven to the nth degree: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted."
- in this case we had a (self-)promotional article @ wp/en, we have what are obviously personal (i.e.: non-professional) snapshot photographs which were uploaded for the article, BY the person who created said article.
- that being the case, it is REASONABLE to assume that the uploader had the necessary authorization to upload & license said photographs.
- ironically, "significant doubt" @ wmc is eliminated for the same reason that the article was deleted @ wp/en.
COMMENT -- & now our highly experienced anonymous-IP editor is also a chameleon [4] same person, different numbers...
Lx 121 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's far more likely the result of a dynamic IP address change, as happens regularly with many domestic connections. It's quite obviously from the same range, i.e. not very convincing as an alleged attempt to hide the user's identity. Since in most cases, the ISP allocates the address (not the user), it wouldn't even be possible to get the same one twice in a row anyway without luck and/or repeated reconnection attempts.
- As there's no clear attempt to present themselves as a different user, or leverage this situation, I'd suggest you're being overly suspicious. Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- comment -- & you REALLY think that this person turned up ONE MONTH AGO, with a magical knowledge of how things work on wp/en AND commons? noob users DO NOT use wiki-jargon, they DO NOT refer to obscure wp:essays in their edit comments, they DO NOT demonstrate intimate knowledge of policies, etc.
- as regards the ip-change; major or minor, it STILL makes this user's total activity record untraceable, AND i'd be a lot more convinced of the "incidental" nature of it, if only one set of digits had changed, not 2. the user didn't suddenly move from montreal to toronto (as ip-locations would seem to indicate).
- but the real problem is the first one; this is a user, who jumps among anonymous-ip addresses, making it impossible to keep track of their work, or to block them (if needed). this person is an EXPERIENCED EDITOR who wants to edit without taking any responsibility for their actions or mistakes. that strongly suggests that they are either sockpuppeting, or circumventing a block/ban.
- You said "& you REALLY think that this person turned up ONE MONTH AGO, with a magical knowledge of how things work on wp/en AND commons?"
- You're putting words into my mouth. I said that I didn't think the IP address change was- in itself- an attempt to hide their identity. That's as far as what I said goes. Ubcule (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please pay attention Ellin Beltz, Ubcule and IP User 67.230.140.124. These images were PERSONALLY shot by me and uploaded onto Commons by me almost 2 years ago. During those two years, no one ever nominated them for deletion (except for me personally nominating a couple of duplicate images I had inadvertently uploaded). Thus, the commentary in the DR that these are "selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts" is clearly untrue. Also, given the fact that all of the requests to delete the subject's pics were made by a single Anon. IP whose only contribution to all of Wiki related just to this subject), struck me as highly suspicious.
- However, I do apologize for my comment above that Ellin Beltz and the Anon. IP were one and the same. Unfortunately, when I had clicked on the Anon. IP it took me to Ellin Beltz's talk page and I concluded they were one and the same because Ms. Beltz was supporting all of their DRs using the exact same reasoning and language put forth by that user, when it was obviously untrue. Yes, Ubcule is correct that Celeblawyers pics were nominated for deletion by him, which I overlooked as I was focusing on the pics I had uploaded. However, upon looking at the Celeblawyers deletions closer, those pics too had been uploaded a long time ago and had never been nominated for deletion prior to Ubcule's DR in Oct. 2013. Moreover, those pics were clearly different pics from the ones I had uploaded. Thus, the statement that the pics ownership is disputable because the same pictures have been uploaded by multiple accounts is also incorrect. To summarize, let me restate that, contrary to the allegations that "these are selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts", in fact, these pics were (1) uploaded by me personally two yrs ago; (2) were NEVER nominated for deletion by any one (except myself) prior to Nov. 10th, 2013 when the Anon. IP made their first batch of DRs; (3) they were shot by me PERSONALLY ; (4) their ownership is NOT in dispute; and (5) they were never uploaded by any other account. Lmatt123 (talk) 3:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- (Note; above comment was made at 20:59 on 23 Nov, not at 03:59 on 23 Nov as signature claims(?!)) Ubcule (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- actually, that's a good point; could we please get some objective 3rd party opinion on whether these are the same photos or not? & a clear UPLOAD DATE comparison? Lx 121 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- However, I do apologize for my comment above that Ellin Beltz and the Anon. IP were one and the same. Unfortunately, when I had clicked on the Anon. IP it took me to Ellin Beltz's talk page and I concluded they were one and the same because Ms. Beltz was supporting all of their DRs using the exact same reasoning and language put forth by that user, when it was obviously untrue. Yes, Ubcule is correct that Celeblawyers pics were nominated for deletion by him, which I overlooked as I was focusing on the pics I had uploaded. However, upon looking at the Celeblawyers deletions closer, those pics too had been uploaded a long time ago and had never been nominated for deletion prior to Ubcule's DR in Oct. 2013. Moreover, those pics were clearly different pics from the ones I had uploaded. Thus, the statement that the pics ownership is disputable because the same pictures have been uploaded by multiple accounts is also incorrect. To summarize, let me restate that, contrary to the allegations that "these are selfies perpetually deleted and re-uploaded by multiple accounts", in fact, these pics were (1) uploaded by me personally two yrs ago; (2) were NEVER nominated for deletion by any one (except myself) prior to Nov. 10th, 2013 when the Anon. IP made their first batch of DRs; (3) they were shot by me PERSONALLY ; (4) their ownership is NOT in dispute; and (5) they were never uploaded by any other account. Lmatt123 (talk) 3:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- LMatt123, I personally never claimed the photos in the current nomination(s) were the same as the ones I nominated. Matter of fact, I wasn't convinced that they were.
- That said, the ones I nominated (and which were deleted) were nominated because they were out of scope- that was all there was to it. They should still be visible to admins, AFAIK.
- The fact they'd been around a while and not deleted likely had more to do with the fact that they were languishing out of sight as uncategorised. Generally uncategorised images have a *much* higher chance of being out-of-scope images, and I'd been sorting through them. I'd be less likely to touch new uploads, since those may still be categorised by the uploaders and/or may be intended for permitted personal purposes. After several months, neither of these were likely to apply. Ubcule (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like consensus is in favor of deleting this image as being out of scope FASTILY 22:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, repost of deleted page: see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donnie_Wahlberg_and_Maryse_Selit.jpg Holyoke, mass (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete This image is a crop from the image of the same name that was deleted previously. This image was, therefore, uploaded out of process, breaking Commons rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
reposts of deleted pages by User:Celeblawyersnyc
[edit]unused, out of scope, both previously deleted after discussion. --Holyoke, mass (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Since these were uploaded out of process, they qualified as {{Speedy}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Reason given by User:Codename Lisa: This image is not simple geometry as claimed. In fact, it is a screenshot of Adobe Photoshop, a proprietary computer program. Hence, it is non-free. Rillke(q?) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have restored this screenshot because it only shows common controls from the operating system's library. Adobe's only work was arranging these controls in the dialog, which is IMHO far away from a creative work as required by copyright law. -- Rillke(q?) 18:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Hi. In response to Rillke, I must say that IMHO:
- the layout itself is eligible for copyright protection (c.f. File:Windows 8.1 Taskbar.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 Taskbar.PNG)
- the common controls, which come from a non-free operating system, are also copyright protected because gradient and light source for 3D effects are considered copyright-protected. (c.f. File:Windows logo - 2006.svg and File:Windows logo - 2002.svg)
- Note for newcomers: Clicking on the red links reveals deletion logs and reasons given. So, don't look down on them just because they are red.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- If I read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 Taskbar.PNG correctly, it wasn't deleted because the layout would exceed the threshold of originality but because there are many entities.
- File:Global Replace 0.3.png looks like a Mac screenshot. I highly doubt it's therefore eligible for copyright despite the shadows and gradients. But if we would find it is, we cannot take screenshots of non-free operating systems at all. -- Rillke(q?) 07:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Future people will simply take only the head, what all was deleted here. In our time, a simple gradient or a shade or shine, in my view, has no original authorship. Anyway they are many free buttons like this. Must not have a copyright or a level of creative a significant difference⁇ PS: Copyright infringement means "made into a very similar work", see also w:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.#Circuit Court case "Since the buttons are essential to operating ..., their layout cannot be copyrighted.". → User: Perhelion 09:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kept: Thank you for the input. Per @Rillke I have opened a more general DR over here. Please transfer your comments if appropriate. --McZusatz (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
hay un error en la descripcion quiero volver a rediseñar Rogaza (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as request by uploader on day of upload. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Very strong doubts about own work, especially in view of the fact that the file uploader was blocked in the English Wikipedia for destructive editing and extensive sockpuppetry. At least OTRS from a public figure needed. Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- And EXIF missing of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- And the user instead of providing the proof that this is indeed his own file engaged into an edit war over the FFD template.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for now- I'd be very careful about deleting this. It's clearly a very sensitive political topic, but that shouldn't get in the way of hosting the file here (i.e., "no censorship" may apply). Whichever side you are on politically, a photo of deputies in the Rada wearing t-shirts saying "Putin F* you" is important information. The EXIF information may have been removed for privacy/personal safety reasons. Nevertheless, if somebody could show that the Rada does not have a balcony where the public can take photos, I'd politely ask the uploader to explain how the photo was obtained, and ask for an OTRS ticket. If that can't be provided, only then would I delete it. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- My concern is not the content of the file, which I have no problem with, but a small size, no EXIF, absence of the public access to the Rada (the uploader can be a registered media reporter though), and the reputation of the uploader. EXIF can be supplied via OTRS for example, and then I would be fine with keeping the file.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for now-Це моє власне фото, яке я зробив з мобільного телефону Nokia Lumia 525 в приміщенні Верховної Ради України (під час перерви у пленарному засіданні) з балкону для гостей та преси!!! Будь ласка, досить займатися відкритим вандалізмом! Окремо зазначу, що є ще фото зроблено з дозволу Народного депутата України Матіос Марії Василівни! (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Марія_Матіос.jpg) --Jeromjerom (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I see that you also canvassed people on the English Wikipedia (evading your block there). Very nice of you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- And of course since you are lying all around, I have zero trust in what you are saying.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Авжеж, адже світ повинен знати, хто є насправді Путін! А те, що я прошу інших вікіпедистів розмістити фото на сторінку це Вас не повинно стосуватися! Це вже нагадує переслідування! А з приводу вашого "вірю-невірю" - мені якось байдуже! Я вам відповів і тому прошу Вас невдаватися знову до вандалізма! Живіть з миром!. --Jeromjerom (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dat is wel fijn dat je een lang gebruik dat ik geen bal van snap, maar dat is toch moelijk te ontkennen dat je een leugenaar bent. Ik hoop dat de sluitende administrator zal toch een otrs bevestiging eisen.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Авжеж, адже світ повинен знати, хто є насправді Путін! А те, що я прошу інших вікіпедистів розмістити фото на сторінку це Вас не повинно стосуватися! Це вже нагадує переслідування! А з приводу вашого "вірю-невірю" - мені якось байдуже! Я вам відповів і тому прошу Вас невдаватися знову до вандалізма! Живіть з миром!. --Jeromjerom (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -
Very useful image (says a lot about the cultural level of some Ukrainian politicians), butI'm afraid it's stolen from the web and we cannot keep it here. --A.Savin 20:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC) - I found the same photo published in Twitter before Commons (link) and it has note about author ("Kisa Ivanova",
the OTRS letter received (2014062110007407) doesn't confirm authorship.working on the permission rubin16 (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Delete rubin16 (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC) - my small investigation: I looked through publications of this photo through the Net, a lot of them attribute to ("Kisa Ivanova, durdom.in.ua"). I found that post in durdom.in.ua (link) where we see the full version of photo (link) and author "Kisa Ivanova" says that it's a source file. So, it's definitely not the work of Jeromjerom, it's likely to be fake at all (as source photo with full view shows another titles on the T-shirts), it seems that Jeromjerom is intentionally cheating with copyright and image info here: the initial version was mirrored (link), the image itself is cropped and magnified to make it more difficult to check original version of the file; furthermore, EXIF data were inserted but based on the full version of photo (my link above) those EXIF data, from my point of view, are fake. I think that image should be deleted and user blocked for intentional cheating rubin16 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. Я думаю, что следует оставить изображение. По крайней мере я вижу наконец-то EXIF-данные, которые вряд ли поддельные. --193.238.39.99 10:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as fake. This photo is higher quality and looks like base for the photo under investigation, which is lower quality, and seems to be scalled up. It does not look like an original photo from a any camera. Ankry (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's 100% fake from this one. --A.Savin 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per above. --A.Savin 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
From this video. License statement: [5] requires a backlink, so only online usage. Free enough? Lupo 20:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Hmm I don't think that this is free enough Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Purportedly a movie character. 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) 16:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope:poor description, no realistic educational purpose. BrightRaven (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
From the description I guess that this is the personal logo of User:Fotografoluis. It is unused and apart from this upload, the user has only one (visible) further edit at Commons (creating the user page) and no further edits on any Wikimedia project. Pretty much out of scope, I'd say. El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
La voy a borrar porque va a desparecer para que la vuelva a subir. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks very much like a scan from a print, so authorship appears questionable. El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, no description, source, author or categories. Looks like a KDE-screenshot, so the license is probably OK. However, since the authors of the software are not attributed, the license requirements are not met. I can't read the text in the windows, so I've no idea if it's worth keeping it. El Grafo (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If the author is unknown, how can we assume {{PD-old-90}}? El Grafo (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal image. El Grafo (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Description states that it's from a film. 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) 10:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" (13 KB, no EXIF) 37.5.5.124 14:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to File:Mae Mina.jpg. This would appear to be a portrait of Felismina Carolina Filgueiras (1827 - 1905) who was either the mother or the wife of Brazilian politician Antônio Pinto Nogueira Acioly. In the portrait she appears quite young, so it is safe to assume it was painted sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century and therefore it is a PD-100. Green Giant (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ethical concerns. Uploader has only uploaded this one image, and added it to the category "Lolita". This is an image of a minor that could be considered suggestive, it is not used on any article, and I am certain the model would not be comfortable with her image being on commons in this manner. Freikorp (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 26 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. Additional potential copyright issues as this is tiny, has no metadata and the artifacts in the photo appear similar to those in video stills. Storkk (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, right, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, fires at a 300-meter target while U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, records her 120507-F-MQ656-070.jpg
[edit]privacy protection 75.191.168.246 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep What privacy do they have for us to protect, given that they've already been publicised by the army itself? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, foreground, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fires at a 300-meter target as Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, records his 120507-F-MQ656-032.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep This image is public domain due to it being taken by a member of the US military working as a official photographer. Articseahorse (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per others. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per othets and also no proof of who is the ip. Tm (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope - private photo of a non-notable person Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be an unused selfie? El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Depuis la date d'inscription elle n'a pas été utilisé, je demande la suppression de cette image de la base de données. cordialement Maltin75 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Antalya doğumlu türk fotoğrafcıdır-Aynı zamanda İstanbul ve Samsunda bilinen AKD photography'nin sahibidir- 2014-06-16 21-54.jpg
[edit]unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Low-res version of a professional (commercial?) video. Uploader appears unlikely to hold the copyright. El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Passes COM:TOO 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) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of sculpture by living artist Duane Flatmo. The photo is own work of uploader, but the sculpture is copyright the artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 26 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) 11:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Text document, unused on project, description calls it personal, emotive and descriptive, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The date of publishing appears (from looking at the website it was taken from) to be 2010, therefore not before 1966, the photograph was apparently taken in 1943, so the other two criteria cannot apply Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
JPEG copy of an SVG flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unidentified individual, possible prank on somebody else or a vanity upload, not usable as it stands now without verifiable description, sole upload by new account whose sole edit to English Wikipedia (Mug shot) has already been reverted. Reify-tech (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 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) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. It was one of the fantasy works that banned user Rolandodeynigo created as personal blasons. Furthermore, the file is not in use in any Wiki project. Fma12 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, actually it isin use - see Special:GlobalUsage/Escudo de Iñiguez.png --JuTa 01:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- In this case, I withdraw my nomination and you can close the DR if you consider this issue finished. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that this image makes no claim to own work and user's only other upload [:File:El Pulpo Mechanico.jpg]] does clearly make an own work claim. Image is stated to be "source spectator at Kinectic Grand Championship" which is probably accurate, however it is not possible for the uploader to license someone else's picture as is done here. Possible COM:COPYVIO for not own work of uploader as well as copyright infringement on the rights of the living artist. Uploader contributed only two photographs to the project, both of sculptures by this living artist. The other photo was taken with a Canon, this one with a phone. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, description seems to state it's 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) 16:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. 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) 16:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File needs an OTRS ticket 37.5.5.124 17:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" without EXIF 37.5.5.124 07:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of no realistic educational value. 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) 11:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
this map is not useful. really Antemister (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unknown country of origin. Unclear copyright status in country of origin, not old enough to simply assume PD-old. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:OEQ-8tBQ71U.jpg which concerns a higher resolution version of this same photograph. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Source dates the picture to 1910. d'Herelle was in Mexico 1909-1911. On a side note, this image is used by quite a few articles, so don't be too heavy on the trigger finger please. --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work". Here's a version of 2009 http://bnode.org/blog/2009/07/08/the-semantic-web-not-a-piece-of-cake 37.5.5.124 12:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Day 1 as a Carolina Panther, Trai Turner shows up ready to show off his talent- 2014-06-01 23-11.jpg
[edit]Small size, no metadata, appears to be 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) 11:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 26 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) 16:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You could make any coat of arms into a banner. This seems out of scope unless this was actually used, of which we have no proof. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: File is not clearly out of scope. Any concerns should be added to talk page — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I renominate the file because I consider it out of scope, due to it was one of the fantasy works that banned user Rolandodeynigo created as personal blasons. Furthermore, the file is not in use in any Wiki project. - Fma12 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton holding Prince George oil painting.jpg. Very probably a derivative work. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton holding Prince George oil painting.jpg. Very probably a derivative work. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 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) 16:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Packaging of ice cream specialty is unlikely to be own work of uploader and possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a quote from the "fair use" wikipedia page:
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
The use of copyrighted materials falls into the responsibility of the person using the image. My use of this image falls within the fair use examples: commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
So... you have to ask yourself... are you trying to follow copyright law or are you limiting the educational value of my post?
I predict that you will disregard what I just wrote and continue deleting my and many others' posts but know that you are not helping Wikipedia. You are hurting it and making it less of an educational tool and more of a legal dispute.
And to respond to your "talk" page: How is anyone supposed to know the difference between Wikipedia, WikiMedia and WikiMedia Commons? I think it would be a safe to conjecture that if you were to ask 99% of the people the use Wikipedia they probably couldn't tell you either. So... it seems you are creating a little world where the only people that can contribute is you and your 1%. Good luck making this accessable to the rest of the world. You are contributing to a project that was made to benefit everyone but have made it so overcomplicated that an honest contributor can't help provide information that would expand knowledge on a subject.
Comment Since you identify the anonymous message left a message on my talk page as yours, and you bring it up here, I am copying the entire text to this location for clarity:
- This is a quote from the "fair use" wikipedia page:
- Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
- The use of copyrighted materials falls into the responsibility of the person using the image. My use of this image falls within the fair use examples: commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
- So... you have to ask yourself... are you trying to follow copyright law or are you limiting the educational value of my post?
- I predict that you will disregard what I just wrote and continue deleting my and many others' posts but know that you are not helping Wikipedia. You are hurting it and making it less of an educational tool and more of a legal dispute.
- Hi anonymous editor: I am afraid you are mistaken in one small, but critical, detail. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. The rules about fair use on Wikipedia are not available on Wikimedia Commons where there is no fair use. Please see Commons:Fair use and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not Wikipedia for a full discussion of the topic. You wrote " My use of this image falls within the fair use examples: commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship." but included no indication of your user name or the image URL in question. If you wish to continue the dialog, including your signature and/or the image about which you are upset. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid you are confusing the two projects and their policies and guidelines. Perhaps take a couple of minutes and read Commons:Fair use and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not Wikipedia to see the differences between the two projects? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Simple yes/no
Question for user:23.112.149.34: did you design or commission the actual image in the photo? If the answer is yes, then please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the format at COM:ET to confirm. If you didn't design/commission it then you don't have the legal authority to upload the image to Commons. Whether or not there is confusion between Commons and Wikipedia is beside the point. Many of us have fallen foul of that distinction when we first started uploading and writing articles but we got to grips with it. - Delete unless evidence is provided of permission from the copyright holder. Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: We donot accept fair use at commons Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader took only own works for this photomontage 37.5.5.124 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 26 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) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of no realistic educational value. 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) 11:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 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. Additional potential copyright issues as a photo-of-a-photo: more information would be required regarding the original photographer. Storkk (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal image not in use on a user page. Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 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) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Copy of http://www.gerard-tomasso.com/Gerard-Tomasso-Page-Accueil-02.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 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) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader Peanuthaus has permission to upload this picture. At least, he/she fails to give evidence about that The Banner (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused (except to vandalize esWiki [see uploader's Global contribs]), poor quality, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No evidence for own work of the profile images JurgenNL (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 26 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) 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Small enough that it's almost certainly not his own work. Probably a picture of a picture or otherwise a copyvio Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 26 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) 10:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unusable low quality Didym (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a still from a video. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No metadata, looks like a professionally shot 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) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 26 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) 10:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks professionally shot or extracted from video: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 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) 16:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
nothing to see Biopics 08:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I added a "note" where the crab is in the photo. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Official logo of Szigetszentmiklósi TK, not the uploader's own work. Imho too complex to keep as PD. Should be moved to the wikis using it (if fair use is an option there). El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Mistake: it is a "new version" of other photo of me: Tange Takamatsu-1979.jpg Bigjap (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
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) 16:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Quiero borarla porque voy a subirla. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 26 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) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably passes COM:TOO 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) 10:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 4ing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: from http://acento.photoshelter.com/image/I0000_5CYPZ9HRxo Ankry (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Image taken in 1967 in Vaticano, declared here to be Associated Press file. I am not too familiar with US copyright according to press photos, so can't determine whether it might be already PD or not. Commonly used. Ankry (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Whether it's an AP or an Editora Acento SAS owned photo, the earliest it would become PD in the US is 2062 (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm). --Holdek (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Theoretically, i cound be PD only if first published without a copyright notice. But I agree, it is unlikely for an AP photo. Ankry (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: check again in 2063 Ankry (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the owner of the used photo. JurgenNL (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright likely owned by CNN. More information on the original publication would be needed to ascertain whether it might have fallen into the public domain. Storkk (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
superseeded by File:SiCl3F.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a snapshot of a copyrighted material, so it it also protected -Albertojuanse (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the first page of a newspaper is not subject to copyright. I bought the two newspapers and photographed in my house. If I have photographed it in the kiosk would also have violated copyright?--Libertad 17 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, It depends on how trivial is the use of copyrighted material, as it is explained on Commons:De minimis. For example, this case would be acceptable because the copyrighted material is not the main topic of the picture and the showing of each magazine is trivial, but in this case the main topic are the three newspaper, so is not acceptable. There is a lot of legal stuff in all of this, but in general you cannot make a snapshot of copyrighted material except in very rarely ocations. And this one would not, even if it is on the kiosko. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS: the protected material is not the first page, but the pictures that appears in them. If them are removed, it would be maybe acceptable.
- Comment In fact, the text is also copyrighted and it's obviously a distinguishable element in the front cover. On the other hand, Libertad 17, you buy a newspaper issue, but not its copyright. If you purchase a reproduction of Picasso's Guernica it doesn't make you the owner of its copyright. -- Discasto 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant fair use. --Taichi (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Non delete: In Spain the first page of a newspaper is not subject to copyright.--Altorrijos (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Altorrijos, have you got any kind of law, or something like that, that prove this? Thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious Derivative work. The same could apply to File:Portadasdiarios20junio2014 001.jpg, as the text in the front cover of the newspaper is not obviously in the public domain? -- Discasto 14:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC) PS: the Spanish legislation does not include any proviso regarding the front cover of a newspaper.
- I think that this idea can be due to some kind of misunderstanding because in Spain the newspapers are used to upload their front cover everyday so that the TV news can show them; but I don't think the law says nothing about it. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Glad to read you, Discasto, whoever you are :)
|
Warning: One or more elements in this file are protected by copyright
Some parts of this file are not fully free but believed to be de minimis for this work. Derivatives of this file which focus more on the non-free element(s) may not qualify as de minimis and may be copyright violations. As a direct consequence, cropped versions of this file may require a review of their copyright status. This information template was included because That is because the images are partially covered or unrecognizable, so that cannot be prejudical to the interest of the copyright holders of those works. |
|
- Those pictures are not partially covered or unrecognizable... Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 26 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) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, looks like a crop of a still from a TV broadcast. Suspected copyright violation. Storkk (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (Image created in photoshop, most likely of the uploader himself). Possibly a minor, too. Nymf (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 26 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) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 26 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) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims and probably not the uploader's own work. Based on the file's metadata, the author is an employee of StampReklamefoto.dk, but based on the user name, I'm guessing the uploader is an employee of Skanderups Efterskole. Aside from correct source and authorship information, we'll also need verified permission to confirm whether the uploader is authorised to sublicense the photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Food packaging at center of image and point of image (see description), is probably a COM:COPYVIO despite being the own photo of the uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 26 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) 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo of computer screen showing an image. Unclear whether that is some movie, or a photo, and whether it might be "own work". In any case, not exactly useful. Lupo 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE - private photo of a non-notable individual Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:57, 26 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) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Also nominated:
The uploader contributed these images in the good-faith belief that they were covered under the Nationaal Archief donation and accordingly tagged them with {{Nationaal Archief-license}}. However, that donation covered only a very limited set of images. The Nationaal Archief has since released many additional images into the public domain or under free licences, but the majority of its images are still non-free.
The images in this request are from National Archief Collection 2.24.01.03, which is one of the collections containing freely licensed or public domain content. However, unlike the free images in this collection, the National Archief metadata for these images does not indicate that they are free. (This is probably because the photos are credited to Keystone, an American photo company, and not ANEFO.) Psychonaut (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, foreground, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fires at a 300-meter target as Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, records his 120507-F-MQ656-032.jpg
[edit]privacy protection Bane44$$254 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep What privacy do they have for us to protect, given that they've already been publicised by the army itself? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, right, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, fires at a 300-meter target while U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, records her 120507-F-MQ656-070.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep This is U.S. Air Force photo VIRIN number 120507-F-MQ656-032 publicly posted to defenseimagery.mil. I don't see how it could possibly be a privacy concern, as the U.S. military explicitly is promoting this photo. —RP88 01:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep This image is public domain due to it being taken by a member of the US military working as a official photographer. Articseahorse (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per others. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per othets and also no proof of who is Bane44$$254. Tm (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have uploaded this file with the incorrect license. The CC license applies to the text on the source page, not to the images. Rhys.lewis (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope as not realistically useful for an educational purpose- non-notable band, image not even used on a user page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a commercially-used shot of some kind. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: I’d say it is pretty much in scpe, being a great toilet stencil style icon of which we have precious few (see the cats I added). However, it should still be deleted as it is a copyright violation of http://itunes.apple.com/mx/app/banos-cercanos/id454278051?mt=8 — too bad. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Scan of document where uploader is not likely to be the original creator and therefore copyright holder. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo of a photo. May be Public Domain, but more information about the original date, author and location is needed to ascertain that. Storkk (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
To delete immediatly. The man on the picture has a badge claiming that he doesn't want to be photgraphied. Shonagon (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted but not by me Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 26 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) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ik verklaar hierbij dat ik de auteur en/of de enige eigenaar van de exclusieve auteursrechten ben op het werk dat als bijlage in deze mail gevonden kan worden. Ik verklaar hierbij dit werk te publiceren onder de vrije licentie CC-BY-SA. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik altijd de rechten van mijn werk behoud en het recht behoud om met mijn naam vermeld te worden volgens de gekozen licentie.Ik verklaar dat ik eenieder het recht geef om het werk te gebruiken in een commercieel product en het te wijzigen naar behoefte. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat de vrije licentie alleen auteursrechten betreft en behoud mij het recht voor om actie te ondernemen tegen eenieder die met het gebruik andere restricties schendt, zoals handelsmerkrestricties of portretrechten, dan wel gebruik voor smadelijke doeleindeinden e.d. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik deze verklaring niet in kan trekken, en dat het werk permanent kan worden bewaard op een Wikimedia-project.
Was aanwezig bij de sessie en zag de persoon die originele bericht publiceerde de foto nemen.
21 juni 2014, Gsgarcha
No evidence for own work; no exif data and many copyvios uploaded by the uploader. Per COM:PCP JurgenNL (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, left, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, goes over his score card with Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, during the first day 120507-F-MQ656-040.jpg
[edit]privacy protection Bane44$$254 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is U.S. Air Force photo VIRIN number 120507-F-MQ656-040 publicly posted to defenseimagery.mil. I don't see how it could possibly be a privacy concern, as the U.S. military explicitly is promoting this photo. —RP88 01:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This image is public domain due to it being taken by a member of the US military working as a official photographer. Articseahorse (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Public domain. OccultZone (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep As for the other two similar nominations. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per othets and also no proof of who is the Bane44$$254. Tm (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 June 20#File:Club building at Marist College.jpg. This is the file which was uploaded by w:User:Trppo. Stefan4 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Old painting, not the uploader's own work. Might be old enough to be in the public domain, but essential information about author and publication date are missing. El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 26 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) 16:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused Maryse Selit photos
[edit]- File:Maryse Selit and Memhet Oz.jpg
- File:Magician, Michael Chaute and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Anthony Rubio and Dr. Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Victor dE Souza and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit and Steve Buscemi.jpg
- File:Steve Buscemi and Maryse Selit.JPG
- File:Author, Virginia Postrel and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Dr. Maryse Selit and Virginia Postrel.jpg
- File:Katt Williams and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:John Procaccino, Pam McKinnon and Maryse Selit.JPG
- File:Dr. Memhet Oz and Maryse Selit.jpeg
- File:Dr. Oz and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Memhet Oz and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Peter Gallagher and Maryse Selit.jpg
- File:Maryse Selit and Peter Gallagher.JPG
All unused and out of scope; all photos of a particular non-notable person (Selit) posing with celebrities. Most photos are low quality; better photos exist of the celebrities in each photo, so there's no compelling reason to keep any of these.
Photos of Maryse Selit are persistenly uploaded by multiple accounts. See here and here for background. Wikipedia entry on Selit deleted twice.
--Holyoke, mass (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted several of these as {{Speedy}} because they are out of process uploads of images previously deleted, or images very close to images previously deleted, all of which broke the letter or spirit of our rules. Delete I agree that the remainder listed above should be deleted. Commons is not Facebook. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhupendra singh airy (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
- File:Bhuppi 2014-06-16 09-25.jpg
- File:Bhupendra singh airy 2014-06-16 09-24.jpg
- File:Bhupendra singh airy 2014-06-15 21-20.jpg
Didym (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
text only, can be writtento some wikipedia Motopark (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arifullah1khan (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
- File:I wanna become famous scientist in the world 2014-06-20 03-40.jpg
- File:It's my pic- I took it at PF museum Park 2014-06-20 03-36.jpg
Didym (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Images contain metadata from many different cameras, among them: Nikon Coolpix L18, Sony DSLR-A200, Nikon D80, Nikon D300s and Sony DSC-T70. Other images (not part of this request because they already had dedicated requests) are taken with Canon EOS 500D and Fujifilm Finepix S205EXR. The rest are without meta data. While all images are on a similar subject they all very greatly in meta data and resolution. Unlikely that these are own work.
- File:Surgut Bridge.jpg
- File:Pumiao Bridge.jpg
- File:Goega Bridge - east section.jpg
- File:达孜大桥.jpg
- File:Guangzhao Dam.jpg
- File:Goupitan Dam.jpg
- File:Shuibuya Dam.jpg
- File:Haicang Bridge in Xiamen.jpg
- File:Lancang River Bridge (Xiangyun-Lincang Highway).jpg
- File:Ganzhou Bridge.jpg
- File:Another Time-Edit.jpg
- File:Shantou Bay Bridge.jpg
- File:Wanzhou-Second-Bridge.jpg
- File:CQyuzuibridge.jpg
ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user images, out of project scope
- File:我救命恩人【傳說哥哥~*】.jpg
- File:人生大挑戰 2.jpg
- File:反宗教詐騙.jpg
- File:宇宙無神佛 4.jpg
- File:宇宙無神佛 3.jpg
- File:宇宙無神佛 2.jpg
- File:宇宙無神佛.jpg
- File:小草姐姐~*.jpg
- File:天地五界元老英姿.jpg
- File:事實不認知，還有明天嗎！.jpg
- File:瞎掰宗教頭子.jpg
- File:小草姐姐.jpg
- File:人生大挑戰.jpg
- File:人生字典.jpg
- File:宇宙歷史.jpg
- File:光輝的明天.jpg
- File:五界元老作畫的寫意真情.jpg
- File:中華民國人類真相推廣協會.jpg
- File:渡陽雪月寒青天.jpg
- File:Las Vagas 2013-12-24 09-20.png
Didym (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
An unused image which is in several non-existent categories and doesn't seem to have much to do with the valid categories it has. Has been unused since April of 2009, nominating it for out of COM:SCOPE must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Image taken in 1970. Uploader has already uploaded other images as own work which were clearly not his work. Unlikely own work claim. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Lack of source information beyond "own work", and lack of description. Can't establish educational value.
- File:Aljlabi.pdf
- File:لن تلحد للامام ابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري 3ميجا.pdf
- File:خلق آدم على صورة الرحمن لابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري 1.pdf
- File:تباريح التباريح للامام ابن عقيل الظاهري.pdf
- File:21mالمورد الأحلى مختصر محلى ابن حزم ملف واحد.pdf
- File:الاحاديث المسندة في كتاب المحلى لابن حزم الظاهري من مسالة 1751 و حتى مسالة 2312 جمعا و تخريجا و دراسة.pdf
- File:الجامع من الايصال لابن حزم الظاهري.pdf
- File:المحلى جزء1 لابن حزم.pdf
- File:المحلى جزء سبعة للامام ابي محمد ابن حزم الظاهري.pdf
- File:بطلان حديث من عشق فعف لابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري.pdf
- File:البرهان على تحسين حديث سلمان لابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري .pdf
- File:المعاني المستنبطة من الفاتحة للامام ابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري رضي الله عنه.pdf
- File:حاشية على تفسير الفاتحة للبيضاوي لاحمد بن محمد .pdf
- File:العجمان وزعيمهم راكان بن حثلين لابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري .pdf
- File:خلق آدم على صورته لابي عبدالرحمن ابن عقيل الظاهري.pdf
--ghouston (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Spaarnestad uploads by Andrew69.
[edit]- File:Gerő Ernő.jpg
- File:Rákosi Mátyás.jpg
- File:Nagy Imre.jpg
- File:Maléter Pál.jpg
- File:Puskás Ferenc.jpg
- File:Kiprich Feyenord and Theo Bos Vitesse.jpg
The uploader contributed these images in the good-faith belief that they were covered under the Nationaal Archief donation and accordingly tagged them with {{Nationaal Archief-license}}. However, that donation covered only a very limited set of images. The Nationaal Archief has since released many additional images into the public domain or under free licences, but the majority of its images are still non-free.
The images in this request are from the Spaarnestad collection. Many Spaarnestad images are indeed free, but these particular ones aren't marked as such in the Nationaal Archief catalogue. In fact, the Archief has no source information whatsoever for most of these images. (The sole exception is File:Kiprich Feyenord and Theo Bos Vitesse.jpg, which is credited to Toussaint Kluiters.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Self-created artwork and private picture only used on the user page of a user without any useful contribution to the project. Out of scope, self-promotion.
BrightRaven (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iblakeman13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files. Paintings by non notable artist Blake Callahan, so out of scope. It is unclear whether the uploader is the artist, so it could be a copyvio too.
BrightRaven (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lino Torres (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probably the uploader's family. No descriptions, no categories, unused. Some so-called "own works".
- File:Tomas accioly.png
- File:C P A.jpg
- File:Avô Doca.jpg
- File:Bisavó Maria Pereira Damasceno.jpg
- File:T R M.jpg
- File:L P C T.jpg
- File:J A G T.jpg
- File:Y P T.jpg
- File:L C P T.jpg
- File:E L C P.jpg
- File:L P T.jpg
37.5.5.124 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Brazil-Mexico photos by Getty Images from copa2014.gov.br
[edit]These photos are posted on copa2014.gov.br, where the original content is licensed CC, but the Getty Images photos are still copyrighted.
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (1).jpg Exif: Photo by Buda Mendes/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (10).jpg Exif: Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (11).jpg Exif: Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (12) (cropped).jpg Exif: Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (12).jpg Exif: Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (13).jpg Exif: Photo by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (14).jpg Exif: Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (15).jpg Exif: Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (16).jpg Exif: Photo by Pool/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (2).jpg Exif: Photo by Alex Livesey - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (3).jpg Exif: Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (4).jpg Exif: Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (5).jpg Exif: Photo by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (6).jpg Exif: Photo by Buda Mendes/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (7).jpg Exif: Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (8).jpg Exif: Photo by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17 (9).jpg Exif: Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images
- File:Brazil and Mexico match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-17.jpg Exif: Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images
- File:Andrés Guardado World Cup.jpg Exif: Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images
- File:Héctor Herrera.jpg Exif: Photo by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images
- File:Oribe Peralta World Cup.jpg Exif: Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images
And these photos are from a different match but similarly affected:
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18.jpg Exif: Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (9).jpg Exif: Photo by Jeff Mitchell - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (8).jpg Exif: Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (7).jpg Exif: Photo by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (6).jpg Exif: Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (5).jpg Exif: Photo by Jeff Mitchell - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (4).jpg Exif: Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (3).jpg Exif: Photo by Jeff Mitchell - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (2).jpg Exif: Photo by Jeff Mitchell - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (21).jpg Exif: Photo by Jeff Mitchell - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (22).jpg Exif: Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (23).jpg Exif: Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (15).jpg Exif: Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (16).jpg Exif: Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (18).jpg Exif: Photo by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
- File:Croatia and Cameroon match at the FIFA World Cup 2014-06-18 (19).jpg Exif: Photo by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
Ytoyoda (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Brazil and Mexico foto, This is not a photo Getty Images it photo Photographer Portal Danilo Borges/Portal da Copa. JukoFF (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Which Brazil and Mexico photo? I listed over 20, and I thought I made sure to only list ones that were credited to Getty Images, but please let me know if I made an error and I can remove from the list. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @JukoFF: Which one do you mean? I checked all of the listed files and according to their Exif, they're all attributed to Getty Images. ■ MMXX talk 19:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, photos attributed to Getty Images. ■ MMXX talk 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
These small files are probably taken from a website and need an OTRS ticket
37.5.5.124 10:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FirmaLeutz (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files seem to be marketing materials for some kind of solder mask product. Unused and poorly described, so not likely to be of education use, so out of project scope?
- File:Zusammenfassung der Messergebnisse-Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Vergleich GfK-Maskierung-Titan-Maskierung.JPG
- File:Grundlagen zur Prozessüberwachung Standard-Lötrahmen.JPG
- File:Probelötungen mit Titan-Lötmaske.JPG
- File:Probelötungen mit Titan-Lötmaske2.JPG
- File:Grundlagen zur Prozessüberwachung Standard-Lötrahmen2a.JPG
- File:Bwertung 2-Messung-Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Grundlagen zur Prozessüberwachung Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Auswertung Lötvorrichtung mit 4mm GfK-Maskierung.JPG
- File:Bwertung 1-Messung-Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Auswertung Lötvorrichtung mit 3mm Titan-Maskierung.JPG
- File:Auswertung 2-Messung-Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Auswertung 1-Messung-Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Auswertung Lötvorrichtung mit 3mm Titan-Maskierung2.JPG
- File:Aktuelle Prozessparameter Leistungsteil.JPG
- File:Aktuelle Bewertung der Lötergebnisse-Röntgen Durchstieg.JPG
- File:Aktuelle Bewertung der Lötergebnisse-Röntgen Durchstieg2.JPG
- File:Vergleich Lötmasken.JPG
--ghouston (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amihandesosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks
- File:Self portrait in pen and ink.jpg
- File:Dear, deer.jpg
- File:Vgetables of the loom.JPG
- File:Fruits of doom.JPG
- File:Reproduction of oil painting.JPG
BrightRaven (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of com:scope Natuur12 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by VerneuilDidier (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:DAVID_SERERO_2014.jpg has EXIF crediting the image to Studio Gigi Robb, where I can find no mention of the uploader, VerneuilDidier (talk · contribs). Uploader's claim of {{Own}} work on both photographs is doubtful. Uploader, if you are the copyright holder, please confirm this via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Thanks for your message. I'm gonna send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the photographer email to allow the copyright on wiki commons. Would that be ok? Thanks in advance and very sorry for that mistake? Thanks Didier — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerneuilDidier (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC) preceding comment copied from User_talk:Storkk [6] Storkk (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Didier, that would be perfect. Please make sure you read COM:OTRS - often copyright holders say something like "Of course you can use it on Wikipedia". Unfortunately, that is not an acceptable license for Commons - the license needs, for example, to allow for commercial use. See COM:L. Best regards, and I hope we can keep the photos! Storkk (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT INVASION - TAXI IMAGE IS FAKE ! 179.218.78.65 13:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept, (speedy non-admin closure.) I have no idea what you're on about, but you're in the wrong place. What you've nominated for deletion is the Brazilian Portuguese version of the standard message shown on other content nominated for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:British money
[edit]The photographer of File:ElizIIPenny.jpeg is unknown (at least as of the latest enwiki revision). The other images are derivatives of photos of coins by unknown photographers. As explained at COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, coin pictures must always have an identified photographer, amongst other things. When the files were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia for this reason, a user responded by uploading the pictures to Commons instead of addressing the problem.
Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Conny Krakowski (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, 2 private images and 2 self-created artworks. Maybe File:Der Blick.jpg could be kept (good image of giraffe).
BrightRaven (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: But kept the giraffe. I like that one. Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Gyenge Valéria.jpg
- File:Wiesław Maniak.jpg
- File:Münnich Ferenc.jpg
- File:Szekeres Ferenc.jpg
- File:Fock Jenő portré.jpg
- File:Barcs Sándor.jpg
- File:Gáspár Sándor portré.jpg
- File:Tordai Teri.jpg
- File:Kállai Gyula.jpg
- File:Losonczi Pál.jpg
- File:Simon Böske.jpg
- File:Kodály Zoltán portré.jpg
- File:Székely Éva.jpg
The uploader contributed these images in the good-faith belief that they were covered under the Nationaal Archief donation and accordingly tagged them with {{Nationaal Archief-license}}. However, that donation covered only a very limited set of images. The Nationaal Archief has since released many additional images into the public domain or under free licences, but the majority of its images are still non-free.
The following images are from National Archief Collection 2.24.01.04 (which is not one of the collections containing freely licensed or public domain content) and their National Archief metadata does not indicate they are free:
- File:Wiesław Maniak.jpg
- File:Fock Jenő portré.jpg
- File:Barcs Sándor.jpg
- File:Tordai Teri.jpg
- File:Kállai Gyula.jpg
- File:Losonczi Pál.jpg
The following images are from National Archief Collection 2.24.01.09, which is not one of the collections containing freely licensed or public domain content and their National Archief metadata does not indicate they are free:
The following image is from National Archief Collection LEVEN022, which is not one of the collections containing freely licensed or public domain content and its National Archief metadata does not indicate it is free:
The following images have no National Archief metadata indicating the collection or source, and their National Archief metadata does not indicate they are free:
Psychonaut (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amir massoud (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE - private photos of non-notable individuals
- File:محمد مهدی آزادی-mohammad mehdi azadi-with amir massoud farhadi 2014-06-20 23-05.jpg
- File:امیر مسعود فرهادی و محمد مهدی آزادی-امیر مسعود فرهادی-محمد مهدی آزادی-amir massoud farhadi-mohammad mehdi azadi 2014-06-20 22-59.jpg
- File:محمد مهدی آزادی-بهترینم دوستم -Mohammad Mehdi Azadi 2014-06-20 22-48.jpeg
- File:امير مسعود -kik - amir massoud-instagram -amir massoud-FB-com-amir-massoud-1238-www-amir2017-blogfa-com-www-mynayer-blogfa-com-www-niloofarbehbudi-blogfa-com 2014-04-28 12-11.jpg
- File:امير مسعود فرهادي -10-7-1997-www-amir2017-blogfa-com( بزركترين وبسايت شيعه-www-niloofarbehbudi-blogfa-com (نيلوفر بهبودي )-قروه-كردستان-طراحي وبس 2014-04-28 12-06.png
Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Blue Sky Tower
[edit]No FOP in Mongolia.
russavia (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Blue Sky Tower
[edit]Building was completed in 2010. No freedom of panorama in Mongolia: see COM:FOP Mongolia and {{NoFoP-Mongolia}}.
- File:2018-08-11 195334 Ulaanbaatar Blue Sky Tower anagoria.jpg
- File:Blue Sky Tower Ulan Bator.JPG
- File:Entrance Blue Sky Tower.jpg
- File:Felhőkarcoló a főtéren (Skyscraper on the central square) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Gerek a felhőkarcoló árnyékában (Gers in the shadow of a skyscraper) - panoramio.jpg
File:Oulan-Bator, The Blue Sky Hotel and Tower .- Sukhbaatar Square.jpgnow cropped by the uploader Pierre André Leclercq. Revdel the uncropped version and keep the current version. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- File:Oulan-Bator, The Blue Sky Hotel and Tower .- Sukhbaatar Square.jpg is an overview of Sukhbaatar Squaren. The shot is 900 meters from Blue Sky Hotel and Tower. This photography is located in public places in order to show the surrounding areas. Best regards --Pierre André (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pierre André Leclercq: thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the list of exceptions outlined at Law of Mongolia on Copyright and Related Rights (as last amended on January 19, 2006) (Article 24) does not contain either Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama clause or de minimis. Worse it sets forth three conditions for a reproduction or representation of architectural and artistic works to be considered as not infringing the copyright of the creators: "to have a non-profit purpose, the extent of use and the importance of the used parts, and the value of the work and the effect of the used part on the market." 1st condition is failed automatically, as Commons doesn't accept images of copyrighted FoP-reliant works from countries where free reuses of such images in post cards, T-shirt prints, and advertising media are not allowed by their copyright laws. 2nd and 3rd may be borderline, but Mongolia doesn't recognize de minimis (and as per one admin on their talk page, de minimis is supposed to be objective and not subjective). I hope that their 2006-era copyright law will be amended sooner than later, though I see no news if they are willing to update their law to be more progressive to the modern digital age, where commercial reuses of images are the norm. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Thank you for your answer, we have the same problems in France, with Commons not accepting images of works protected by copyright and dependent on FoP. I hope that this copyright law will be amended as soon as possible. Maybe I could crop the photo to show only Sukhbaatar Square whose statue is of historical interest. Best regards,--Pierre André (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pierre André Leclercq: perhaps. Feel free to crop, then it can be kept :-) I hope your country may have "a change in heart" and finally welcome FOP, at least for exterior architecture and outdoor 3D artworks (that will be of great help). Though most websites like this seem to indicate (or allude) that full or wide FOP may not happen in France, at least soon. Idk about Mongolia too - hope Ulaanbaatar find the benefits of Wikimedia movement and eventually introduce FOP provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
Done cropping of the photo, 
Thank you. thanks for the response and for your details, I removed it from the category Blue Sky Tower to which I had assigned it. Best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
- @Pierre André Leclercq: perhaps. Feel free to crop, then it can be kept :-) I hope your country may have "a change in heart" and finally welcome FOP, at least for exterior architecture and outdoor 3D artworks (that will be of great help). Though most websites like this seem to indicate (or allude) that full or wide FOP may not happen in France, at least soon. Idk about Mongolia too - hope Ulaanbaatar find the benefits of Wikimedia movement and eventually introduce FOP provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Thank you for your answer, we have the same problems in France, with Commons not accepting images of works protected by copyright and dependent on FoP. I hope that this copyright law will be amended as soon as possible. Maybe I could crop the photo to show only Sukhbaatar Square whose statue is of historical interest. Best regards,--Pierre André (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pierre André Leclercq: thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the list of exceptions outlined at Law of Mongolia on Copyright and Related Rights (as last amended on January 19, 2006) (Article 24) does not contain either Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama clause or de minimis. Worse it sets forth three conditions for a reproduction or representation of architectural and artistic works to be considered as not infringing the copyright of the creators: "to have a non-profit purpose, the extent of use and the importance of the used parts, and the value of the work and the effect of the used part on the market." 1st condition is failed automatically, as Commons doesn't accept images of copyrighted FoP-reliant works from countries where free reuses of such images in post cards, T-shirt prints, and advertising media are not allowed by their copyright laws. 2nd and 3rd may be borderline, but Mongolia doesn't recognize de minimis (and as per one admin on their talk page, de minimis is supposed to be objective and not subjective). I hope that their 2006-era copyright law will be amended sooner than later, though I see no news if they are willing to update their law to be more progressive to the modern digital age, where commercial reuses of images are the norm. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donnie_Wahlberg_and_Maryse_Selit.jpg&action=history){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}
_(cropped).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}
-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87-%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A_%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B3_2014-04-28_12-06.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, except the file that was cropped. ƏXPLICIT 12:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update
Hello admins @Natuur12 and Explicit: . Kindly undelete all images here, and restore the previous uncropped version of Pierre André Leclercq's file. There is now FoP in Mongolia; see COM:FOP Mongolia and {{FoP-Mongolia}}. Since COM:UNDEL is now crowded with multiple UNDEL requests, I felt best to ask for undeletion directly here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. pour cette heureuse intervention. Bien cordialement. Pierre André (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yann seems to have taken care off this already. I'll also go through the other pictures later. Natuur12 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: all files are now undeleted. Natuur12 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yann seems to have taken care off this already. I'll also go through the other pictures later. Natuur12 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sealle (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Заблоцкий Сергей Геннадьевич(Template:Дата рождения, Житомир — профессиональный SEO-оптимизатор и вебмастер. В 2004 году С. Г. Заблоцкий окончил школу №7 и поступил в Агро-технический колледж по специализации «механизация с.-г. техники». В 2006 году ездил на заработки в Данию, вернувшись окончил колледж и в 2010 году поступил в Национальный агрроэкологический университет. В 2011 году окончил университет. Все последующие годы после учебы посвятил своей SEO-деятельности в IT-компаниях города Житомир.
Подтверждение значимости личности http://online-secrets.ru/
Deleted: per nomination Krd 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel ABCAbw.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant to File:HD W Kragenspiegel ABCAbw.svg which is more realistic. Rillke(q?) 17:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel Art.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel FJg.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel Fm.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel HAufkl.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel HFlg.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel HLog.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel PzGren.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel MilMus.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo and should not be hosted on Commons. Please move to en.wiki or elsewhere. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, copyrighted logo, no evidence of permission. --Krd 17:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel Pz.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel Pi.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Request / Replaced with File:HD W Kragenspiegel San.svg Flor!an (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Old upload, possibly in external use. Different content. No reason to delete. Krd 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploader request Flor!an (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Custom license template which requires that attribution must be in a visible form. This is in conflict with the CC license which requires that attribution may be provided in any way reasonable to the medium or means which might not be visible but e.g. audible. This restrictions needs to be removed or the template needs to be deleted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete per my comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Do not enter icon 08.svg i.e. images using this template are not free for any use as required for most Commons images, particularly the following stipulations: Using this image in any other fashion requires special written permission from author(s). Any other use is not authorized. referring specifically to use outside Wikimedia. Green Giant (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the any other fashion refers to the attribution requirement and not to usage outside of Wikimedia. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, the impression I got was that the top sentences were a continuous narrative leading from the clause which says "Wikipedia / Wikimedia projects you do not have to worry" and that the rest of that top part was referring to uses outside Wikimedia. Anyway, other fashion notwithstanding I concur that the attribution desideratum is irreconcilable with the CC license. Green Giant (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Added a sentence to address concerns. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I. There is an alternative to the "in a visible form" without such a restriction, which is Image: © Nevit Dilmen found at Wikimedia commons. II. Using this image in any other fashion requires special written permission from author(s). Any other use is not authorized. is clearly about not abiding CC or GFDL. -- Rillke(q?) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The template is misleading by giving answers to a lot of unasked questions and therefore possibly preventing reusage of the images. I don't see it helpful for the Commons project goal. The recently added note doesn't help, if all the stuff besides the actual licence doesn't apply, why do we need to have is there at all? --Krd 08:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd -- everything here is covered by the CC-BY license, and the ambiguities simply confuse. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)