Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/07/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Musician.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
identical to File:Passat (5644144814).jpg A1AA1A (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Processed as a duplicate russavia (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 11:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: clear copyright violation JuTa 11:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 11:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Afterwards duplicate of SVG (with no reason anymore). → User: Perhelion 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: The reason is in the description, and it is also in wide use across many projects. russavia (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kittyyy123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violations Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Private nonsense image, unuseable for an educational purpose, out of project scope Ies (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- The uploader of this image reacted with calling me an asshole. -- Ies (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping, image removed by another admin. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prosportsexpert (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of basketball cards. Proven: File:Freije with the --New Orleans Hornets-- in his rookie season 2014-07-05 01-14.jpg, File:Jackson while at Nicholls State 2014-07-05 01-06.jpg, File:Taylor with the --Houston Rockets-- 2014-07-05 01-24.jpg. These here are likely the same.
- File:Thompkins with the --Los Angeles Clippers-- 2014-07-05 02-32.jpg
- File:Noel with the --Milwaukee Bucks-- 2014-07-05 02-29.jpg
- File:Johnson during his rookie season with the --Indiana Pacers-- 2014-07-05 02-23.jpg
- File:Williams being defended by --Glen Davis-- 2014-07-05 02-15.jpg
- File:Jerrett with the --Oklahoma City Thunder-- 2014-07-05 02-12.jpg
- File:Forbes with the --Toronto Raptors-- 2014-07-05 02-09.jpg
- File:Griffin with the Oklahoma Sooners 2014-07-05 01-56.jpg
- File:Almond with the --Utah Jazz-- during his rookie photo shoot 2014-07-05 01-29.jpg
- File:Drew coaching the --Atlanta Hawks-- in 2012 2014-07-05 00-55.jpg
- File:Corbin coaching the --Utah Jazz-- 2014-07-05 00-48.jpg
Deleted: Housekeeping, files deleted by another admin. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo with no educational use per COM:EDUSE. Green Giant (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per comment matanya • talk 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Images taken by Law Keven
[edit]These three are fuzzy images with low educational value per COM:EDUSE. I appreciate that the seagull picture is trying to give the impression of speed but it isn't clear enough.
- File:Flickr - law keven - Everybody Else has done one..so here's mine..LOL..-O) (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - Everybody Else has done one..so here's mine..LOL..-O).jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - Faster then a speeding bullet....jpg
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Images taken by Law Keven
[edit]Unused personal photos with little educational potential per COM:EDUSE.
- File:Flickr - law keven - Monkey's First Christmas Card - December 16th 2007. (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - Monkey's First Christmas Card - December 16th 2007..jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - Tiss the season...-O) (1).jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - Tiss the season...-O).jpg
- File:Flickr - law keven - West Ham United's new Signing....jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Green Giant (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete: the monkey doll is presumably copyrighted, making photos of it derivative works; see COM:TOYS.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, matanya • talk 19:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (2821585840).jpg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Info Please use {{dup|Filename}} instead! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andforevery (talk · contribs)
[edit]See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Looking into the distance of the pacific ocean from pebble beach in california.JPG User uploads photographs of the same man's back side on trips and uploads them to Commons. It appears to be some sort of Lulz and other editors have mentioned sockpuppetry.
- File:Crescent City California.JPG
- File:Looking north on seventeen mile drive in pebble beach california.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight have re-uploaded the same images that were deleted back in January 2011 as a result of this deletion request. Out they go again. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
An obvious advertisement complete with telephone number, email and product pictures which may be COM:COPYVIOs, as well as some kind of watermarked background. Commons is not an advertising or promotional platform. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je demande la suppression de ce fichier car l'article pour lequel je l'avais importé n'est pas "accepté" sur Wikipédia. Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: The image is well inside commons project scope. JuTa 19:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Je souhaiterais que cette image soit supprimé de Wikimedia Commons. Elle a été importé ici afin d'illustrer un article non admissible. Il existe d'autres images de trains routiers qui peuvent illustrer un éventuel article sur cette activité peu banale. Également, je ne suis pas le photographe de cette photo. Merci d'avance Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep, freely licenced and potential for use. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)- Delete The train seems to be more artistic than the chairs in this case. If you can't take photographs of chairs, then you can't take photographs of trains either. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion and states that they were not the photographer. Not therefore available under a free licence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je demande la suppression de ce fichier car l'article pour lequel je l'avais importé n'est pas "accepté" sur Wikipédia. Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: image is well inside commons project scope JuTa 19:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Je souhaiterais que cette image soit supprimé de Wikimedia Commons. Elle a été importé ici afin d'illustrer un article non admissible. Il existe d'autres images de trains routiers qui peuvent illustrer un éventuel article sur cette activité peu banale. Également, je ne suis pas le photographe de cette photo. Merci d'avance Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The train seems to be more artistic than the chairs in this case. If you can't take photographs of chairs, then you can't take photographs of trains either. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion and states that they were not the photographer. Not therefore available under a free licence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je demande la suppression de ce fichier car l'article pour lequel je l'avais importé n'est pas "accepté" sur Wikipédia. Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Image is well inside commons project scope. JuTa 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Je souhaiterais que cette image soit supprimé de Wikimedia Commons. Elle a été importé ici afin d'illustrer un article non admissible. Il existe d'autres images de trains routiers qui peuvent illustrer un éventuel article sur cette activité peu banale. Également, je ne suis pas le photographe de cette photo. Merci d'avance Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: per previous DR resolved as kept. File used only in the User: namespace, but may be useful for other WMF projects. Also, CC licenses are irrevocable. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The train seems to be more artistic than the chairs in this case. If you can't take photographs of chairs, then you can't take photographs of trains either. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion and states that they were not the photographer. Not therefore available under a free licence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je demande la suppression de ce fichier car l'article pour lequel je l'avais importé n'est pas "accepté" sur Wikipédia. Lev. Anthony (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Image is well inside commons project scope. JuTa 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Je souhaiterais que cette image soit supprimé de Wikimedia Commons. Elle a été importé ici afin d'illustrer un article non admissible. Il existe d'autres images de trains routiers qui peuvent illustrer un éventuel article sur cette activité peu banale. Également, je ne suis pas le photographe de cette photo. Merci d'avance Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The train seems to be more artistic than the chairs in this case. If you can't take photographs of chairs, then you can't take photographs of trains either. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests deletion and states that they were not the photographer. Not therefore available under a free licence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
SVG image at File:GHS-pictogram-rondflam.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: ... and no license at all. JuTa 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
SVG image at File:GHS-pictogram-skull.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: ... and no license at all. JuTa 21:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
SVG image at File:GHS-pictogram-silhouete.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: ... and no license at all. JuTa 21:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
File:--pp-pc1-----Use dmy dates-date=March 2014-----Infobox person-- name = Jeane Colonia-- image = Jeane Colonia by Gage Skidmore-jpg-- image size = -- caption = Colonia at surigao city-- birth name = Jeane Kate L 2014-07-05 15-23.jpg
[edit]
Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of project scope. See also ticket:2014070410001934. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Persons of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
User request →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: USER REQUESTED ~ Nahid Talk 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No metadata, no category, Musee d'Orsay poster in immediate background, non-notable males in foreground. Commons is not a social media. Outside of COM:SCOPE for lack of educational purpose, and possible COM:COPYVIO if poster is not considered deminimus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, description reads "English: english" and categorized in "books". Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Text material by non-notable author, outside of COM:SCOPE, must be realistically useful for educational purposes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Outside of COM:SCOPE some form of illustration, poster, or advertisement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
dup of File:2-chloor-4-nitroaniline t.png, which is transparent Kopiersperre (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 00:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
seems to fail COM:SCOPE: someone's self-made advertising pamphlet, possibly only uploaded for the purpose of attaching advertising text in the description Closeapple (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons isn't a social media platform. An overfiltered selfie by a non-notable male, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The permission line here claims that a 1988 work is "copyright expired" which seems highly unlikely as the work is so recent. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Still copyrighted according to US law ~ Nahid Talk 00:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not for advertising. This image and accompanying biography is outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
_Musician.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Musician.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image with no metadata is outside of COM:SCOPE because it is essentially an advertisement in the description for a musician. Commons isn't a social platform, nor to be used for promotion or self-promotion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
_Musician.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
_Musician.jpg){kind=link}
Image with no metadata overlain by a signature & shadow of signature. Commons is not for advertising or promotion, this may be an album cover or a poster although I was unable to find the exactly matching image. Outside of COM:SCOPE and possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Nickelodeon show poster... not "own work" Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 00:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Image unlikely to be user's own work, it appears all over the internet for the past couple of years, see here for one example. Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Selfie. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work of the uploader. No EXIF, seems captured from a video. Uploader has a history of copyvio at EN wiki, see en:User talk:Amosh x Jcb (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I had the same feeling when I saw it. Fortunately, the editor no longer seems to be active. Miniapolis 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I found the administrators in English wikipedia didn't delete it since 2008, I used google image search before transfer it to commons and I found the source of all results is wikipedia, It seems captured from video or old mobile phone, we cannot sure 100%, anyway you can delete it if you see it a non-free file --Ibrahim.ID ♒ 17:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: PER COM:PCP ~ Nahid Talk 00:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
File:NOT YET --------------------------------------------------------- LOVE IS TRIANGLE 2014-07-05 09-55.jpg
[edit]
Copyvio from wallpaperscraft.com Alexf (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 00:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png){kind=link}
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is not released under CC-BY-SA Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png){kind=link}
- Goed gezien. Mogelijkerwijs heeft Spaarnestad/Anefo de bestandsbeschrijving naderhand gewijzigd en de CC-BY-SA licentie ingetrokken, want ook de foto Cor Jaring (1968).jpg die U zelf naar commons hebt geüpload blijkt nu opeens "fotograaf onbekend" te zijn i.p.v. fotograaf Jac. de Nijs en niet meer CC-BY-SA. De bestandsnaam hier met "by Bart Molendijk" is nu sowieso incorrect. Jammer maar helaas. Groet Pelikana (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Uploader provided a link to the image with a valid license. The nomination can be closed. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png){kind=link}
Kept: Per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
_by_Bart_Molendijk.png){kind=link}
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- 720px at the longer side... I suspect its from facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Public Ears (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos and logos. No evidence of permission(s). Also questionable notability.
- File:ABM STINGERZ WEED COVER ART.JPG
- File:Mad-bludd Taking over cover.JPG
- File:Unlock music .jpg
- File:Freestyleunlockmusic.jpg
- File:Unlock Music Lesbian Art Cover.jpg
- File:Unlock Music Dancehall 2014.jpg
- File:Unlock Music Svg.jpg
- File:Boney-Spice-UMA.jpg
- File:Xanrii-UMA.jpg
- File:Boney spice-u.m.a.jpg
- File:U.m.a xanrii.jpg
- File:U.m.a-boney-spice.jpg
- File:U.m.a-xanrii.jpg
- File:Boney-spice-u.m.a.jpg
- File:Xanrii-u.m.a.jpg
- File:Mad Bludd And His Daughter.JPG
- File:Mad bludd and his baby mother.jpg
- File:Mad Dogg face shot U.M.A.jpg
- File:Big Smoke face shot U.M.A.jpg
- File:Youngg-Blood U.M.A.jpg
- File:Killer Homez face shot U.M.A.jpg
- File:Dhangar Dan face U.M.A.jpg
- File:Mad Bludd face U.M.A.jpg
- File:Mad Dogg U.M.A.jpg
- File:Uma-baby-willow.jpg
- File:U.m.a-mad-dogg.jpg
- File:U.m.a-youngg-blood.jpg
- File:U.m.a-big-smoke.jpg
- File:Uma-dhangar-dan.jpg
- File:Uma mad bludd.jpg
- File:Baby-willow-uma.jpg
- File:Mad-dogg-uma.jpg
- File:Uma-youngg-blood.jpg
- File:U.M.A-Dhangar Dan.jpg
- File:U.M.A-Big Smoke.jpg
- File:Baby Willow And His Son UMA.jpg
- File:UMA Mad Bludd.jpg
- File:UMA Mad Dogg.jpg
- File:UMA Youngg Blood.jpg
- File:UMA Big Smoke.jpg
- File:Killer Homez UMA.jpg
- File:Dhangar Dan UMA.jpg
- File:UMA Baby Willow.jpg
- File:UMA Dhangar Dan.jpg
- File:U.M.A Mad Dogg.jpg
- File:Youngg Blood U.M.A.jpg
- File:U.M.A Big Smoke.jpg
- File:U.M.A Killer Homez.jpg
- File:Baby Willow-U.M.A.jpg
- File:U.M.A Mad Bludd.jpg
- File:U.M.A-King Budz.jpg
- File:Dhangar Dan U.M.A.JPG
- File:U.M.A Xanrii.jpg
- File:U.M.A-Baby Willow.jpg
- File:U.M.A King Budz.jpg
- File:U.M.A Dhangar Dan.jpg
- File:U.M.A Youngg Blood.jpg
- File:Baby Willow U.M.A.jpg
- File:U.M.A Big-Smoke.jpg
- File:U.M.A Baby Willow.jpg
- File:U.M.A Baby-Willow.jpg
- File:Mad Bludd 126.jpg
- File:Mad Bludd 7star General.jpg
- File:Vincy dancehall (mad bludd pro).jpg
- File:Unlock music.JPG
- File:Unlock music svg.jpg
- File:Unlock Music Artists Cover (SVG).jpg
- File:Unlock Music.jpg
- File:Mad bludd realesr hott skull.jpg
- File:Mad bludd production.jpg
- File:Mad bludd and dj frankyp.jpg
- File:Mad bludd and dj franky.jpg
- File:Mad bludd and dhangar dan.jpg
- File:Mad bludd and baby willow.JPG
- File:Mad Bludd.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coccico2345 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:The Brazen Head.png
- File:Pub guiness usine irlande.png
- File:Dominique Cerutti Dauphine.png
- File:Arnaud Dassier.jpg
- File:Arnaud Dassier et Jacques Chirac.PNG
- File:Nicolas Joel.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Albertobravo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:VDJ ALBERT 323-627-9149 2014-07-04 11-08.jpg
- File:Vdj albert 2014 2014-07-04 11-07.jpg
- File:Alberto bravo sosa 2014 -North walk California 2014-07-03 17-38.jpg
- File:Mi hijo 2014-07-03 10-18.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 01:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EDUSE? ~ Nahid Talk 01:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Author's wish -Flighthc (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use and you can not revoke license per commons policy ~ Nahid Talk 01:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AnniPedreira95 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Amigos y los Leones del Caracas.jpg
- File:Gata sacando la lengua.jpg
- File:Droostore con Elvis Presley.jpg
- File:Carnaval de amigas.jpg
- File:Lorito sinvergüenza..jpg
- File:Pirámide grupal.jpg
- File:Faro un poco pequeño..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 01:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Low-quality cell phone image of an erection. Unused. We already have plenty. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 01:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LittleGold (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites.
- File:Aura Dione - Bird's Eye.jpg
- File:Aura Dione Chair.jpg
- File:Aura Dione in Sunglasses.jpg
- File:Kitty, Daisy and Lewis.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of project's scope — Racconish ✉ 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 01:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No indication that claimed license is real, no OTRS. David Horwitz has been involved in other sock and spam efforts on Commons and Wikipedia, look at deletion requests over the past few days for more. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Uploads by sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight aka David Horvitz should be deleted as soon as they are identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 01:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No indication that uploader is "David Horvitz" who is known to use a Canon. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Uploads by sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight aka David Horvitz should be deleted as soon as they are identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 01:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No indication that uploader is "David Horvitz", no permissions, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Uploads by sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight aka David Horvitz should be deleted as soon as they are identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 01:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This time, only the hand shows, the infamous back side is out of scene. None-the-less, nominating this as another image by multiple sock of "Backside on Beach" series. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Uploads by sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight aka David Horvitz should be deleted as soon as they are identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per above ~ Nahid Talk 01:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
self created artwork, not used Avron (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PS ~ Nahid Talk 01:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio. Please see channel logo Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear COM:COPYVIO, such files should be deleted as speedy ~ Nahid Talk 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It is an obvious copyvio. It was uploaded after published in the web: http://foros.vogue.es/viewtopic.php?t=72024&start=286. File name is the same one that in the web. LMLM (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Je demande la suppression de ce fichier car l'article pour lequel je l'avais importé n'est pas "accepté" sur Wikipédia. Lev. Anthony (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Image from facebook: [1]. No license there. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:COPYVIO ~ Nahid Talk 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No FOP in Cambodia. The architect is w:Vann Molyvann (still alive). -- DerFussi 09:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in Cambodia Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work: This painting was created by Artūras Slapšys [2]. Though it may look old, according to fineartamerica.com, Slapšys was born in 1962 so there's no way this could be something like {{PD-old}}. El Grafo (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
ca me concerne ca parle de moi et je souhaite que cela soit suprimé merci Malikrc08 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uloader's request Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The licence is completely invalid here. This photo violates the copyrights of two people, the sculptor Vyacheslav Klykov (no freedom of panorama in Russia) and the photographer, who shot this photo for the book. Ras67 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP for monuments in Russia Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
File:This is a girl named Sarah se is a good racer in Merritt bc he is pretty,funny,nice and that is only a few reasons why I love her I hope I get a second chance with you 2014-07-05 04-00.jpg
[edit]
Image title and description seems to indicate that this falls outside of COMMONS:SCOPE. CT Cooper · talk 19:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CarlosGPuig (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art and promo photo. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:5 - 27x22 cms. de la serie Hombres robotizados. 1995.jpg
- File:10 -Nueva serie oleo y lapiz obre tela 27x22cms. 2011.jpg
- File:9 - 100x81 cms. de la serie Confusiòn 2011.jpg
- File:8 -162x130 cms. de la serie Geometria alternativa 2002.jpg
- File:6-38x47 cms. de la serie Amarilla. 1997.jpg
- File:7 -70x50 cms. de la serie Anatomia basica. 2000.JPG
- File:3 -57x45 cms. de la serie Tauromaquia. 1995.jpg
- File:4 - 12x20cms. de la serie Danzas prehistoricas. 1993.jpg
- File:Foto portada.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Commercial advertisement, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused file of some kind of legal document, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replaced by file:Ear (term in art), 001.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
,_001.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
replaced by Ohr (Ornament), 001.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: author request and duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find this exact image, but it looks very much like the My Little Ponies images (DW) or original, see http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/26100000/Pinkie-Pie-molesting-Rainbow-Dash-my-little-pony-femslash-is-magic-26121159-2560-1440.png for a comparable image. Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It does, in a way, have a similarity. It's Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash in the streets of Manehattan, don't mind 'em. --68.103.31.159 21:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ASTROEngines (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two logos (no permissions), two screenshots (possible COM:COPYVIO and three filtered selfies of a non-notable male, suggest a gamer filling a gallery with images that are either 'not own work' or which (may be own work) but belong on social media.
- File:Jailson PS Junior Home.jpg
- File:Jailson PS Junior Style.jpg
- File:Jailson PS Junior New Hair Style.jpg
- File:MPTGameslogo2015.png
- File:ASTRO Physics.png
- File:Astro Architecture 271x300.png
- File:LogoASTROEngine.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The licenses attached to this WWII era images are unconvincing, the image is overprinted "LIFE" as in Life Magazine. Description says this is a magazine cover, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicate of File:ASEKH11.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse (physical harm and dependence, NA free means).svg
[edit].svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This page is original research, manipulating the calculations of mean and median harm and dependence. It is important to only use the calculations that appear in the two papers that published this data, and not make up new calculations that ignore or assign different values to NA, than was done in the papers. See.[3] There will always be complaints about why isn't this drug higher or lower than another, but the paper is what it is, and can not be manipulated to show different results than what is presented in the paper. See Table 3 at the end, pages 114 and 115. Gandulf4 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Original research Gandulf4 (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There are an unlimited number of ways that the data could be manipulated to come up with different numbers to plot than the ones that appeared in the paper, such as weighting chronic harm half as much as acute harm, but none have any validity for commons or any of the encyclopedias, and all are original research. In this case, by leaving out NA for alcohol, mathematically this is equivalent to assigning a value of 2.15 (the mean of the other two values) for intravenous harm, which is ludicrous, because since alcohol is never used intravenously, it has no intravenous harm, which is why it is listed as NA, and the authors used zero in calculating a combined score. We need to stick with the numbers and calculations that are in the paper, and not make up our own way of moving the drugs around on the chart. Gandulf4 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Seems its sole article-space use is at en.wp in contravention of their en:WP:SYNTHESIS policy ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") as compared to File:Rational scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence).svg that follows the source, and perhaps as basis for translation to other languages, presumably with similar policy/guideline problem other other languages' sites. However, the image is used for discussion of that methodology on various talkpage, so perhaps it is keepable for that? However, I'm leaning towards delete, as keeping it seems liable to make it spread further with the assumption that WP thinks it meets their policies (or at least as much as the other graph), which it does not. DMacks (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. The creator disagreed with the placement of one of the drugs and looked for a way to manipulate the data to move that drug, but by choosing to eliminate NA, in calculating the mean, what they did is actually assign a value of 2.15 to the intravenous harm for alcohol, instead of the value used in the paper, zero. Alcohol is not used intravenously, which is why it is listed as NA (Not Applicable), and has no intravenous harm, so assigning a value of 2.15 for the intravenous harm to compare it with heroin, which is used intravenously, is preposterous. All it does is move the drugs to preposterous positions that are not used intravenously. They also made the questionable statement that "Mean Physical harm is misleading, Median Physical harm as alternative" (not used though). The authors of the paper certainly understood how to add numbers, how to calculate min, max, mean, and median, and chose mean as the method to use. We can not without doing original research, use any other method. There is a German chart that adds instead of shows the mean, but those are mathematically simply scaled, so it does not change the result. Using the median/leaving out values does change the results. There are often complaints about the placement of one or more drugs, but the data is what it is and can not be changed by us. Only a new paper can do that. And it is blatantly false to say that this chart accurately displays data from the 2007 paper which appeared in the Lancet. What this chart does is show a severe distortion of the data. The only place for a chart like this is on someones personal blog where others can point out how silly it is. It has no encyclopedic value. Gandulf4 (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Gandulf4 -- Commons does not have a "no original research" policy as such, so an image cannot be deleted for that reason alone. If it's based on an objectively bogus data manipulation (i.e. is effectively a hoax), then it could be deleted for that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is hopelessly misleading. Does that qualify? But as demonstrated for alcohol, it clearly uses objectively bogus data manipulation, using 2.15 for intravenous harm, instead of zero. Gandulf4 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No one seems to be showing up to defend the chart. I do not want to delete it without giving them a chance to see what they have done, but if no one shows up in a month I would recommend just deleting the chart. From their comments it is clear that they did not realize that by leaving out the NA value, they were actually assigning a value to it - and a preposterous one. We have always had complaints about the chart, but all it does is accurately portray the finding of the paper - and this chart does not do that but creates a bizarre distortion to the findings of the paper. It really just needs to be deleted, as completely bogus. Gandulf4 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: This image is widely used on WMF projects, so policy forbids its deletion except for copyright reasons. It is against Commons policy to judge the accuracy and usefulness of contributions. It seems pretty clear that many editors on WPs disagree with Gandulf4. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
User created work, only text in image. Not used. Out of scope? Mippzon (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Afterwards duplicate of File:Information.svg. → User: Perhelion 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Widely used. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Afterwards copy of a SVG (File:Communauté_silhouette.svg only color change) duplicate here: File:Communauté silhouette orange.svg → User: Perhelion 07:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It seems only be used on this protected template vi:Bản_mẫu:Trang_Chính_-_Trợ_giúp (I've not replaced anything) → User: Perhelion 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Widely used. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
the projection on the screen is protected by copyright. The portion on the right is free from this copyvio, so a crop of this picture could stay. Vera (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Likewise with File:Jacklayton.jpg and File:International Conference on LGBT Human Rights.jpg --Vera (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why the image on the screen is copyrighted. It's just a direct image of what's going on at the time. It's not a recording or a creative work. If I took an audio recording of a non-copyrighted sound that happened to be amplified on a loudspeaker system, would that be copyrighted just because it went through an electronic system as this did? - Montrealais (talk)
- There is no question about that really. There is a camera man/women who operated the camera in order to get that image on to the screen. That qualifies as a creative work. - Vera (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why the image on the screen is copyrighted. It's just a direct image of what's going on at the time. It's not a recording or a creative work. If I took an audio recording of a non-copyrighted sound that happened to be amplified on a loudspeaker system, would that be copyrighted just because it went through an electronic system as this did? - Montrealais (talk)
Deleted: Actually the issue is more subtle than that. If the image was simply projected on the screen, without recording, then Montrealais is correct -- there is no copyright unless the work is "fixed". However since recording is essentially free these days, we must assume that the event was recorded as part of the projection process. Unless Montrealais can prove beyond a significant doubt that no recording was made, we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No FOP in France + logo copryrighted / pas de liberté de panorama en France + logo sous droits d'auteurs Bzh-99 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Upon closer inspections, the authors of this 1906 German architectural drawing are not unknown, but have signed at the bottom right at the image: the Stuttgart architects Willy Graf and Franz Roeckle. While I couldn't (yet) find out when Graf died, Roeckle's year of death is 1953. So this drawing is definitely not in the PD yet. Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE an illustration including a quote from " Joseph D'Souza" and filed in non-existent categories. This sort of image might be better uploaded to a personal website, or social media site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
File created by sock of User:Johngalea24, persitant recreator of article using this image. TheLongTone (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
File:FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTING OF RECEIVER JOHN A. BECKSTEAD SEC v Jacobson 2 11-cv-01165.pdf
[edit]Court documents outside COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, this is a public document, obtained from a US Government maintained website:PACER & also made public by the Receiver for the US Federal Government on his web page: http://www.managementsolutionsreceivership.com/pleadings_12/2014-03-31no1767%20Final%20Report%20and%20Accounting%20of%20Receiver%20JA%20Beckstead.pdf and as this is work of the US Federal Government it is public domain and well within COM:SCOPE to be maintained here. --WPPilot (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The file is unused and contains no description as to why it is needed at Commons, hence out of Scope. Court documents as you say, I agree with you. However, to be within scope it has to have educational utility and none is obvious here. The category to which it was put is red-linked. There is nothing here to be helpful to place in into educational context. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: While we might keep documents relating to a very well known and important case, court documents are generally out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused court documents out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Tiny blurry PNG. There is an SVG version of the Iranian flag on Commons with superior quality. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Files come from two different websites at fda.gov:
- labeling/mentor_patient_labeling_5900.html (Archive.org): That site is labled © January 2004 MENTOR. Mentor is a company offering breast implants and the website fda.gov repeats information obtained from that company
- labeling/inamed_patient_labeling_5900.html (Archive.org is labled ©2004 INAMED Corporation, same here, Inamed is a trademark for implants, the content at fda.gov is copyrighted material from the producer.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete it's a shame. Maybe we should give this a bit extra time and ask the people from the medical project (like User:Jmh649) to make some replacement images? Some of these images are used a lot. Multichill (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Asking the company in question if they are willing to release these under a compatible license can be effective. James Heilman, MD (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it can, but someone must do it. If you care enough about these images to make the suggestion, perhaps that someone is you? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Asking the company in question if they are willing to release these under a compatible license can be effective. James Heilman, MD (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright period in EU is 70 calendar years, not 70 years from the day o author's death. This file will be PD on 1.1.2015. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Can this be marked for automatic undeletion on that date? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Yann (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No fop in italy. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation, image is from http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/archives/queenstown/149592/McEttrick-opens-McDonalds-museum with information suggesting AIMEE WILSON/Southland Times/Image ID 116106 owns the copyright 124.197.55.12 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we be certain if this is the flickr account owners own work? Just curious. Leoboudv (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: All over the Web. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IvanOS as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation (Original file), per Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer. True author (Željko Heimer, FAME) didn't give permission for Commons. FASTILY 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IvanOS as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation (Original file), per Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer. True author (Željko Heimer, FAME) didn't give permission for Commons. FASTILY 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IvanOS as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation (Original file), per Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer. True author (Željko Heimer, FAME) didn't give permission for Commons. FASTILY 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IvanOS as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation (Original file), per Commons:Deletion requests/Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer. True author (Željko Heimer, FAME) didn't give permission for Commons. FASTILY 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate photo Ashishlohorung (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- duplicate of what? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Reason is not sufficiant to delete this file. If it is a ducplicate please use the correct template. Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stafilochk (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stafilochk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small sizes, low resolutions, no metadata, and all same subject (footballer Casarini), make these unlikely to be user's own work, and instead COM:COPYVIOs.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Die Animation läuft nicht! Soll durch PNG-Datei ersetzt werden Petrus3743 (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
incomplete legend for this graph. Unasable graph --Arcyon37 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.fujisankei.com/menseki/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Open-box (talk • contribs) 2014-07-04T18:12:19 (UTC)
Deleted: This is com:TOO imho. Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted: copy of material sold at e-bay; the copyright tag does not apply to photographs, see Commons:Copyright_rules 82.171.101.97 13:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It can be seen in the upload that the photo came from the Doors' record company, Elektra, who distributed the photos without copyright marks. The lack of them can be clearly seen on the original, uncropped upload. The photo was used many times in 1969 and 1970 by en:Chicago Sun-Times and en:Chicago Daily News. Publication, origin and dating are satisfied here for the license of PD-pre 1978. We hope (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: As above Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
COM:PENIS; furthermore, this appears to be photoshopped into making the subject's penis look longer. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Matija as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|Vulgar graffiti that isn't even used anywhere.
Converted by me to DR, as this should go through a DR, though I support the nomination, if the image is actually unused. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is vulgar, but it was interesting to me how Latin placenames are used in an otherwise vulgar graffiti. I suppose it might be used in some article discussing Roman heritage in modern Serbia. Nikola (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Could be used and Commons is not cencored Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" 91.65.48.169 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" with copyright watermark 91.65.48.169 15:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sadatoshi5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious small "own works"
91.65.48.169 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocking move of File:04E 2014 5day 2.gif to this location and was likely uploaded by mistake, as the uploader may have been unaware of the file File:04E 2014 5day 2.gif which was originally on Wikipedia as "File:04E 2014 5day.gif". When the file was transferred to Commons, the file uploaded by United States Man was in the way, so it had to be placed at File:04E 2014 5day 2.gif instead. Dustin (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – As Dustin said, I uploaded it while unaware of the WP version. United States Man (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope; also, doubts that one can "erase" copyright protection like that as the idea of the Atomium is still clearly visible. FDMS 4 17:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I think the copyright building/sculpture has been obscured enough to eliminate copyright concerns (but those with more legal knowledge than me might change my mind). It's not out of scope, very easy to imagine educational materials that use this as an example of practical concerns related to Freedom of Panorama. -Pete F (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Normally I would delete such images as out of scope, but this one I can actually see scope for -- Category:Freedom of panorama protests. russavia (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Per Category:Atomium, "Do not upload images of the Atomium in Brussels. This building is copyrighted artwork." - only rebuttal given seems to be the Flickr photographer thinking it's a stupid rule. McGeddon (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR resolved as Kept. The Atomium is enough blurred to be considered de minimis. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't realise this had been discussed and kept before, didn't occur to me to check the talk page. Consider this retracted, if deletion requests are retractable. --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Either the Atomium is prominent in the backround (as I see it), in which case this image is a DW, or, the Atomium is not discernible in the background (as Amite sees it), in which case all we have is a personal image of three non-notable people, that is out of scope. Either we, we can;t keep it.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Defekt (?), kann ich neu hochladen. Sven-121 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
I can not find any source for Montserrat being granted a Red Ensign. Fry1989 eh? 18:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is a discussion at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ms.html which implies a Red Ensign.
- I would assume that a merchant vessel registered in Montserrat would fly a defaced Red Ensign -- that is true of most, if not all, of the nations and territories that use a defaced British Ensign as their national flag. At sea, the Blue Ensign would be used only on vessels owned by the government.
- Note also that Montserrat is a member of the Red Ensign Group, http://www.redensigngroup.org, which consists of the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. That site says:
- "Montserrat is is a member of the British Red Ensign Group and operate as a Category Two Red Ensign (British) Registry, which can register ships of up to 150 gross tons (GRT) and pleasure vessels, that is, those not operated commercially, of up to 400 GRT. Pleasure vessels, by definition, refer to ships used for sport or pleasure, which are not operated commercially."
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The FOTW discussion does not appear to imply a red ensign at all, it is arguing the point of white discs on the British Overseas Territory flags. The point of that is because prior to 1999, all overseas territories had their badges within a white disc, in 1999 that was removed and the badges were enlarged. Our own sources also state that Montserrat has not been granted a local version of the red ensign, but may still use the blank British red ensign. This is not in disagreement with them being a member of the Red Ensign Group, and it's a situation that is shared with Anguilla, the Pitcairns, Saint Helena, and South Georgia. There is no available source that Montserrat has a (legally granted/adopted) red ensign. Fry1989 eh? 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use so the file is automaticly in scope. Commons admins don't decide which files local projects have to use. Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I am re-opening this DR with the consent of the closing admin. I believe the closure was invalid for the following reasons. Firstly, in use does not automatically mean in scope, especially when an image is being improperly used. If this image is fake, it's automatically out of scope. Simply being placed on a page does not grant automatic scope. If it has no sources, it can not be used on any Wikipedia articles which would completely invalidate the in use argument. Also, I do not believe there is any such requirement that an image's usages be removed before a DR can commence. Secondly, Natuur12 improperly described this as a content dispute, which it is not. It is a question of the facts of this image. If it does not exist we should not host it, that simple.
Considering there are no sources provided by the uploader that this image exists, nor can any supporting sources be found elsewhere to support this, and because available sources (including Wikipedia's own) support that Montserrat uses an undefaced British red ensign (shared with other British Overseas Territories of Saint Helena, the Pitcairn Islands, and South Georgia), this image should be deleted as a fake. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also, being a member of the Red Ensign Group does not mean Montserrat has it's own red ensign. Anguilla is also a member, has no known red ensign, and the Red Ensign Group's website shows them using the undefaced British red ensign. Fry1989 eh? 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It is not the function of admins to decide if an image is legal or not, there are many official and unofficial flag images in use on Wikioedia, therefore the image should be kept. With regard to if or not there is a specific red ensign for Montserrat this info from the Faqs page of the Red Ensign Group may be of use:-
- Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and under international law, all ships registered within the Crown Dependencies and UK Overseas Territories are British Ships. In exercise of its powers, the United Kingdom as the Flag State under international law for these ships has devolved to the Crown Dependencies and UK Overseas Territories:
- Section 3(b) of the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995 allows the use of both the Red Ensign flag or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour, on vessels registered with a Crown Dependency or UK Overseas Territory provided they have either a Royal Warrant or an Order in Council:
- "(3) The following are also proper national colours, that is to say-
- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" see:- [4]. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a single source this flag is real? Even one? Jersey was not granted it's own red ensign until 2010 and before that they had to use the undefaced British red ensign. Your own sources also do not support Montserrat having a red ensign, specifically the sections stating "...provided they have either a Royal Warrant or an Order in Council" and "is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" which support that a red ensign must be granted, not just fabricated. Without sources, the image can not be used on Wikipedia anyway, that's the policy. Without sources, the image is fake, and we have no obligation or expectation to continue hosting it. Fry1989 eh? 13:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your use of the two phrases with the word 'and' between them is somewhat distorting, should it be read as one sentence. My own interpretation of the phrase:- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. However as I stated above the legality or usage of flag images hosted on commons is not the responsibility of the administrators. Commons is simply a repository for images licenced for use by anyone. Where an editor has uploaded an image which he states us his own work, like many other flag images, diagrams, plans, maps, etc to be hosted on commons, provided he has licenced it for use by other users, in accordance with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons, then there is no reason to delete it from commons. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your source (and others) supports that that a red ensign must be granted, specifically where it states "provided they have either a Royal Warrant or an Order in Council". Do you have any source for a Royal Warrant or Order-in-Council for a Montserrat red ensign? I provided a source for Jersey, and I provided a source that Anguilla does not have one. It's very black and white, either there is one or isn't one, and the conjecture that "they're a member of the Red Ensign Group" has already been debunked as not proof. Currently there are no sources this flag is real, either officially or on an unofficial basis, which means it can never be used on Wikipedia. Now yes, Commons is a media repository, but we do not keep everything for the sake of that. If an image is not real, and has no scope as a fictional image, we delete it. File:Flag of Mordor.svg is a fictional flag, but we keep it because it is a real illustration from the Lord Of The Rings folklore and is in scope. There is no scope for this, from everything I can find it's just from the uploader's imagination, and so there is no reason to keep it. If a source can be found, we can always undelete it. Fry1989 eh? 16:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your use of the two phrases with the word 'and' between them is somewhat distorting, should it be read as one sentence. My own interpretation of the phrase:- (b) in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" is that permission to use a red ensign that meets the required design is already authorised. However as I stated above the legality or usage of flag images hosted on commons is not the responsibility of the administrators. Commons is simply a repository for images licenced for use by anyone. Where an editor has uploaded an image which he states us his own work, like many other flag images, diagrams, plans, maps, etc to be hosted on commons, provided he has licenced it for use by other users, in accordance with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons, then there is no reason to delete it from commons. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a single source this flag is real? Even one? Jersey was not granted it's own red ensign until 2010 and before that they had to use the undefaced British red ensign. Your own sources also do not support Montserrat having a red ensign, specifically the sections stating "...provided they have either a Royal Warrant or an Order in Council" and "is authorised by Her Majesty by Order in Council" which support that a red ensign must be granted, not just fabricated. Without sources, the image can not be used on Wikipedia anyway, that's the policy. Without sources, the image is fake, and we have no obligation or expectation to continue hosting it. Fry1989 eh? 13:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there may or may not be a Montserrat Red Ensign and that the comments at Red Ensign Group and elsewhere are not definitive. However, the fact that the image is in use is definitive. These:
- "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose..."
and
- "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope", from Commons:Scope,
set forth the well established Commons policy that an image that is in use in a WP article cannot be deleted. If it is wrong, it is up to the WP editors to remove it. And, by the way, that means that none of us can remove it -- that would defeat the purpose of the policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is only in use because the uploader placed it there (their only edits to date), and then Richard Harvey reverted my removal using the faulty "Red Ensign Group" argument. Does that mean any user can upload an image, place it on a Wikipedia article and we now have to keep it forever because it now has a scope? You know that's not true, and that this image is not in use on it's own merits. We delete fake flags and fake coats of arms all the time, in use or not in use, and we keep many as well. The usual deciding factor is if the image has any real value. The flag of Mordor I linked above is a clear case of a fictional (some would call "fake") flag that we keep because it has a clear illustrative scope for a fictional storyline that is very well known. But there are also many fake flags that are nothing more than a figment of the uploader's imagination, not of any notability, and we delete them for that reason. If there are no sources, and there are none at this time, the file can not be used because WP:Policy requires sources, so completely forget the "in use" argument. There is no reason to keep this, any more than to keep all the other user made-up flags that we have deleted in the past. If a source can be found, by all means keep it or undelete it, but until a single source can be found that this flag is real even unofficially, it's nothing but a figment of the uploader's imagination with no contributing value to Commons or Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 21:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a problem with policy here -- as you say, it is absurd to say that User X can upload a nonexistent flag, post it to WP:EN, and then prevent its removal here by showing that it is in use. However, I'm equally uncomfortable with one person -- you -- removing it from WP:EN and then having it deleted here. What I'm saying is that we should rely on WP:EN editors who are interested in flags to come to the same conclusion you have and remove it from WP:EN.
- With respect to the issue raised by the Mordor flag, take a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am very aware of the fictional flag problem with Antemister, and I strongly disagree with most of their nominations. I however, nominate fictional flags only in circumstances like this one, where it's not real and not in scope. Many of the fictional flags Antemister nominates are in scope for other reasons despite their fictional status. Antemister is on a personal crusade against any "non-real" flags, I am not. Antemister has been warned by many users that fictional status alone is not a reason for deletion but has ignored these warnings in favour of continuing their crusade. As for this image, there are simply no sources that this is anything more than a figment of the uploader's imagination. It doesn't belong here and I refuse to accept the perpetual trap of "Well it's in use now so it has to stay here forever" which is a easy way out of addressing the real status of this image and whether or not it belongs here. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- With respect to the issue raised by the Mordor flag, take a look at User:Antemister/Fictional flag issue. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: still in use. JuTa 17:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am once more re-opening this DR with consent from the closing admin, as I feel the last closure was on technicality only.
I just want to reiterate a few points. There are absolutely zero sources to support that this flag exists in any manner. Being a member of the Red Ensign Group does not mean Montserrat has been granted a red ensign. It is therefore original research and can not be used on Wikipedia, which leaves it an out-of-use image on Commons. Everything suggests this file is a figment of the uploader's imagination, and it's file name is misleading. If sources ever arise that this flag exists, it is as simple as creating a new SVG by reversing the background of File:Flag of Montserrat.svg which I would be more than happy to do. Until there are sources, this is a fake useless image.
As long as those points are understood, if this file is kept a third time I will accept that and will instead rename it to make sure everyone knows this is a fake image. Fry1989 eh? 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Official source details on authorisation of Red Ensigns by the UK Government is shown here:- [5] which state:-
- The Red Ensign Group (REG) is a group of British shipping registers.
- The registers are operated by:
- the UK
- the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey)
- UK Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar; Montserrat, St Helena, Turks & Caicos Islands)
- Any vessel on these registers is a ‘British ship’, and is entitled to fly the British Merchant Shipping flag the ‘Red Ensign’ (or a version of it defaced with the appropriate national colour).
- I believe the use of the ensign is allowed and therefore the image is valid for use. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The file is in use on WP:EN. Commons is quite deliberately not the judge of whether an image is valid or not -- only whether it is free for use. Therefore, whether Fry is right or wrong is completely irrelevant -- policy prohibits deleting an in-use file except for copyvio. Note that removing it from WP:EN while this DR is open is also against policy.
- BTW, I am inclined to believe that Fry is correct. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- This issue has also been raised to the Admins Noticeboard of Wikipedia because Richard Harvey keeps re-inserting the unsourced image. There, they falsely accused me to trying to get this file deleted to prevent it's use, when it's actually the opposite. Each time this file has been kept, it was because it's in use. I have asked a very simple thing, a source, just one real source that this flag exists in any capacity official or not. Nobody has one. I ask Richard Harvey to prove me happily wrong and I will create an SVG. But until then, this is a deliberately misleading forgery which qualifies under Commons' deletion policy. The ONLY reason it keeps getting kept is because Richard Harvey keeps violating Wiki policy about OR and re-inserting it, the "in use" reasoning is the cheap way out of addressing whether or not this image has a place on Commons. If it's real, I will make an SVG, if it's not, it shouldn't be here. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know this is frustrating, but if we break the in-use rule even once, it will be used as a precedent for the many other similar cases we have, principally maps that have boundary questions, but also, as you well know, flags. I suggest you withdraw this, delete the image at WP:EN and then refile immediately. That may seem silly, but it keeps us within the letter of the policy and avoids creating a dangerous precedent. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- We break it all the time, we delete copyrighted images that are in use, and we even delete images that are used just for vandalism but are in use. I've seen it all the time. In any case, I don't want this DR closed again until that file has been removed. I'm tired of this excuse to not deal with the issue and I have no lack of faith that the image will be removed because it violates Wikipedia's OR policy. I already did remove the image and re-file, but Richard Harvey re-inserted the image afterwards, so no I will not close and re-file after it is again removed because that will be my 4th time doing a DR for this file and it will not make me look good. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know this is frustrating, but if we break the in-use rule even once, it will be used as a precedent for the many other similar cases we have, principally maps that have boundary questions, but also, as you well know, flags. I suggest you withdraw this, delete the image at WP:EN and then refile immediately. That may seem silly, but it keeps us within the letter of the policy and avoids creating a dangerous precedent. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I spent a great deal of time looking around for something, anything, that confirmed the existence of a defaced Red Ensign used by Montserrat. While I did find the Red Ensign group which Richard Harvey has posted above, I have been unable to find any reliable source that actually outright lists the defaced ensign for any given country. As there are so many countries that have the right to fly a defaced ensign, it should have been a simple task to find a corroborating source. The only one I found was a listing on eBay which is hardly reliable in any sense. The argument to keep basically boils down to "they're allowed to fly a Red Ensign or a defaced version, thus it is reasonable to assume that they would have one even though no one has found any evidence for it" and that's not really a sufficient reason to keep it not to mention that connecting the dots this way is synthesis of material. 160.44.248.164 12:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as per Fry -FASTILY 04:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: as per this Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Unusuable blurred picture. 83.204.144.17 19:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aleksandar Veselinovski2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely authorship claims based on the low or inconsistent resolutions, missing or inconsistent metadata. In some cases, the authorship claims are demonstrably false, as the files have been published elsewhere by other authors. The uploader is obviously identical to Aleksandar Veselinovski, who has already had multiple files deleted for copyright reasons.
- File:Mi-24 Alexsandar.JPG – taken on 2009-11-24 with a Nikon D80 DSLR. Previously found in http://www.morm.gov.mk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/23-Shtit.pdf
- File:Macedonian DAF.jpg – taken on 2012-03-29 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR
- File:Macedonian BMC.JPG – taken on 2012-08-18 with a Canon PowerShot A470 point-and-shoot. Found at http://www.balkanforum.info/f41/macedonian-army-streitkraefte-mazedoniens-197093/index3.html#post2550503
- File:Igla mkd.jpg – taken on 2012-09-24 with a Canon EOS 450D DSLR
- File:Igla MANPADS.jpg – taken on 2012-11-25 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR
- File:Macedonain army t-72.JPG – taken on 2013-03-19 with a Canon PowerShot SX10 IS compact zoom
- File:Protiv avionski top.jpg – taken on 2013-03-21 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR
- File:Mi-24 s8.jpg – taken on 2013-05-30 at 08:10 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR
- File:Macedonian ARMY Mil Mi-24.jpg – taken on 2013-05-30 at 09:33 with a Nikon D90 DSLR
- File:501st Parachute Diversion Detachment "Falcons".jpg – taken on 2013-06-07 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR. Grabbed from http://www.arm.mil.mk/baza/edinici/zok/en_zok_vbr_galerija.html
- File:Mi8 pozar.jpg – taken on 2013-08-26 with an Olympus E-410 DSLR
- File:Мacedonian Zlin Z 143L.JPG – taken on 2013-10-18 with a Canon EOS 1000D DSLR
- File:Mi-8 makedosnko zname.jpg – taken on 2013-10-18 with a Canon EOS 1000D DSLR
- File:Mi-8 petrovec.jpg – taken on 2013-10-18 with a Canon EOS 1000D DSLR
- File:Su-25 petrovec.jpg – found at http://www.mycity-military.com/Avioni/SUHOJ-Su-25_23.html#p879502 three years before it was supposedly created and four and a half years before it was uploaded here
- File:М75.jpg – found at http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/38030 with a file timestamp of 2013-06-28 – more than a year before it was supposedly created and uploaded here
- File:Strela 10 SAM.jpg – grabbed from http://kajgana.com/poglednete-ja-galerijata-od-proslavata-na-20-godini-arm/img/74718?img=74718 with the watermark sloppily but deliberately cloned out
- File:Macedonian Bell 206.jpg – found at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?135826-Macedonian-Armed-Forces-photo-and-video-thread&p=7074747&viewfull=1#post7074747 before it was supposedly created and uploaded here
- File:Battalion for air guidance and calling.jpg – grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/76754703@N03/11399660783
- File:Macedonian M113.jpg – found at http://www.mycity-military.com/Oklopna-tehnika/Oklopni-transporter-M-113A1_14.html#p1432962 almost a year before it was supposedly created and uploaded here
- File:Macedonian Air Force logo,Воздухопловна бригада лого.png
- File:Strela-2 mkd.jpg
- File:Bofors.jpg
- File:Strela-2.jpg
- File:MKD mi 24.jpg – grabbed from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Macedonia---Air/Mil-Mi-24V/2428128 with the watermarks deliberately cloned and cropped out
- File:MKD Zlin.jpg – grabbed from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Macedonia---Air/Zlin-Z-242l/2422150 with the watermarks deliberately cropped out
- File:MKD Bell 206.jpg – found at http://www.mycity-military.com/Helikopteri/Bell-206-OH-58_10.html months before it was supposedly created and uploaded here
- File:MKD Uh-1.jpg – grabbed from http://www.airliners.net/photo/Macedonia---Air/Bell-UH-1H-Iroquois/2402868 with the watermarks deliberately cropped out
- File:MKD Simulator.jpg – found at http://faktor.mk/archives/98119# months before it was supposedly created and uploaded here
—LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- And since the uploader decided to charge ahead with more uploads instead of commenting here, you can add the following to the list:
- File:Bm-21 Grad MKD.jpg – taken on 2007-05-22 with an Olympus D555Z or C315Z point-and-shoot
- File:Macedonian MP ISAF A-stan.jpg – taken on 2010-06-15 with a Kodak Easyshare C182 point-and-shoot
- File:Tm-170 MKD.jpg – taken on 2013-09-21 with a Canon EOS 450D DSLR
- I tagged a whole bunch of others as obvious copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aleksandar Veselinovski2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The sockpuppet continues to remain completely incommunicado and continues to upload blatant copyright violations and files with inconsistent resolutions and inconsistent metadata. This is getting rather tedious.
- File:ARM Minobacac.JPG – taken on 2013-09-22 with a Canon EOS 450D DSLR
- File:ARM Vezba.jpg – taken on 2013-10-17 at 13:53 with a Canon EOS 450D DSLR
- File:T-72 MKD.jpg – taken on 2013-10-17 at 13:59 with a Nikon D5200 DSLR
—LX (talk, contribs) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The author Heinrich Stroh died in 1944 (see [6]), so these two drawings are not in the PD yet - though only by a few months.
- File:Haus Kaiserstraße 40 - Grünewald - Abraham - Heinrich Stroh(Heilbronn)Version 1.jpg
- File:Haus Kaiserstraße 40 - Grünewald - Abraham - Heinrich Stroh(Heilbronn)Version 2.jpg
Version_1.jpg){kind=link}
Version_2.jpg){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 18:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, as these were copyright violating uploads by a Sockpuppet of Messina. -- 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)