Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/09/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unusable picture. Out of scope. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mahnoor bhatti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Look like taken from web. previously the user uploaded many copyvio.
- File:Minar of pak.jpg
- File:Badshahi mosque view from park 01.jpg
- File:Badshahi mosque view from park 02.jpg
- File:King mosque 01.jpg
- File:King mosque 02.jpg
Saqib (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom. [1]. Yann (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
These files are out of the project scope.
- File:Wenn ich eure Kommentare lese.ogv
- File:Mein Kinderzimmer.ogv
- File:Ausraster.ogv
- File:Abnehmtipps und Tricks für Bikinifigur.ogv
- File:Handysucht.ogv
- File:Blitzeinschlag (animiert).GIF
- File:High resolution Picture of a Guinea Pig.jpg
- File:Fat girl is swimming in the "Waldbad Leuna" in Leuna, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.png
- File:Two male guinea pigs in a cage.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, mostly by Tiptoety. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
unused strange something - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Seems to be a Feng Shui symbol. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was uploaded without any category and has got later an incorrect categorizition. It is the trigramme ☲. We have quite a lot of different trigramme drawings, old PNGs anf better SVGs as File:Trigramme2632 ☲.svg. File:Li.png is not used anywhere, and we will never need it further. This is the same for the other drawings of the retired Spanish User:Silvestre168 he contributed on March 8, 2008. They all can be stripped without any disadvantage. -- sarang♥사랑 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a rephotograph from a book, magazine or television, has striping inconsistent with own work assertion. User's other uploads were taking from Graham watchmakers site and claimed own work as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 19:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
While this file has metadata showing a phone photo, it looks like a DW due to the crosshatching on the image, the presence of parts of the words "graham watchmakers" and that the user's other uploads were cribbed from Graham Watchmaker's webpage and blogs about the watchmaker, I nominate this as potential COM:COPYVIO under COM:PRP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 19:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There would be no reason to label these images "fig 2.2" and "fig 2.3" if this were indeed own work of uploader intended for use on the project. I suspect scans from book or magazine, not own work and hence COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
i hv others pages Abhinav Rays (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
i have other page Abhinav Rays (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. Aftab (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photographs or group photographs are not allowed to the contest. please read Commons:Bangla Wikipedia Photography Contest 2014/Rules and FAQ ~ Nahid Talk 06:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. Aftab (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photographs or group photographs are not allowed to the contest. please read Commons:Bangla Wikipedia Photography Contest 2014/Rules and FAQ ~ Nahid Talk 06:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muhibbullah Patuakhali (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal images outside our scope
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope:personal photographs or group photographs are not allowed to the contest. please read Commons:Bangla Wikipedia Photography Contest 2014/Rules and FAQ ~ Nahid Talk 06:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
bad quality , want to add new picture of good qulality Gksanjeevreddy (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: New and unused image. Lets get a better one :-) MGA73 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
i have other pages Asidhara Rays (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, empty page. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyright status claimed is one for an anonymous photographer. I don't see how one can claim anonymous photographer, and name the photographer as Bortzells Esselte at the exact same time. The copyright status claim simply doesn't work as stated. Now, it's possible it's still out of copyright - but that needs documented, not asserted on patently false grounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Bortzells Esselte is not a person. The copyright expired in Sweden in 1985, and Commons policy is not to delete based upon URAA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The requirements for a work to be considered anonymous generally require documenation of the work done to show it's anonymous, is the thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think it means that the copyright was owned by Bortzells Esselte, and that the photographer was not named. Then it follows that the copyright expired 70 years after publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The requirements for a work to be considered anonymous generally require documenation of the work done to show it's anonymous, is the thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are several errors above:
- Under Commons policy, files which are unfree in the United States are to be deleted, without exception. The RfC which Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) refers to was overturned in Commons:Review of Precautionary principle.
- wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that only content which is free according to Freedomdefined:Definition may be uploaded to Commons and that Commons may not circumvent the resolution. Freedomdefined:Definition states, for example, that content only can be free if there is no restriction on where the content is used. This picture can't be used in some countries such as Spain and Colombia (meaning that there are restrictions on where the picture is used) and is therefore not free content according to Freedomdefined:Definition. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which is a lot stricter than COM:L, therefore forbids Commons to host this picture.
- There is no evidence that the photographer is anonymous, so {{Anonymous-EU}} does not necessarily apply.
- The file is sourced to the Nobel Foundation, a Swedish organisation. It is generally assumed that most photographs are below the threshold of originality in Sweden. A photograph which is below the threshold of originality is only protected for 50 years from creation (or for 25 years from creation if created before 1969), whereas photographs which are above the threshold of originality are protected for a longer term. If Sweden is the country of first publication, then {{PD-Sweden-photo}} applies. The problem here is that we do not know where it was first published. For photos of that age on Swedish website, see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#"Swedish" photos of Nobel laureates?
- If Sweden is the country of first publication, then the picture is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-1996}}, provided that the first publication was before 1 March 1989 and that it was without a copyright notice (or without a renewal if published before 1964). As we do not know anything about the publication history (neither the country of first publication nor the year of first publication), we can't make such assumptions, though. Many photographs only exist in unpublished form in private photo albums, and whenever such photographs show up on the market, the first publication could easily be a hundred years after creation. I'm not sure exactly where this photograph comes from.
- Börtzell and Esselte are the names of two companies. The name of the photographer is not currently indicated on the file information page.
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) claims that the copyright expired in Sweden in 1985. The copyright did in fact expire a lot earlier. If you wish to calculate the year of copyright expiration, you need to consider the changes to the copyright term which were made in 1961 and 1994. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that.
- I was aware that when the copyright was extended in Sweden in 1996 it was not restored for images for which the copyright had already expired. That was why we thought that copyright had expired in 1985; but since it was published in 1935, it must have expired in 1960.
- The photograph was taken for the 1935 Nobel Prize brochure. Hence the attribution to Bortzells Esselte (the brochure publisher) on behalf of the Nobel Foundation. The name of the photographer is not indicated, presumably because it was a work for hire, giving the copyright to the Nobel Foundation. So 1935 was its first publication, and the location was Sweden, so {{PD-Sweden-photo}} applies.
- My understanding is that the images must be in the public domain in the country of origin and in the United States. For example, this image that I uploaded is PD in the United States, but not in Columbia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that.
- That is correct. Commons:Licensing states that clearly. Stefan4 is giving the idealized version of the goal, unimpeded by practical measures; the rule of the shorter term means that things that meet the goal stated on Commons:Licensing are free in the vast majority of jurisdictions. I think point 2 may well be sufficient to close this, but that needs documented on the image description page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- COM:L states that it is enough if the picture is in the public domain in both the United States and the source country. However, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that the picture must be in the public domain in all countries, unless it is freely licensed. Also, Commons may not choose not to follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, so I assume that wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy takes precedence whenever it contradicts with COM:L.
- The Swedish term was extended to 25 years in 1961. This photograph entered the public domain in Sweden when the term in the 1919 law ended (which was earlier than 1960).
- If you request someone to create a portrait photo, the rights holder is assigned as follows:
- If the photograph was created on 1 July 1994 or later, both the photographer and the requesting party (Nobel Foundation? Börtzells Esselte?) needs to give permission to use the image.
- If the photograph was created between 1 July 1961 and 30 June 1994, only the requesting party needs to give permission.
- If the photograph was created before 1 July 1961, then I do not know what the rules are (check the 1919 photo law). Such photographs are normally not copyrighted in Sweden, but the old Swedish rules are important if you wish to use an old unpublished photograph in the United States.
- If the photograph is not a portrait photograph, then the rules are slightly different. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. Please don't make up your own Commons policies. If you want to change Commons policies, open a discussion, until then, go with what's written. If nothing else, your links don't actually support your massive rewrite of Commons policy, as the definition nowhere states that works can only be considered free if they are free in the world's most restrictive copyright regime. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is correct. Commons:Licensing states that clearly. Stefan4 is giving the idealized version of the goal, unimpeded by practical measures; the rule of the shorter term means that things that meet the goal stated on Commons:Licensing are free in the vast majority of jurisdictions. I think point 2 may well be sufficient to close this, but that needs documented on the image description page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Like is typical with these Nobel Prize images, we don't know where it was first published, and thus what laws apply.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Move back to en.wiki - It seems we just don't have enough information about this photograph to make a good copyright determination (for example, when and where it was originally published). Since the image is fairly low resolution, we could just move it back to en.wiki and put a fair use tag on it. FWIW, I think Stefan4 is reading a bit too much into the WMF licensing policy. Kaldari (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Kaldari and Hawkeye7: According to Hawkeye, "The photograph was taken for the 1935 Nobel Prize brochure." - If that's true, then this image needs a hell of a lot more documentation, but I'm happy enough to vote
Fix description and licensing and keep. But I really wish that all this information made it to the image page when it was found out; this really shouldn't be coming up in a deletion review for the first time. Secondarily, if Swedish copyright isn't well-covered by other templates, we should probably make one that sets out the actual legal rationale for this photo, not use one that.... applies awkwardly at best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Kaldari and Hawkeye7: According to Hawkeye, "The photograph was taken for the 1935 Nobel Prize brochure." - If that's true, then this image needs a hell of a lot more documentation, but I'm happy enough to vote
- Comment As others are highlighting, the WMF resolution wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy about Exemption Doctrine Policies on other projects is irrelevant here, what should concern us is Commons policies which may take into account a resolution such as this from 6 years ago. It is worrying that drama fuelling tangents like this are created in an otherwise reasonable DR by those that one would expect would know better. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The WMF resolution is not only about exemption doctrine policies. It also contains a definition of what the term "free content" means. That said, Commons has never fully followed that resolution. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It appears correct that Commons never followed the resolution, presumably as it is written in a way that makes it almost irrelevant to this project and so there was no reason to take action on it. The resolution does not contain a useful definition of "free content", it points out to an external definition which I have read and found unhelpfully woolly, again with little relevance to this project. I don't see how this external material, unrecognized by any Commons policies or guidelines, is more than an unhelpfully confusing tangent to this DR. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The WMF resolution is not only about exemption doctrine policies. It also contains a definition of what the term "free content" means. That said, Commons has never fully followed that resolution. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It is impossible to prove that a photographer is anonymous. It is like determining if someone is died when the corpse cannot be found. This file is present in Commons for 7 years and the meantime his name was not found, so we can presume anonymity. Thus the photo is in public domain. Regarding Stefan's comment, administrators must be abide by Commons rules. After these rules are changed, we can open another DR on the affected files. Alpertron (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Invalid closure. A file can't be kept under a claim that the image is anonymous unless it can be shown that it is anonymous. Such evidence could for example be evidence that the photographer wasn't credited in the original publication (which typically means that the photographer is anonymous). However, such evidence has not been provided here, and it doesn't say how to check the original publication to confirm whether the photographer is credited or not. The only source which has been provided is a link to a contemporary website, which provides absolutely zero invormation about whether the photographer was credited in the original publication or not. Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- On the file description page some user left a link photos.aip.org claiming Bortzells Esselte - a publisher, not a photographer - the photographer. At the National Portrait Gallery London website we have a very similar portrait (mp56567) with Howard Coster given as the photographer. The similarity of the two photos is the exact same clothing and the same studio background. I suspect that the AIP misinterpreted the publisher as the photographer, as many users on Commons did too in the past. IMO it is clear that this photographs are provided by the recipients to the nobel foundation and that the publication in Sweden is not relevant for us (not country of origin but only some secondary publication). --Martin H. (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Martin H.'s arguments make sense. It is likely enough that Koster is the photographer, likely enough for the PCP to apply. We cannot asume that this work is anonymous either, we need some stronger arguments to asume that. The URAA-discussion seems very irrelevant regarding this file because if Coster is the photographer, than the file is protected to at least 2030 in the UK, if not we cannot asume that the file is free either. Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
image comes from this news site http://globalnews.ca/news/1540402/paul-robertson-president-of-shaw-media-passes-away-at-59/ Dman41689 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see our project scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see our project scope Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Blank page reddogsix (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo of non-notable personal. Out of scope and non-educational. Somewhat narcissistic too! Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal photo of a non-notable family, non-educational unless you count the lesson about not smiling for the camera. Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of non-notable, but wistful looking, individual that is out of scope and non-educational. Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of 3D work. No free license release on source website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused userpage image; see COM:PS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused userpage image; see COM:PS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Image is actually an in-game sceenshot from World of Tanks Wolcott (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Not "own work". Larger size at http://www.enelbrasero.com/2014/02/06/martha-higareda-conquistara-el-mariachi-fotos/ivan_arana3/ Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:IskanderG Ufa Gunnex (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
could be copyright. [2] Saqib (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Both files most likely screenshots of video games (WoW?), needing permission.
Gunnex (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Claim of "own work", but description says "Copyright: DB AG". darkweasel94 08:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This building has been created by Stefano Boeri (b. 1965), an architect who is still alive. As there's no freedom of panorama in France, this picture can't be considered as free and should be removed from Commons. Pymouss Let’s talk - 08:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
No evidence from source website of a cc-by release MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
low quality, personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
File:It’s a marathon, not a sprint-”--Is it ever- Building a business is neither for the faint of heart or the speed demon- Climbing Mt- Everest is not done in 3 easy steps- 1-) decide you want to do it, 2-) fl 2014-01-18 08-33.jpg
[edit]Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's fake. Laurascorreia (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete the actual version because the original file (an user image uploaded in 2012) was overwritten by Laurascorreia in 09.2014 with copyvio via (example) http://www.fattystopeating.com/crunchy-top-coconut-banana-muffins/ = http://www.fattystopeating.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/muffins-2.jpg (last modified: 07.2014). Gunnex (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Lesly Águila junto a Joa Geraldine.jpg
- File:Lesly Águila (cantante).jpg
- File:Joa Geraldine.jpg
- File:Lesly Águila durante una sesión de grabación.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Crossianlibrary (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: I don't think that such quotes are useful for WMF projets. Unclear origin of clip-art as well as not credited painters.
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 17.JPG
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 16.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 15.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 12.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 14.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 13.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER 11.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER10.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER8.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER9.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER7.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER6.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER4.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER5.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER3.jpg
- File:SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES POSTER2.jpg
- File:SFSJPG1.jpg
- File:Comealive 04.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Priyankashah1707 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of book covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Book Cover of SOCIAL 50 Ways To Improve Your Professional Life by Ankit Fadia.jpg
- File:FASTER Book Cover by Ankit Fadia.jpg
- File:FASTER Book Cover.png
- File:Ankit Fadia & VJ Jose hosting MTV What The Hack.jpg
- File:Ankit Fadia Author Ethical Hacker.jpg
- File:Ankit Fadia 3.jpg
- File:Ankit Fadia.jpg
- File:Ankit Fadia 2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Too big collection for user page. Unclear copyrights status of source game cards.
- File:Ryan Rubis Stage 4.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Pregnant.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Pentium.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dumb.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cat.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cao.jpg
- File:Super Ryan Rubis.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Seven Head.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Lord Of D.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis lord.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dishonored Troll.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dishonored.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dinosaur.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Bike.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cube.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A series of "trading cards" containing images of unknown provenance, possibly juvenalia, but COM:COPYVIO. Notice all in use on Wikipedia user page User:Antigui (and how used).
- File:Ryan Rubis Stage 4.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Pregnant.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Pentium.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dumb.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cat.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cao.jpg
- File:Super Ryan Rubis.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Seven Head.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Lord Of D.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis lord.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dishonored Troll.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dishonored.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Dinosaur.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Bike.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis.jpg
- File:Ryan Rubis Cube.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of software of questionable notability.
- File:TableroTareas.png
- File:MenuCambioAcceso.png
- File:EditProPopup.png
- File:EditUsuPopup.png
- File:EditTipoArtPopup.png
- File:CreateTipoArtPopup.png
- File:EditPlaPopup.png
- File:EditTipoPlaPopup.png
- File:EditTipoRecPopup.png
- File:EditEmpPopup2.png
- File:EditEmpPopup.png
- File:EditTipoEmpPopup.png
- File:DeleteRol.png
- File:EditRolPopUp.png
- File:Editar rol.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused software screenshots of questionable notability. Likely to be re-uploaded after previous deletion request.
- File:TableroCanvan1.png
- File:TableroCanvan.png
- File:ProcesoValidacion1.png
- File:ProcesoValidacion.png
- File:ProcesoProgramacion.png
- File:ProcesoInformacion.png
- File:MenuProceso.png
- File:CrearProceso.png
- File:ListaProyectos.png
- File:Calendario1.png
- File:EditaProyecto.png
- File:CrearProyecto.png
- File:CrearUsuario1.png
- File:EditaUsuario.png
- File:CrearTipoEmpresa.png
- File:EditaTipoEmpresa1.png
- File:ProcesoPlantilla.png
- File:CrearPlantilla.png
- File:EditaPlantilla.png
- File:CrearEmpresa1.png
- File:EditaEmpresa.png
- File:EditaTipoPlantilla.png
- File:CrearTipoPlantilla.png
- File:EditaTipoRecurso.png
- File:MenuAdmPlat.png
- File:CrearRol.png
- File:EditaRol1.png
- File:EditaTipoArtefacto.png
- File:CrearTipoArtefacto.png
- File:EditaTipoEmpresa.png
- File:EditaRol.png
- File:ImgEditar.png
- File:HomeMONO2.png
- File:HomeMONO.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Green Giant (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by StereO 4 (BoyBand) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:StereoCuatro.jpg
- File:Stereo4.jpg
- File:Jesus Jhay.jpg
- File:Yadiel.jpg
- File:Jafy.jpg
- File:Edu Esterras.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Commercial advertisement for a website, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Geekdorkdweebnerdpl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG anyway.
- File:Aucorigia Venn diagram pl 1.png
- File:Aucorigia SWOT-like spectrum 2.png
- File:Venn diagram aucorigia.png
- File:Intelligence obsession social ineptitude diagram pl.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private / self-promotional image, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Awsalsharqi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:AWS ALSHARQI.JPG
- File:AWS ASHARQI.JPG
- File:اوس الشرقي - aws alsharqi.JPG
- File:اوس الشرقي.JPG
- File:المخرج اوس الشرقي.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Movie poster and TV screenshot. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Multiple copyvio web harvests
- File:박선영(자켓1)1.JPG
- File:2집앨범 가사 그리워0001.JPG
- File:2집앨범 가사 1표지0001.JPG
- File:박선영110.JPG
- File:박선영(cd)14.JPG
- File:박선영12.JPG
- File:한국여자가수 박선영.JPG
- File:가수박선영.JPG
- File:가수 박선영.jpg
- File:가수 박선영-세월이또간다(박선영2집앨범).jpg
Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BANDOLERO SD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works for non-trivial logo.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mariapaulajijon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Douglasdeleon13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep 100% agree with nominator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you meant Delete? I agree the nom, too. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you meant
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shoaib2ali (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots of non-free software, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Search By Keyword - Screenshot.jpg .
- File:PANTHER - Sequence Search.jpg
- File:PANTHER Data Generation Process.png
- File:PANTHER - Gene Analysis.png
- File:PANTHER - Homo Sapiens.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamed ifham nawas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Badib mowlana1.jpg
- File:Mohammed AbuBakr Abdullah Badhib.jpg
- File:Kahatowita Muhiyideen jumma mosque.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shrivastavmukesh41 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal promotion images, read description. Commons is not social media, out of COM:SCOPE.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Three photos described as having been used in a publication... each shows a relatively famous puppet used in the comic books and shows. Nominating these images for deletion due to the likelihood that the character is considered property of creator, not of photographic uploader here. Probable COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Churrinche y las cataratas (Parapibes - PimPamPom).jpg
- File:Martin el titere reportero con los chicos (Parapibes).jpg
- File:Leon Gieco con Martin el titere reportero (Parapibes).jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
copied (from here) Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal images outside our scope.
- File:ABU HANIF Masum.jpeg
- File:BNP LEADER MONIR KHAN.jpg
- File:AH MASUM.jpeg
- File:Abu Hanif Masum.jpeg
- File:A H Masum.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
These seem to be pictures of an election at a university, without usage in Wikimedia projects and without categorization. IMHO out of scope.
- File:قرعه اندازی 2013-04-10 07-38.jpg
- File:قرعه اندازی 2013-04-10 07-35.jpg
- File:امامیه اسٹوڈنٹس آرگنائزیشن پاکستان کے تحت چار کوئز کی سیریز میں سے پهلے کوئز سیرت معصومین علیه السلام کی آئ ایس او پاکست 2013-04-10 07-28.jpg
ireas (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Westwing33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Westwing33 (4 uploads = 2x copyvio, 1x related to en:Jean Stafford (musician). Both files (uploaded 08.2014) most likely video screenshots, File:Jean live in Tamworth 2013 2014-08-14 11-31.jpg eventually taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiSO1dPAY_Y or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0mWX3KALFs (both: 2013)
- File:Jean live in Tamworth 2013 2014-08-14 11-31.jpg
- File:Jean Stafford Live In Tamworth 2014-08-13 13-48.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The page http://www.forvo.com/license/ says that files on that site are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, not CC-BY-SA as the uploader specified. Ajmint (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO out of the scope Threecharlie (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused image that appears to be a screengrab - ?copyright problems Richard Avery (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
One of two images. Copyright holder/creator has agreed to license the other image only (not this one), and it is extremely unlikely that this image will be used. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Smithy ithie productions 2014 (C) A Profesional Youtube Broadcaster E-S-T 2012- 2014-06-18 20-45.jpg
[edit]Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Text only, out of scope. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image, not used in low quality Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unsure how this is on scope for Commons? It has no encyclopaedic nor educational value and is just a vanity file for this editor Timtrent (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unsure how this is on scope for Commons? It has no encyclopaedic nor educational value and is just a vanity file for this editor Timtrent (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 37.230.243.39 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope - personal unused photo Krd 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 37.230.243.39 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope - personal unused photo Krd 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by عبد الرحمن1999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering also User talk:عبد الرحمن1999. All files (as the 3 copyvios) related to en:Duaij Naser.
Gunnex (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image; please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
too blurry; we have hundreds of photos of unidentified Wisteria cultivars. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong claim of being the copyright holder. Even though this might be uncopyrightable, it is also in an unsuitable format and probably won't reflect the actual Windows 9 logo. Don Cuan (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Text only image. Out of scope. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Text only, out of scope. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
virtually text only, unused, out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused, text only document, out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Unused, text only document. Out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused vanity personal photo. out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
+1 - delete. --Cholo 3 (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Image destroyed by huge watermarks, too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete What a pity, thats a wonderful picture! Dear World on Fly, can you upload this picture without this promotional text? This belongs to the description of that picture! --Ras67 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. Aftab (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I made a mistake, I have uploadet this but im not right owner. Please Remove. Izzy.pt (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC) E: She asked me to upload this but " ygrabo.com " have the rights.--Izzy.pt (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I share this opinion, especially regarding the uploader’s other uploads. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused vanity photo of a non-notable group. Richard Avery (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Promotional or vanity photo of unknown person. Out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient information to make image useful. Richard Avery (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient information to make file useful. Richard Avery (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient information to make image useful. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Text only, unused, out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Text only, unused, out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete request only for the two file revisions from 3. sept. 2014 with the comment "Building A": No permission from the copyright holder. See EXIF data. Different image/photo than the first file version and description in the text page. See history Wdwd (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: New overwrites removed. INeverCry 02:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, meaning it is possibly not their "own work", see this page if you want to see an image that may have been copyrighted DLindsley (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Photographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Profesional image in low size, without metadata Yann (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Photographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Profesional image in low size without metadata Yann (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Yann --The Photographer (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Flickr source/uploader looks legit. INeverCry 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Flickr source looks legit - part of this set: https://www.flickr.com/photos/63287070@N00/with/5027483831. INeverCry 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Flickr source/uploader looks legit. INeverCry 19:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Scan from book or newspaper. No source, no permission, bogus license. Yann (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality and unused. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Flickr review/uploader looks legit. INeverCry 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not covered by Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Argentina. Yann (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong date, bogus author and license. May be PD due to age, but needs more information. Yann (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Massive celebrity photos with no EXIF. Potentially copyvio.--Liji (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Author is given as " Eugene Lisansky" with no apparent connection to uploader, picture is claimed to be "private collection" none of this gives clear status, instead probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Several images in a composite, claimed to be own work but more likely DW and COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient information to make thi unused image useful Richard Avery (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused blurry photo of some drummer, with no description, claimed date in 1987, claimed own work of uploader and most creatively, the permission is given as "ok", probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
DW of images, all claimed to be own work, not in use, no metadata, likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality, image with small size and no metadata, smaller versions of which are found on the web, may not be own work of uploader and instead possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a selfie... If image shows same person as uploader, likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
copied (from here) Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
copied - similar photos available in other websites (here , here and here) Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
copied - similar photos available (here) Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Albania.svg Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Egypt (1922–1958).svg Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Image was not found on flickr, it has "Author Ray Molinari Copyright holder Ambideraimon" as the copyright holder's information in metadata, and no apparent connection to uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Was on flickr [3] but I now realise has the wrong creative commons licence (ie non-commercial). Please delete. Haminoon (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
License applied seems to have nothing to do with this image which is a photograph of a male infront of some kind of artwork. Presumably the artwork has copyright, and as such, this becomes COM:COPYVIO due to DW. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was assured this photo has no copyright as it is free for media to publish without attribution. However I will ask the artist for the status to be clarified on his website. In the meantime please delete - I will upload another one when there is a clear notice up. Haminoon (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The music on that page may be free of copyright, but no such license is offered the photos. This is an album cover http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kraus/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted; please delete. Haminoon (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
he music on that page may be free of copyright, but no such license is offered the photos. This is an album cover http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kraus/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted; please delete. Haminoon (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
he music on that page may be free of copyright, but no such license is offered the photos. This is an album cover http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kraus/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted; please delete. Haminoon (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private child image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
he music on that page may be free of copyright, but no such license is offered the photos. This is an album cover http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kraus/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted; please delete. Haminoon (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Websource says "shared with everyone" but doesn't give a free license as here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The original picasweb page had a creative commons notice - I'm not sure where this is now it has been migrated to Google Plus. Haminoon (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely cropped, a mysterious "re" as watermark is still visible. Gunnex (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
doubles File:Leutkirch-Dreifaltigkeitskirche.JPG AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete accidental upload of renamed file --Tilman2007 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
doubles File:Isny-Blaserturm.JPG AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete accidental upload of renamed file --Tilman2007 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
doubles File:Isny-Espantor.JPG AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete accidental upload of renamed file --Tilman2007 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
doubles File:Isny-008.JPG AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete accidental upload of renamed file --Tilman2007 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
doubles File:Isny-014.JPG AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete accidental upload of renamed file --Tilman2007 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality, and we would have this. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- … and many others in Category:Carbon monoxide. Delete --Leyo 19:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
too blurry; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Krd 19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
No FOP in France. The Rings are not Free and the original file showing the view of the Stade de la Beaujoire has been deleted per No FOP. Also, no source for the sky view. - Zil (d) 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The top left part is also problematic, as on File:Tour-Bretagne-à-Nantes-dans-la-brume.jpg the tower is the main subject (the photo is a bout a tower in the fog). --Dereckson (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
1:1 replaced by File:Carbon monoxide simple.svg (by the same original author). Leyo 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Linksfuss (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a real logo, it looks like a custom-made ripoff of the logo for the British television channel ITV4. Fry1989 eh? 19:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Piece of art by Werner Juza (* 1924) in a church in Dresden. Freedom of Panorama is not given, therefore copyright violation. Paulae (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a real logo, it looks like a custom-made ripoff of the logo for the France Telvesions channel France3. Fry1989 eh? 19:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This user's uploads appear to be custom rip-off logos and not real television channel logos, see here and here. Fry1989 eh? 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in France: this photo is about a tower in the fog, so the tower is the main subject, so de minimis is not applicable. Dereckson (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
All "chopper pieces" depicted in this high res. photography are pieces of art by Werner Juza (* 1924) in a church in Dresden. Freedom of panorama is not given, therefore it's a copyright violation + pic must be deleted. Paulae (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, the only one upload of this user Avron (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
unnecessary redirect Avron (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a photo of a photo, so it is derivative work, but without mentioning the original copyright Avron (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Copiado de [4] Facu89 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Uploading editor says they are not Louis Antonelli, see this diff. Since this is a self portrait of Antonelli it could not be Reelstory's own work. GB fan (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploaded, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploaded, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this image. GB fan (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploaded, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploaded, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this movie poster. GB fan (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this poster. GB fan (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this image. GB fan (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of the magazine pictured. The licence situation of the magazine is not explained. Basvb (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the uploader, a relative of Louis Antonelli see diff, is the copyright holder of this image. GB fan (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Shows someones privates, which some may deem inappropriate. DLindsley (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Some? You, you mean? Keep, at least it's a normal looking one for a change. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, what I am trying to say is that some people find looking at someone's privates inappropriate. That is why I nominated the file for deletion. DLindsley (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Some" people's capacity for being offended is not a concern on Commons, and neither is it a compelling reason for deletion. If the image is of reasonable quality, educational and legal then that's all that Commons is concerned with. Admittedly we have a surfeit of male organ photos, but also we have a limited number of 'normal' examples too. I believe that this particular image comes under the latter and makes a healthy change from images of narcissistic owners of monster cocks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Generally, what I am trying to say is that some people find looking at someone's privates inappropriate. That is why I nominated the file for deletion. DLindsley (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per Fred the Oyster MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused userpage image. --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
kein bedarf 84.162.147.141 12:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- ich bin für behalten, da in dem Artikel für Schamhaarrasur die gleiche Berechtigung für männliche wie für weibliche Ansichten gelten sollte. 29.09.2014 9:45 weiterer Benutzer— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.97.142 (talk • contribs)
Keep In scope, considering also the wiki-used File:Shaved Genitals (Male) b.JPG, derivated from this file. Gunnex (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Auf jeden Fall behalten, da verwendet und einer der wenigen pofessionellen Bilder mit vernünfiger Auflösung zu der Thematik.
Kept: Source of a derivated file that is in use. MGA73 (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Abanderado.jpg Santiago Corinaldesi (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: I do not understand the reason why nominater want to delete the image. It is not in use but it does not seem to be a copyvio. Please add a better reason to delete next time. MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Santiago_Corinaldesi.jpg Santiago Corinaldesi (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: I do not understand the reason why nominater want to delete the image. It is not in use but it does not seem to be a copyvio. Please add a better reason to delete next time. MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect copyright and attribution of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.130.215 (talk • contribs) 2014-09-21T21:25:42 (UTC)
Kept: I checked and the license on Flickr is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ and the info on the File page seems correct. Please add a better reason next time. MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ira Setyarini (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user page images, out of scope
Didym (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ira Setyarini (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Это портрет не Трезини, а Растрелли, Бартоломео Франческо. Такое же иображение портрета на Викискладе уже имеется: File:Ротари_-_Портрет_архитектора_Бартоломео_Растрелли.jpg VladVD (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Чтобы убедиться, что это действительно портрет Растрелли, можно посмотреть, например, здесь и здесь. --VladVD (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a portrait of Bartolomeo Rastrelli File:Ротари_-_Портрет_архитектора_Бартоломео_Растрелли.jpg --Ghirlandajo (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as downscaled duplicate Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Image seems to be sourced from Flickr, see [5]. It's licensed under CC-BY 2.0. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- From this other DR the image may be a flickrwash since the uploader has uploaded other images from the same flickr account. And there is no metadata. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- It does have some EXIF data on Flickr, though certainly it still remains questionable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 08:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom - likely flickrwashing Lymantria (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Originally marked as "copyvio" as fast as it was uploaded by me, the nominator (User:Fred the Oyster) surely did not read the license and sources given, where it is explained that Fender allows the downloading and use of this logo (See here) . Fma12 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Allowing a download is not the same as allowing a relicensing. Just because you can download a file "for media use" does not mean you can reupload it and give it a new license. It's still copyrighted and it exceeds the threshold of originality. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- PS: See that note at the bottom of the logo download page? The one that says "Copyright © 2013 Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. All rights reserved."? That's a clue. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Allowing a download is not the same as allowing a relicensing. Just because you can download a file "for media use" does not mean you can reupload it and give it a new license. It's still copyrighted and it exceeds the threshold of originality. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you have read the statement, you would have seen that Fender allows the downloading "for media use". It is clear. I did not commit any copyright infringement, just downloaded the file and placed it on Guild article for information purposes about the subject. No relicensing at all from my POV.
- PS: I did read the legal advice, but (as far I know) it is referred to the contents on the whole website rather than a logo which is specifically indicated as "allowed for downloading". - Fma12 (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I know all about "for media use", and it bears very little relationship to the license you gave it or indeed to their intention. You basically stated in your upload that they have given permission for others to do pretty much anything they like to the image because it was freely downloadable. That is not the case at all, "for media use" means for it to be printed as is whenever the is a need for it to be used. There is no implied permission for the media to alter it or relicense it. You could always email them to check. But I'll put money on it that that is not what they intended when offering it for download. And "All Rights Reserved" means ALL rights, for everything that appears on the website regardless of whether it is downloadable or not, unless of course there's an exception made, and there hasn't been. You've just misunderstood it. I work in that trade and "for media use" has a very specific meaning that the media knows, understands and keeps to. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think the bigger question is the copyrightable status of the image, since this is a US company and we know that US threshold of originality is very low. I'm on the fence though, I think it could go either way, but if I really had to way one way or the other I would say it's just barely under the threshold of originality. The shield with the half-reversed colour of the letter G I don't think would garnish a copyright on it's own, and the upward-downward name "GUILD" absolutely wouldn't on it's own. Based on that I say Keep. Fry1989 eh? 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it were just the word or the letter, or even the word and the letter, then I would agree and would never have nominated it for deletion, but in my view the stylised way in which they have both been used to help represent a guitar headstock, and quite possibly a plectrum too, is what takes it above the originality threshold. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Beyond the image can be under the TOO or not (I consider it is not complex enough), I have already given my arguments above and don't want to make this so extensive repeating the same all the time. The reason because I uploaded the logo under the {{Attribution}} license is simple: This is the most suitable tag that I know for cases like this. In fact, it clearly specifies that the logo is copyrighted. - Fma12 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The point being that because the image is copyrighted and permission has neither been sought nor given to allow you to define a new license no matter how "suitable" you think it is. You appear to believe that simple permission to download a file implies that one can do with it whatever one wants. That is totally untrue and is unlawful. The only point of contention here is if the image exceeds the threshold of originality. This is purely subjective and none of us are lawyers trained in copyright rulings, as such I'd suggest that the precautionary principle also be invoked. I assert, from the perspective of a graphic artist, that the image is original (and isn't just text) and has subtle meanings that appear to have been missed by your good self and Fry. That's about it for my arguments, unless of course something else new comes up. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It's in legitimate use on en.wiki in w:Cat communication, so if someone intends to delete it, they should find a suitable replacement. An image of a cat meowing for attention seems like an important illustration of cat behavior, and should be represented in that article with an image if possible. INeverCry 23:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In use, in scope. Tm (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Poor quality, but in use. Please renominate if replaced. Yann (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The author is given as the Science Museum London. That seems a bit unspecific, and I'm a little worried that this photograph may be part of an archive of photographs taken from some other source, and thus copyrighted. Museums aren't always perfect about copyright on their Flickr pages, after all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing "unspecific" about it. The Science Museum says they own the (copyright to the) photo, as part of its "Science & Society Picture Library", akin to say Getty Images owning copyright to an image in its library. Whether the image come from a collection of archives in the museum's collection is irrelvaent. We have no reason not to believe the SM's claim here that they own the photo. The usual complaint about GLAM or other large organisation is that they are claiming copyright on images that is considered public domain (at least in the US via Bridgeman v. Corel), not that they don't own the image in the first place. -- KTC (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Adam. We have seen many cases from museums all over the world of their not paying enough attention to copyright and applying a CC license (or the reverse) when they had absolutely no right to do so. We usually accept such images only when we can find the source of the image -- how the museum acquired it -- and the terms of that acquisition. In this case all we have is a CC license without anything to tell us how the museum acquired the rights to the image, if in fact it did. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This may sound daft, but other than "I'm worried", do we have any actual evidence that the licence is inaccurate? For example, do we suspect it came from a particular source? If not, then we can safely assume that a major institution like the Science Museum - who run dozens of sites around the country - have already done the checks required. This would be a standard part of the due diligence required before they uploaded them to Flickr. This is especially given that they actually make money from licencing some of their images, so they have more experience than us at this sort of thing! There is no reason to be paranoid here, and certainly no reason to assume that just because "other museums" have made mistakes in the past, that this museum also has. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did you mean to add {{Vk}} above?
- Please remember that the burden of proof is on those who want to keep an image to show that the image is free. Unless we have evidence that the image is properly licensed, we must delete it, not the other way around.
- Here we have an image that is probably still under copyright and no reason is given why the Museum can freely license it. We know that many people, including major museums, believe that owning a copy of an image gives them the right to license it. Even if they have acquired a large collection of images, they do not necessarily own the copyright. Given the poor record in this regard of other major museums around the world, I think the question passes our "significant doubt" standard. Those who would like to keep the image should ask the museum to explain the basis for the license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are going into paranoid level of unreasonable demands here. The image in question is part of the museum's collection. The EXIF data is consistent with the claim. The image is publicly claimed by the museum to be theirs, both on its website and via Flickr. The image is licensed by the museum on Flickr, who claims copyright over it, under an appropriate licence for Commons. There has been no arguments given to doubt the SM's claim that they own the copyright other than that some people get it wrong so the SM may have too. No evidence or claim have been made or shown to doubt the SM's claim to copyright. We should not be going to the level of asking all museums (who are usually more paranoid about losing their copyrights than most people are) as a matter of course to provide details we wouldn't ask anyone else. Where do we stop? -- KTC (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're basicallly presuming that someone in the museum was sent over to Rutherford's laboratory to take photographs. Rutherford's laboratory wasn't in London, and it seems unlikely that, in the early 20th century, sending someone to another city to take photographs would be a museum's first priority. Museums do not, generally speaking, actively create content; they collect it after the fact. And, of course, early 20th-century cameras did not collect EXIF data; that would have been added when the plate was scanned. 1926 is late enough to hit URAA issues, as well. Further, look at this copy of the image, which suggests a completely different credit for the same image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are going into paranoid level of unreasonable demands here. The image in question is part of the museum's collection. The EXIF data is consistent with the claim. The image is publicly claimed by the museum to be theirs, both on its website and via Flickr. The image is licensed by the museum on Flickr, who claims copyright over it, under an appropriate licence for Commons. There has been no arguments given to doubt the SM's claim that they own the copyright other than that some people get it wrong so the SM may have too. No evidence or claim have been made or shown to doubt the SM's claim to copyright. We should not be going to the level of asking all museums (who are usually more paranoid about losing their copyrights than most people are) as a matter of course to provide details we wouldn't ask anyone else. Where do we stop? -- KTC (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam. So, we have two different well established and respected institutions that claim rights to the image. The AIP claims copyright, while the SM claims only the right to license it. Unless the SM has licensed it from the AIP (which seems very unlikely), they can't both be right. My guess is that neither has any rights to the image.
- As for KTC's questions, this is similar to our actions everywhere else. If a contributor says "own work", we accept that, but if a contributor applies a CC license and doesn't say "own work" or other words that describe how he has the right to give a CC license, then we query it. Most museums describe the terms of acquisition of images -- here we have nothing except a bald claim of the right to license it.
- And again, it is not up to Adam and me to prove that the image is not OK -- it is up to those who want to keep it to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is OK. There's no proof of that here and a clear conflicting claim. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adam: I am not presuming that someone in the museum was sent over to Rutherford's laboratory to take photographs. That is a ridiculous suggestion. This is his laboratory in Cambridge. The photograph was taken by someone who since left the copyright of the photograph to the Science Museum (and subsequently, SSPL). We have to remember: firstly, the SM are still selling the image, secondly the image has not been DMCAd off Flickr despite being up for rather a while, and thirdly we do not ask this question of other editors on a regular basis at all. We do not ask it of the MoD, we do not ask it of the US National Archives, and we do not ask it of almost every other institution who open their archives publicly. This is a simple question: is it reasonable to assume that the Science Museum own the licence to an image that they have been selling, with the support of their legal team, for years now. Surely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- But all of those institutions routinely give us a reference to the reason the image is free of copyright -- usually by citing the collection to which they belong, which is in turn linked to the terms of acquisition of the collection. We do ask questions of such sources if they just specify a license or that the image is free from restrictions without explanation. And how do you explain away the fact that another respected institution claims to own the copyright to the image, which the SM does not? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Adam: I am not presuming that someone in the museum was sent over to Rutherford's laboratory to take photographs. That is a ridiculous suggestion. This is his laboratory in Cambridge. The photograph was taken by someone who since left the copyright of the photograph to the Science Museum (and subsequently, SSPL). We have to remember: firstly, the SM are still selling the image, secondly the image has not been DMCAd off Flickr despite being up for rather a while, and thirdly we do not ask this question of other editors on a regular basis at all. We do not ask it of the MoD, we do not ask it of the US National Archives, and we do not ask it of almost every other institution who open their archives publicly. This is a simple question: is it reasonable to assume that the Science Museum own the licence to an image that they have been selling, with the support of their legal team, for years now. Surely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- And again, it is not up to Adam and me to prove that the image is not OK -- it is up to those who want to keep it to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is OK. There's no proof of that here and a clear conflicting claim. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kept: as per KTC above. Yann (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This file picture does clearly not show Abubakar Shekau. Boko Haram uses his name as a brand name. The person in the picture is Mohammed Bashir, who appeared in internet videos claiming responsibility for the death of hundreds of Nigerians. Monart (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I doubt the own work claim, too. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Datei enthält persönliche Kontaktinformationen in den Metadaten. Sie wurde versehentlich hochgeladen. F. Riedelio (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use. You may change the metaata if desired. JuTa 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
das "Own Work" von Hermann Wala zeigt ..."Hermann Wala". ist aber eindeutig kein Selfie. darauf folgt wohl: URV, Nichtnennung des Urhebers (Fotografen), damit zudem fehlerhatfe Lizenz. Jbergner (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
bad file — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 2014-09-27T14:29:51 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deleteion. Unused recent upload. Uploaders request. JuTa 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Advertising or self-promotion Fixertool (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – legitimately in use at http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees#Facebook. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Personal image, not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was, as noted above, still in use at http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees#Facebook until the redirect from the original filename (which is the one used there) was deleted by User:Rehman as an "Unused" (which is demonstrably untrue) "and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect"... —LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: request withdrawn by nominator. --JuTa 17:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal file. Twice DR'ed before and kept, once for being in use. Now it seems not to be used anywhere. The uploader has three global edits. E4024 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The situation is exactly the same as last time. The redirect deleted with a false rationale is still used. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Not in use is not a reason for deletion. If it was legitimately in use before (which it was) it is good enough to keep. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Majora (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The Ghana Football Association does not appear to be a government body. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Ghana Football Association is under the Government of Ghana's governmental cabinet of Ministry of Youth and Sports (Ghana). Lestrias (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I provide seven Ghanaian sources including from the Government of Ghana that indicate and reveal that the Ghana Football Association is indeed under the Government of Ghana's governmental cabinet of Ministry of Youth and Sports (Ghana). Sources must be read through carefully and thoroughly. ---> (MEDIUM TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK (MTEF) FOR 2014-2016 - PROGRAMME BASED BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR 2014 - MINISTRY OF YOUTH AND SPORTS (MOYS) / Ministry Of Youth And Sports / Wanted: An Angel for Ghana’s Sports Ministry / Allotey Jacobs: There Is “Evil Spirit” At The Youth And Sports Ministry / National Youth Bill Re-Submitted to Parliament-Sports Minister / Gov’t Will Implement Recommendations Of World Cup Committee-Ayariga Assures / Sports Ministry hold retreat to discuss future of Ghana football). Lestrias (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: look OK. JuTa 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_decide_you_want_to_do_it,_2-)_fl_2014-01-18_08-33.jpg){kind=link}
![78 File:Dariusz "Ex-Pert" Eckert & Inkwizycja - Kraków 2012.jpg](#File:Dariusz_"Ex-Pert"_Eckert_&_Inkwizycja_-_Kraków_2012.jpg){kind=link}
_A_Profesional_Youtube_Broadcaster_E-S-T_2012-_2014-06-18_20-45.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-07-19_19-14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![143 File:Concert MOODS " MONACO " MONTE CARLO 2007.jpg](#File:Concert_MOODS_"_MONACO_"_MONTE_CARLO_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![144 File:Concert au MOODS 2007 " Monaco " Monte Carlo.png](#File:Concert_au_MOODS_2007_"_Monaco_"_Monte_Carlo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.GIF&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}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_decide_you_want_to_do_it,_2-)_fl_2014-01-18_08-33.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_decide_you_want_to_do_it,_2-)_fl_2014-01-18_08-33.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
14.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![15:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-Yann-2014-09-27T15:37:00.000Z-File:Dariusz_"Ex-Pert"_Eckert_&_Inkwizycja_-_Kraków_2012.jpg){kind=link}
![01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-INeverCry-2014-10-04T01:49:00.000Z-File:Dariusz_"Ex-Pert"_Eckert_&_Inkwizycja_-_Kraków_2012.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_A_Profesional_Youtube_Broadcaster_E-S-T_2012-_2014-06-18_20-45.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_A_Profesional_Youtube_Broadcaster_E-S-T_2012-_2014-06-18_20-45.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2013-07-19_19-14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-07-19_19-14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-Richard_Avery-2014-09-27T14:51:00.000Z-File:Concert_MOODS_"_MONACO_"_MONTE_CARLO_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-INeverCry-2014-10-04T02:08:00.000Z-File:Concert_MOODS_"_MONACO_"_MONTE_CARLO_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![14:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-Richard_Avery-2014-09-27T14:51:00.000Z-File:Concert_au_MOODS_2007_"_Monaco_"_Monte_Carlo.png){kind=link}
![02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/09/27#c-INeverCry-2014-10-04T02:08:00.000Z-File:Concert_au_MOODS_2007_"_Monaco_"_Monte_Carlo.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_b.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Redmond Oregon Church.JPG (pictured right) appears to be a cropped version of File:First Presbyterian Church of Redmond 01.JPG (pictured left) uploaded by a different user in 2009. HelenOnline 08:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The uploader asked a question at the help desk which I could not understand. I added categories to the file which is how I became aware of the two similar images. HelenOnline 08:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I read help desk question and can't make sense of it either. As far as deletion goes, I'm ambivalent. Image is clearly cropped version of photo I uploaded some time ago. My original image is used in an article on the historic Redmond church. This new cropped version isn't used anywhere so I don't think it would cause a problem if it was deleted. Hopefully, DavidApperson will get back to help desk with a question that can be understood and answered.--Orygun (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This page was created to promote Redmond's Historic Church on Wiki Competition for Historic places ... and I don't know what the Help Desk means either ! David — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.204.142.127 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: corrected author, source, license and date. JuTa 17:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Pride3.JPG
- File:Pride8.JPG
- File:Pride6.JPG
- File:Pride7.JPG
- File:Pride5.JPG
- File:Pride4.JPG
- File:Pride1.JPG
- File:Pride2.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
These images are from the old YouthPride.org website and I have the permission from the Executive Director of YouthPride to add to Wikicommons. I looked over how to upload images from the web and I am still not clear what is permissible. Any insight would be appreciated. Also, is there a better copyright notice to use for these images?
Tdempsey (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: To release/undelete the images please follow the procedure documented on Commons:OTRS. JuTa 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The file has enough resolution and there is the EXIF, but the file still needs OTRS permission. Also, the file is currently in use in the Sexual Democracia article, a notable chilean rock band. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: found externaly on http://www.redcultura.cl/perfil/sexual-democracia. OTRS permission required. JuTa 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
no EXIF info, unlikely to be "own work". Uploader has otherwise no contribution.--Liji (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to be his own work. His site looks professionally, its no fake. Here is a similar photo from him with Exif tag. I've no doubt, that the licence is real! --Ras67 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: License listed on the source page. JuTa 17:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution image with no metadata that has been appended to over a dozen project pages with no relevance to the topics. This is not "software development" this is a woman looking at a camera with some kids in the background. It seems more like a series of vanity or PWN edits, than a real contribution to the project and nominated here for questions of COM:COPYVIO and COM:PRP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- This edit was a response to the woman depicted (who is a software developer and educator), who found the picture she found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Software_development_process reinfocing a gender stereotype she didn't like, and asked how to change it, because apprently she didn't know how.
- As a gentleman, I wanted to help a lady with the kind of technical difficulties that ladies, according to the stereotype she was complaining about, tend to have with all things technical, and replaced the existing picture in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Software_development_process with a picture of her.
- If another woman believes that this is inappropriate feninist radicalism, I am more than happy to see it changed, but I would suggest that the entry be restored to the state before I changed it, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Software_development_process&oldid=620081131 , as I already suggested in the comment explaining my change.
- Tongue firmly in cheek, Tatzelbrumm (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtfull authorship. JuTa 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Inaccurate depiction (Should be bipedal) Should not be used - author request ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Files are in use and/or licences can not be revoked russavia (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As per requests by author. This image is very inaccurate (quadrupedal, improper anatomy), is not used on any articles (although on some user pages), and much better variants (File:Poposaurus gracilis.jpg, File:Poposaurus gracilis (1).jpg) are available to use. This image is therefore out of commons project scope, and should be deleted. Also, because of the previous request being kept because "license cannot be revoked", the author has found wikimedia commons overly frustrating and has left the project, no longer contributing his fantastic images. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: allready marked with {{Inaccurate paleoart}} and still in use. --JuTa 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Per previous nomination by me. I think this was a premature keep. I do not think that use on user pages qualifies as usage, and the fact that it is tagged as inaccurate should be proof that this image constitutes an unneeded inaccurate image. The uploader requested its deletion, and if this cannot be deleted for any other reason, could this at least qualify a courtesy deletion. @FunkMonk: , a commons administrator, knows of the frustrations the original uploader experienced, and also is very knowledgable of commons policies about deletions. IJReid (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there is a Commons rule that says that images in any kind of use, even on talk pages, should not be deleted. AW did not frame his original DR specifically as a courtesy deletion, so we cannot really do so retroactively, though he did say "author request" at the end. But I am sympathetic to your concern. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Really, then many other deletion requests should not have passed, mainly because of use on a talk page or archive? I, at least, think that usage on archives or user/talk pages shouldn't count as usage, mostly because user pages are supposed to only be edited by the user, archives are not supposed to be edited, and similar to user pages, someone should not just go to random user's talk pages to remove an image, which will likely result in the image being replaced. Also, as in the previous deletion request by me, one of the reasons for keeping was that the image was already tagged with the inaccurate paleo template. This should not be a reason for keeping, as being tagged as inaccurate does not stop many non-english users from using the image, and unless it will be corrected, inaccurate images are going to keep accumulating, even while the paleoart reviews on the english wiki are active. Btw, not related to the request, some multilingual users, like yourself FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Rextron, and maybe some others I do not know of, should start image reviews on other wikis, well, at least ones that have constant images flowing in. IJReid (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Actually I intended to add a {{Keep}} here, but the source page only offers CC-BY-NC-ND. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- It was uploaded here under another license by the owner. As for local palaeoart review pages, I don't think it's necessary, most people on other wikis can read English. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Krd 18:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stefan4 as no permission (No permission since), but book seems old enough to be kept. Nominating to achieve consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Many or all of the authors are clearly credited in the hand-written text and there is no evidence that any of them has been dead for at least 70 years. Also, as this is a manuscript, it is unlikely to have been published, and United Kingdom law has a minimum term of publication+50 years which must be satisfied even if the author has been dead for at least 50 years. The question on whether it has been published also affects the copyright term under United States law. On the file information page, it says that The Southern Medical Society has given permission to upload this under {{Cc-zero}}, but there is neither evidence that such permission has been given or that the society is authorised to give such permission in the first place. The copyright holders are presumably the authors of the manuscripts, or, if they are dead, the heirs of the authors. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Ownership of the minutes of meetings of a society or other body do not lie with the actual writer of those minutes, as the above comment seems to suggest. (Think about it for a minute. It would lead to the ludicrous situation of Parliament/Congress/Microsoft/Whatever having to seek permission from a secretary every time they wanted to quote from a hearing or issue a press release, simply because that secretary had taken down the minutes of the meeting.) No. The copyright in these minutes, as with the meeting minutes of any other appropriately constituted society, lies with the society itself, which in practical terms means the elected office holders of that society. I happen to be one of those for the Glasgow Southern Medical Society. At one of our board meetings, it was decided to publish our old minute books, and to dedicate the copyright to the public domain. When I uploaded them, I thought I had made the right declaration - clearly I haven't. I have referred the matter back to the Society so that the appropriate declaration can be made, but this will take some time. In the meantime, can we have a stay of execution?--johnhglen (talk)
- If you represent the copyright holder, then you are required to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as per Johnhglen. Yann (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why it says "Kept: as per Johnhglen." As pointed out, this requires a valid OTRS ticket. Therefore, a closure "Kept: as per Johnhglen" would require that Johnhglen has provided a valid OTRS ticket. However, there is no indication anywhere in the deletion discussion that such an OTRS ticket has been provided. Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Renomination by the same user. No new argument. Yann (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Re-opened: closed by the same user. Still no evidence that an OTRS ticket has been provided, or that the uploader represents the copyright holder. Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WTF? If this book (cover included) is actually published in 1911, your two nominations lacks of sense. The file is properly sourced (except for the {{PD-Old}} tag), and many sources were found in some Websites, including Wikisource. And also, the file is currently used in wikisource! --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please prove that all of the authors have been dead for at least 70 years, as required by the {{PD-old}} template. Also please prove that the book has been published. This is a manuscript, and manuscripts are often not published. In the United Kingdom, literary works are copyrighted until 50 years after publication, if first published more than 20 years after the death of the author. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan4: even if you are right, you should not reopen the DR you created yourself as this can be considered as kind of editwaring. Ask sb else for assistance in such cases.
- Please prove that all of the authors have been dead for at least 70 years, as required by the {{PD-old}} template. Also please prove that the book has been published. This is a manuscript, and manuscripts are often not published. In the United Kingdom, literary works are copyrighted until 50 years after publication, if first published more than 20 years after the death of the author. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Johnhglen: what is your progress with the permission?
- My suggestion is to transform this DR into a regular {{No permission since}} and restore after deletion if permission processing takes too long. I doubt there is a real copyright violation here; we just need a permission. Ankry (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting legal question here. I do not think that Johnhglen's argument is necessarily correct. Certainly in a business corporation or a legislative body, the person doing the recording of proceedings will be under a work for hire contract and the copyright will belong to the organization. However, unless the Medical Society was very careful in its organization (and can prove that it had a written agreement with each of the minute keepers over the years) I doubt that the copyright to these minutes actually belongs to the Society. Minutes are very rarely a verbatim account of the proceedings -- there is always a good deal of choice in what to include and not include, so I have little doubt that a copyright exists.
- Even if we accept Johnhglen's argument, though, our rules are very clear that when a copyright belongs to an organization, we must get OTRS permission from an authorized officer of the organization. We do not, after all, actually know anything about Johnhglen except as a user here -- that is why we have OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I have to agree with Jim on this one and therefor I deleted the file. I searched for an OTRS-ticket but I could not find a relevant ticket. We don't keep files which lack evidence of permission forever. As for Stefan, please don't renominate files over and over when you disagree with a closing. Rather discuss it with the closing admin first. Natuur12 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
possible copyright vilotation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cossde (talk • contribs) 2012-09-06T09:04:14 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Not an original file as claimed. Most of the file is copied from a US Dept. of Commerce image, specifically <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf>. 64.202.87.153 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: US goverment works are public domain. JuTa 17:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
