Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/10/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![1 File:Хаим Сутин "Ева".jpg](#File:Хаим_Сутин_"Ева".jpg){kind=link}
![50 File:Hershel Beal Is A Texas Native Rap Artist That Goes By The Stage Name Of "HB" Which Simply Hershel Beal 2013-10-07 13-47.jpg](#File:Hershel_Beal_Is_A_Texas_Native_Rap_Artist_That_Goes_By_The_Stage_Name_Of_"HB"_Which_Simply_Hershel_Beal_2013-10-07_13-47.jpg){kind=link}
![54 File:Estefany junto con Laira, su "casi-prima".jpg](#File:Estefany_junto_con_Laira,_su_"casi-prima".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![162 File:Рава-Руська пам"ятник жертвам.JPG](#File:Рава-Руська_пам"ятник_жертвам.JPG){kind=link}
![163 File:Пам"ятник Б.Хмельницькому (Рава-Руська).JPG](#File:Пам"ятник_Б.Хмельницькому_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
,_с._Кунин,.jpg){kind=link}
![165 File:Пам"ятник Т.Г.Шевченку (Рава-Руська).JPG](#File:Пам"ятник_Т.Г.Шевченку_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
_DiagramaELISAIndireto-page-001.JPG){kind=link}
_at_Institute_of_Human_Virology_fogarty_board_meeting.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Дупликат https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chaim_Soutine_EVA.jpg Ales-bank (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![07:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Ales-bank-2014-10-09T07:30:00.000Z-File:Хаим_Сутин_"Ева".jpg){kind=link}
Kept
Promotionla context, only info about paintings, see user history, userpage deleted before Motopark (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This was deleted by Krd (talk · contribs). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User who uploaded file appears to be disruptive. Image appears to be copyrighted. There is no indication from the file name or the file description how/why/if this file should be used. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Before this nomination, I nominated the file for speedy deletion as a copyvio. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ich bin ein arscjloch 129.143.71.38 09:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep invalid abusive DR. Fry1989 eh? 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep Per Fry1989. Tm (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: yep. JuTa 07:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
personal problem Tiyas16 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
personal problem 103.242.190.182 18:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file. INeverCry 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Commons are not wikipedia, same userpage deleted before, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete and block user: Using also this DR to make out of project scope editions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: twice by User:Fastily and User:INeverCry JuTa 11:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Logo from off. site. Can't be free Bilderling (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Кажется, я нарушил авторские права. Хочу удалить. DeletedUser (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request. Amada44 talk to me 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
http://ru.elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%A1%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80 ложные сведения о файле, нарушение АП Иван Дулин (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Shmapple shauce EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
по просьбе автора AVSVEK (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request, no license. JuTa 20:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted PDF file Diego Grez return fire 08:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Web site screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130520184101/thehungergames/images/7/74/Cfcannes_sam32.jpg Diego Grez return fire 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gianellino (talk · contribs)
[edit]Text can be wwritten to some wikipedia
- File:ESTAMPA GENIAL.-.PNG
- File:Estampa padre Díaz (Trabajo cuya propiedad pertenece al Prof. Adrián Ponce Lizarraga).-.PNG
.-.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Motopark (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Gianellino (talk · contribs)
Historical photos of some kind. May be in public domain, but author/source/license information should be filled properly.
- File:El Padre Gregorio de Jesús Díaz, de niño (del archivo personal del profesor Adrián Ponce Lizarraga).-.jpg
- File:El Padre Díaz, siempre atento al auxilio espiritual de su pueblo.-.jpg
- File:El Padre Gregorio de Jesús Díaz, junto a su familia. (foto del archivo personal del Prof. Adrián Ponce Lizarraga).-.jpg
- File:Rostro de Monseñor Gregorio de Jesús Díaz.jpg
- File:El Padre Gregorio de Jesús Díaz junto a su familia (Foto del ARCHIVO PERSONAL del Prof. Adrián Ponce Lizarraga).-.jpg
- File:Primera Misa del Padre Gregorio de Jesús Díaz, en la Parroquia de Rio Seco, Tucumán. 8 de diciembre de 1943.- (FOTO perteneciente al ARCHIVO PERSONAL DEL Prof. Adrián Ponce Lizarraga).-.jpg
.-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused vanity shot Ballofstring (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Clayton Anderson- XXXRated Rock Comic' -'If my dicks in a condom and that condoms being held by a wet pussy,--- That ain't cheating' am I right! 2013-10-10 00-23.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Teamleodiaz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promo. See w:it:Utente:Teamleodiaz.
- File:Leo wolrd.jpg
- File:Rapper.jpg
- File:Leooo.jpg
- File:Leodiaz.JPG
- File:Eld.jpg
- File:My fans.jpg
- File:Leo Diaz OldFashion 2014.jpg
- File:Leo Diaz Mr. LatinoRightNow Logo.jpg
- File:Leo Diaz 2014.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. COM:NOT: "Commons is not your personal free web host."
Juggler2005 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead, I was about to nominate those files for speedy deletion myself. Halibutt (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead, I was about to nominate those files for speedy deletion myself. Halibutt (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Richworksmedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promo.
- File:Charls Brown (Artist).jpg
- File:Charls Brown - Composer.jpg
- File:Charls Brown - R&B Artist.jpg
- File:Charls Brown - R&B Artist, Composer, and Writer.jpg
- File:Charls Brown - The Man You Want (Album).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (R&B Artist).jpg
- File:Charls Brown - The Man You Want.jpg
- File:Charls Brown (R&B Artist and Writer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (R&B Artist and Composer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (Composer, and Writer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (Writer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (Composer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown (R&B Artist, Composer, and Writer).jpg
- File:Charls Brown.jpg
- File:The Man You Want (Album) by Charls Brown - MIXTAPE COVER.png
- File:The man you want - Charls Brown.jpg
- File:Charls Brown 1450X1450.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Charls_Brown_-_MIXTAPE_COVER.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Juggler2005 (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unusable shot of an identifiable, likely non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unusable shot of an identifiable, likely non-notable person and a potentially slanderous filename. License, author and source information is also missing. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, merely promotional. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Photo is only used for advertising purposes, and it is also out of Commons' scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Jianhui67. Josve05a (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably useless photo. (Educational purposes?) Diego Grez return fire 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Snow close and delete. Hi, I'm the person who uploaded this image and I don't remember why. Snow close and delete it. --Hmich176 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless the guy is going to use the picture on their user page, this is out of the project's scope. Diego Grez return fire 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Diego Grez return fire 08:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (also, probably a copyvio) Diego Grez return fire 08:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Picture appears to be more pornographic in nature than scientific. 101.109.245.156 08:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; as image seems to be a photoshopped manipulation of File:Tareq Al-Suwaidan.jpg. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was uploaded with a statement by the uploader that "You are free to edit and share the "Jesus of Nazareth" licensed version in a manner which coincides with Christian values / ethics / morals"; this condition is inconsistent with the CC-by-SA license, as it would reserve to the uploader the right to take legal action against re-users who conform to all CC-by-SA requirements while using the image in a manner for which the uploader morally disapproves. BD2412 T 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The file is corrupted Guym75 (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nakirekanti saikumar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope.
- File:Nakirekanti saikumar nalgonda.jpg
- File:Nakirekanti saikumar pulimamidi.jpg
- File:Nakireknati saikumar achilles ram.jpg
- File:Nakirekanti saikumar.jpg
- File:Nakireknati saikumar.jpg
Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by El chino antrax (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
Mjrmtg (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Ell es calleigh duquesne criminalista, en la septima temporada inicia una relación con eric delko 2013-10-08 10-07.png
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saurabhjaglan (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
- File:Rajendra ji on His birthday planting trees..jpg
- File:Rajendra chaudhry's mother.jpg
- File:Rajendra chaudhary with his wife.jpg
- File:Rajendra chaudhary.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Olivia emirates (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
- File:Roshan perera berni Perera sangeetha weerarathne.jpg
- File:Daya gamage roshan perera prashan Nanayakkara kushal perera chandana wickremarathne.jpg
- File:Roshan perera models.JPG
- File:Roshan perera with son avinash perera.jpg
- File:Roshan perera bellucci launch.jpg
- File:Roshan perera with deutche bank ceo.jpg
- File:Jagath sumathipala, roshan perera & House of Fashion owners.jpg
- File:Roshan perera & rosy senanayake.jpg
- File:Roshan perera hilton.jpg
- File:Coyle members with roshan perera.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Hershel Beal Is A Texas Native Rap Artist That Goes By The Stage Name Of "HB" Which Simply Hershel Beal 2013-10-07 13-47.jpg
[edit]
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![10:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Mjrmtg-2014-10-09T10:53:00.000Z-File:Estefany_junto_con_Laira,_su_"casi-prima".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
![04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Fanghong-2014-10-15T04:04:00.000Z-File:Estefany_junto_con_Laira,_su_"casi-prima".jpg){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dr. Domingo Cabred (talk · contribs)
[edit]All copyvios found on internet
- File:Estacionluiggifcdfs.jpg
- File:Estacion Las Parvas F.C.G.S.M..jpg
- File:La OOriental.jpg
- File:Estación Mónica Melo de Manzanares (Línea San Martín).jpg
- File:Estacion Franklin FCGSM.jpg
- File:Est San Jacinto.jpg
- File:Estacion Palermo Linea San Martín.jpg
- File:Parada chacarita.jpg
- File:Estación Pres. S. Derqui.jpg
- File:Estacion Derqui.jpg
- File:Estacion Astolfi (UGOFE, Ex San Martín).jpg
- File:Pilar - FCGSM.jpg
- File:El palomar fcgsm.jpg
- File:Sol y Verde SAN MARTIIN.jpg
- File:Estacion-Jose Clemente Paz-FCGSM.jpg
- File:Relmo.jpg
- File:Trili.jpg
- File:Speluzzzi.jpg
- File:Vertiz estacion ferrocarril.jpg
- File:Esta quem que quemu.jpg
- File:Est laureles.jpg
- File:Estacion ingeiero luiggi.jpg
- File:Embajador martinicito.jpg
- File:Asquerosa Italia.jpg
- File:Ojeda fcdfs.jpg
- File:Est. Grl. Pico (Sarmiento).jpg
- File:Estación Catriló.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
· Favalli ⟡ 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
pretty sure these are copyvio and are not uploaders own photos Mjrmtg (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
TV screenshot, copyvio Mjrmtg (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
small unused photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Fake licence, it is not own work by the uploader, it's from here or here. Com:PCP. Ras67 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Was informed this image (and others in the sequence) are still under copyright (not published until 2006) Rob at Houghton (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Clearly a screen-grab. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parrywaregurgaon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality pictures, some homepage pictures,
- File:Semi Recessed Basin.jpg
- File:Wall hung Basins.jpg
- File:Counter Top Basins.jpg
- File:Corner Basin.jpg
- File:Bowl Basin.jpg
- File:Below Counter Basin.jpg
- File:Basins and Pedestals -Sofia.jpg
- File:Basins and Pedestals -Flair.jpg
- File:Wall Hung With Cistern.jpg
- File:Single Piece Closet.jpg
- File:Floor Mounted Coupled Closets.jpg
- File:European Water Closets.jpg
- File:Indian Pan.jpg
Motopark (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Home Tonis (talk · contribs)
[edit]These seem to have been created by a company. Therefore, OTRS is needed. I am also not sure that the files are in scope.
- File:Como Usar y cuidar un Aire Acondicionado.pdf
- File:Como dar mantenimiento al aire acondicionado Spot hometonis.ogv
Stefan4 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Logos of fictive companies are not in scope. Stefan4 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:PS. Stefan4 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Charicaric (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of political posters and political parties logos. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Causa GZ.PNG
- File:Cartaz da UPG.jpg
- File:Marcha ao talego JUGA.jpg
- File:Amnistía JUGA.PNG
- File:GZ CEIBE MANI CARTAZ.PNG
- File:Esquerda galega otan non.PNG
- File:Esquerda galega ecologismo.PNG
- File:LOGO CG.jpg
- File:1977 cartaz bnpg eleicions.jpg
- File:COA NACIÓN NA ESQUERDA FPG.jpg
- File:Mulleres isca.PNG
- File:Mural MGS Moncho Reboiras.jpg
- File:MGS independencia sticker.PNG
- File:Mgs folga xeral.PNG
- File:LOGO APU amarelo.PNG
- File:CSI logo.jpg
- File:Mgs bandeira.jpg
- File:Dárreu Asturies cartelo.jpg
- File:Apu cartaz 1991.PNG
- File:AMI ESPANHA FORA.jpg
- File:AMI ence NON.jpg
- File:Psg04 - Copia.jpg
- File:GALEGO OFICIAL PSG.PNG
- File:Pegatina psg-eg.PNG
- File:AGIR sticker.PNG
- File:ERGA CONTRA A OTAN.PNG
- File:Logo AMI-GZ.PNG
- File:LOGO POG.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Post-WWII monuments.
- File:Воїнам-афганцям м. Білопілля.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів м. Ворожба, центральний сквер.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, партизанів та пам’ятник воїнам - землякам м. Білопілля.jpg
- File:Могила Коренєва О.І. –одного з фундаторів партизанського з’єднання Ковпака С.А..jpg
- File:Могила Базими Г.Я. – колишнього начальника штабу партизанського з’єднання Ковпака С.А..jpg
- File:Могила Фака Ф.К. – Героя Радянського Союзу.jpg
- File:Скульптурна група «Партизан і партизанка» м. Путивль.jpg
- File:Група братських могил жертв фашизму м. Путивль.jpg
- File:Група братських могил радянських воїнів с. Зінове.jpg
- File:Солдатенка О.М., який загинув у Афганістані.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів смт Дубов’язівка.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Чернеча Слобода.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, с. Слобода.jpg
- File:Група братських могил радянських воїнів с. Слобода,.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів с. Дяківка.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Піски.jpg
- File:Братська могила червоноармійців с. Дяківка.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Клепали.jpg
- File:0 Братська могила радянських воїнів с. Воскресенське.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Черепівка.jpg
- File:Могила Олихненка А.О., який загинув у Афганістані.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Жуківка.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Суховерхівка.jpg
- File:Могила Прасолова І.В. – Героя Радянського Союзу.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів c. Олександрівка.jpg
- File:Група братських могил радянських воїнів с. Нечаївка.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів та пам’ятник воїнам-землякам c. Гвинтове.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник воїнам-землякам с. Червона Слобода.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів с.Успенка.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Герою Радянського Союзу Г. Головенському.jpg
- File:Братська могила радянських воїнів c.Вознесенка.jpg
- File:Могила воїнів.jpg
- File:Могила жертв.jpg
- File:Могила жертв фашизму.jpg
- File:9 ton 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: . Sorry, but 7 days haven't passed since the nomination time, and I was just typing the justification, which provoked an edit conflict. In fact, here again we have some cases where COM:FOP do not apply. Most notably, those are File:Могила жертв фашизму.jpg, File:Могила_жертв.jpg, File:Солдатенка_О.М.,_який_загинув_у_Афганістані.jpg, File:Група_братських_могил_жертв_фашизму_м._Путивль.jpg and File:Могила_Коренєва_О.І._–одного_з_фундаторів_партизанського_з’єднання_Ковпака_С.А..jpg that are very simple (stones or graves of simple rectangular shape) and are beneath COM:TOO as they are not eligible for copyright protection according to Ukrainian law (which requires to be a product of creative artistic activity). Please review this closure as you didn't seem to take into account COM:TOO and gave less then 7 days for the discussion. Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NickK: See Commons:Deletion_requests#Latest_requests_to_be_closed where October 9's DRs are listed as closeable. I always wait until a daily DR category comes into the eligible to be closed list to close the DRs. INeverCry 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've restored the simple ones listed by NickK and kept them. INeverCry 02:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for monument.
- File:ВольховскийВоронеж.jpg
- File:ЯнонисВоронеж.jpg
- File:ZykovBK.jpg
- File:StoletovAG-MGU.jpg
- File:LebedevPN-MSU.jpg
- File:Lenin-Lubertcy.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:ZvBI.jpg
- File:Molodcov.jpg
- File:ЛеоноваЭА.jpg
- File:Burenin A A.jpg
- File:VCHGPU.jpg
- File:Mironov-BG.jpg
- File:CHGPUglzd.jpg
- File:DEMETRGS.jpg
- File:InstitutYF.jpg
- File:Mpei14.jpg
- File:NatCh.jpg
- File:PreobrLuber.jpg
- File:LuberDvor.jpg
- File:Меркурьев Игорь Владимирович.jpg
- File:RogalevNikolayDm.jpg
- File:Kusovv.jpg
- File:MpeiLector.jpg
- File:NaukaMPEI.jpg
- File:StudMPEI.jpg
- File:LenskiiVS.jpg
- File:AlexandrovVM.jpg
- File:Martynenko kobrin.jpg
- File:KiikoIA.jpg
- File:ProfessorMarkeevAP.jpg
- File:ProfessorGolubevYF.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Спасибо за загрузку, но, к сожалению, текст охраняется авторскими правами. Thank you for uploading this, but unfortunately the text is copyrighted. Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]We have enough penis shot here. Out of scope
- File:Male sex.JPG
- File:Shave sex.JPG
- File:Erection movimiento.jpg
- File:Sexo al frio.JPG
- File:Al decanso.JPG
- File:Sesso.jpg
- File:Despues de la playa.jpg
- File:Jugando.jpg
- File:Nudo.jpg
- File:Érection sexe.JPG
- File:Vue arrière.JPG
- File:Sexe au repos.JPG
- File:Début d'érection.JPG
- File:Semi erection.JPG
Morning ☼ (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete on File:Despues de la playa.jpg, File:Jugando.jpg, File:Sesso.jpg and File:Nudo.jpg as out of scope useless artwork. While the rest aren't great, File:Erection movimiento.jpg certainly has some educational value so I would Keep that one at least. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as out-of-scope on everything except File:Erection movimiento.jpg, which arguably could have educational use. Rrburke (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting all with the exception of File:Erection movimiento.jpg russavia (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Missing any possible educational value. Out of COM:SCOPE?
- File:Sexus6.jpg
- File:Sexus4.jpg
- File:Sexus 3.jpg
- File:Eros light.jpg
- File:Eros light 2.jpg
- File:Sexus1.jpg
A.Savin 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Wonderfully awesome artistic images, that unfortunately are outside of scope. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]What new could be added to Category:Penis?
- File:Sexe circoncis en érection.JPG
- File:Sexe circoncis avec prépuce reformé vue de face.jpg
- File:Sexe circoncis.JPG
- File:Sexe circoncis avec prépuce reformé vue de dessous.JPG
- File:Pré-ejaculate.jpg
- File:Prépuce sexe circoncis.jpg
- File:Sexe circoncis au repos.JPG
- File:Verge circoncis.JPG
- File:Sexus5.jpg
- File:Erect sex 2.JPG
- File:Erect sex.JPG
- File:Erection movimiento.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taragona24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]More dicks, see COM:PENIS. These images do not add anything to the images we already have, and are unlikely self portraits.
- File:Restored foreskin.jpg
- File:Cock ring 3.jpg
- File:Cock ring 2.jpg
- File:Simply cock rings.jpg
- File:Erected sex with cock ring.jpg
- File:Foreskin restaration.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Albor Photography (talk · contribs)
[edit]Album covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:The Art Of War 2008.jpg
- File:Primo Victoria 2005.jpg
- File:Heroes 2014 limited edition artwork.jpg
- File:Metalizer 2007.jpg
- File:Heroes 2014 official artwork.jpg
- File:Coat of Arms 2010.jpg
- File:Carolus Rex 2012 - STD.jpg
- File:Carolus Rex 2012 - 2EDT.jpg
- File:Attero Dominatus 2006.jpg
- File:Sabaton Art2.jpg
- File:Sabaton Art.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Спасибо за загрузку, но, к сожалению, текст защищён авторскими правами. Thank you for uploading this photo, but the text is unfortunately copyrighted. Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Onlinecommerce (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s). Certificates of questionable notability.
- File:Refan fabrika izchistena.jpg
- File:Refan Sertifikat 4.jpg
- File:Refan Sertifikat 3.jpg
- File:Refan Sertifikat 1.jpg
- File:Refan Sertifikat 2.jpg
- File:Refan gardenia.png
- File:Refan Body cream butters.png
- File:Refan Sugar body scrub.png
- File:Refan dushgel.png
- File:Refan Moisturizing hand lotions.png
- File:Зелен чай и Алое - Рефан.png
- File:Рефан Интенз.png
- File:Yogurt & Passion Fruit.png
- File:Refan fabrica.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Guilherminio souza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability.
- File:Celebridades gospel - logomarca.jpg
- File:Revista Celebridades Gospel.jpg
- File:Celebridades Gospel.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Cono D´Alessio Miami 2014.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio Logo.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio Primavera Verano 2014.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio 2014.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio Verano 2013.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio Verano 2014.jpg
- File:Cono D´Alessio Otoño invierno 2013.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juan Daniel Mendoza Jimenez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not FOP (see FOP in Ukraine). Built in 1981. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by IrishSpook (talk · contribs)
[edit]http://www.military.ie/terms-and-conditions/ tells about reproduction, what is ambiguous term. Will be good idea to contact them and as to use Creative Commons Attribution license.
- File:Lt Gen Dave Stapleton, DSM.jpg
- File:Lieutenant General Dermot Early Snr, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Lieutenant General Sean McCann, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Lieutenant General Conor O'Boyle, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Vice Admiral Mark Mellett, Irish Naval Service.jpg
- File:Major General Kieran Brennan, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Major General Kevin Cotter, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Brigadier General Philip Brennan, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Brigadier General Peter O'Halloran, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Brigadier General Joe Mulligan, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Maj Gen Michael Beary, Irish Army.jpg
- File:Brigadier General Paul Fry, Irish Air Corps.jpg
- File:Commodore Hugh Tully, Irish Naval Service.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- http://www.military.ie/terms-and-conditions/ clearly states "Material on this website is protected by copyright. Reproduction of material from this website is authorised for personal use. Reproduction for other uses is permitted, provided that the source is acknowledged. The copyright in material reproduced from this website shall be maintained in the Defence Forces."
- This is in line with Wikipedia Copyright Attribution policy that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted."
- Also, the Irish Defence Forces Flickr account lists uploads under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license, which has the same rights to the terms and conditions statement above. "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
- Furthermore, images on the Irish Defence Forces website (http://www.military.ie/) can also be found on the Irish Defence Forces on Flickr account. An example is this image found on the website under the copyright terms and conditions ("Reproduction for other uses is permitted, provided that the source is acknowledged") while the same image can be found here on the DF Flickr page under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. IrishSpook (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: we need files to be released into a specific compatible license. In this case e.g., there is no statement that derivative work would be allowed. --Jcb (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
self-promotion, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Mainly for the claim of "own work" by the uploader 2) Not so simple to be a {{PD-textlogo}} (at least IMO). Fma12 (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. What more is there to say? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. This is not Facebook. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Die Lautsprecherin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status: All files licensed with an unreviewed {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and attributed to several photographers (Rebekka Kühnis, Corinne Haechler, Jana Heinleini, Ulla C. Binder). Some of them previously published via official website http://www.nilswogram.com/public/gallery.php?id=1, configured with "pictures by corinne hächler. if you'd like to publish a picture, please contact ..." (= File:Pressefoto Nils Wogram 2013 (c) Corinne Haechler.jpg) + "picture by jana heinlein. if you'd like to publish this picture, please contact " (= File:Klein Nils Wogram live Jazzfest Berlin 10 (c) Jana Heinleini.jpg & "copyright © 2005-2014 nils wogram". File:German Jazz guitarist Max Frankl Red Hook, Brooklyn Nov 2013(c) Rebekka Kühnis (2).jpg + File:Jazzgitarrist Max Frankl (c) Rebekka Kühnis.jpg previously published via official website http://www.maxfrankl.com/en/presskit.html. Considering also already deleted File:Christoph Irniger live in concert 2012 (c) Francesca Pfeffer.jpg, permissions for all files via COM:OTRS needed.
_Corinne_Haechler.jpg){kind=link}
_Jana_Heinleini.jpg){kind=link}
_Rebekka_K%C3%BChnis_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_Rebekka_K%C3%BChnis.jpg){kind=link}
_Francesca_Pfeffer.jpg){kind=link}
- File:German Jazz guitarist Max Frankl Red Hook, Brooklyn Nov 2013(c) Rebekka Kühnis (2).jpg
- File:Jazzgitarrist Max Frankl (c) Rebekka Kühnis.jpg
- File:Pressefoto Nils Wogram 2013 (c) Corinne Haechler.jpg
- File:Klein Nils Wogram live Jazzfest Berlin 10 (c) Jana Heinleini.jpg
- File:Klein Albert Mangelsdorff Preis 2013 72dpi Nils Wogram live.jpg
- File:Albert Mangelsdorff Preis 2013 Verleihung 72dpi (c) Ulla C. Binder.jpg
- File:Albert Mangelsdorff Preis 2013 72dpi Nils Wogram live.jpg
_Ulla_C._Binder.jpg){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. It is unlikely that the image was the work of the submitting user. A Google search of the image turns up numerous examples of this image. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Uploaded by Anja2912 (talk · contributions · Statistics) in 06.2007 the photo was most likely - per file title - taken from (an old) official website http://home.arcor.de/youtube_myspace/webservice/html/presse.html = http://home.arcor.de/youtube_myspace/webservice/Pressefoto1.jpg (identical exif). A related file (eventually the same) was deleted in 2006 (missing permission) at dewiki via de:Benutzer Diskussion:Anja2912#Urheberrechtsproblem mit mindestens einem deiner Bilder. Permission via COM:OTRS needed. Gunnex (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
imho it may be doubted to be own work, p.e. missing exif, maybee a scan, see 'moiree' ?? Roland zh (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
imho it may be doubted to be own work, p.e. missing exif, maybee a scan, see 'moiree' ?? Roland zh (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
maybe copyright protected work, see watermark to the right, Roland zh (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Image of text-table (including Word spelling markups!), replaced with wikitext equivalent (see [1]) DMacks (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Image of text-table, replaced with wikitext equivalent (see [2]) DMacks (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal image not used Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete, not a picture but the copy of a text, probably copyrighted Traumrune (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
false claim to ownership Lady Lotus (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Flickr uploader is not the original author. Sitacuisses (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status & unlikely to be own work: Uploaded by Kaspr (talk · contributions · Statistics) (who might be "Kasper Olsen", the guitarrist of related band) in 01.2012 and attributing copyrights to "Thilde Mørup Christensen", the "press photo" was previously published via official site http://www.indiannadawn.dk/presse.html ("Hent pressebilleder", download via http://www.indiannadawn.dk/indianna%20Dawn.zip, .zip-file created in 2011, higher res available). Permission via COM:OTRS needed. Gunnex (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no FoP in Russia for modern monuments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.192.217.116 (talk • contribs) 12:57, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no FoP in Russia for modern monuments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.192.217.116 (talk • contribs) 12:53, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Licensed with {{Cc-by-3.0}} (on which base?) and attributing copyrights to "Hans-Jürgen Staudt", the press photo ("Pressefoto") was taken from http://www.gruene-bayern.de/presse/pressefotos/ (404, wayback available) which is configured only with "Koste[n]freie Verwendung mit Quellenangabe" (free of charge if source is acknowledged). Permission via COM:OTRS needed. Gunnex (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Diego Grez return fire 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation – I've transferred the image to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hackers_poster.jpg Ballofstring (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- For non-free content, please use {{Copyvio}} instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused vanity shot Ballofstring (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Blank image - user uploaded wrong version and I presume wants this to be deleted?? Ballofstring (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Blank image Ballofstring (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Blank image - user says they uploaded wrong file - maybe they want this to be deleted? Ballofstring (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused vanity shot Ballofstring (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Blurry, low-quality picture Ballofstring (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This file has heaps of duplicate versions - could all of those versions be deleted, while keeping the main file stil here? Not sure if this is the right template sorry! Ballofstring (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was due to a bot bug. Keep in mind that (as far as I know) deleted versions of files are not removed from the server, so the disk space and so on will not be reclaimed if they are deleted. However it will remove them from the page (uncluttering it a bit) and make the page load a bit faster. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: History cleaned. INeverCry 01:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
While I assume this was intended to be humorous, there is no reasonable place in which this file would have a use, there are no places where the file is already either linked or displayed, and the name is inappropriate (although I know that part can be changed). Dustin (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete--Achim (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Non free image used as fair use in en.wikipedia. Copied from en.wikipedia Olivier (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly copyvio, changed to Speedy. For these cases, please consider to use {{Copyvio}} instead--Amitie 10g (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Will do. Thank you. Olivier (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Promotional picture Diego Grez return fire 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It is from here. Copyright © 2012. All Rights Reserved. Ras67 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Nos ponemos en contacto desde el Ayuntamiento de Sant Jaume dels Domenys, y les comunicamos que el escudo que se muestra en esta pagina no es el correcto, así que pedimos que se anule o se canvie la foto de la imagen 80.37.210.200 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This version of this coat of arms is an heraldic representation of a blazon (descriptive text of a coat of arms). Heraldry is an art that allows different interpretations for the same blazon. Consequently, the reasoning that this file should be deleted just because it is different to that of the council town is wrong. In fact -in the countries with heraldic tradition-, the coats of arms used in the council towns rarely coincide to the versions that you can find in wikimedia commons, and they are correct all the same. This rendition is based on the blazon: Escut caironat: de sinople, una petxina d'argent. Per timbre una corona mural de poble. because a coat of arms is always described by a text, never by a picture. This kind of "deletion request", for example this [3] or [4] usually ends keeping the file. --Xavigivax (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)--
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Escut_de_Sant_Adri%C3%A0_de_Bes%C3%B2s.svg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escut_de_Sant_Jaume_dels_Domenys.svg){kind=link}
Strong oppose Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project: It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.
- If you think the image shouldn't be used, you can try to convince local communities not to use it, but this is not a reason to delete it while it's used.
- By the way, you don't need to spend your time here giving reasons to say it's inaccurate or even plainly false. It just it isn't Common's matter.
- Furthermore, the image is right. Municipality can choose to use another image, but this one is a good depiction of blazon.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No description, generic file name, no use, unknown location, no reference of monument historique Tangopaso (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Hôtel de Ville, Quinconces, Bordeaux. Tm (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep OK. But it is not Hôtel de Ville of Bordeaux, nor Quinconces. But Place du Parlement. I proposed to rename. --Tangopaso (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment What i did was to merely reproduced what is stated in the exif that even has GPS coordinates. Tm (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: semms to be the Place du Parlement, Bordeaux -- Steinsplitter (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Lupu1.JPG
[edit]
This seems like a bogus claim of copyright ownership. Sure, it could be the case that the uploader owns the copyright, but it probably isn't. --Biruitorul (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. Yann (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And also:
Scan of copyrighted map, probably located as an informative table near a cementary; definitely not "own work" Ankry (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Poland has freedom of panorama; would this qualify, or is it too much of a copy? Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unsure, because of the clause "not for the same use". It is useful for pictures of buildings or monuments until somebody wants to create a similar building / monument basing on the picture. But IMHO, it is too big restriction for a picture of a map (nobody can create a similar map basing on these photos). It limits derivative work creation too much. I am not a lawyer, however, and I do not know how this clause might be interpreted. Ankry (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Someone making a building based on a photo of a building is actually not a derivative work of the photo (it is a direct derivative of the original building), so there are no derivative rights issues with the photo at all. Same with the map -- someone making a version of the map would just be a copy or derivative of the map; the expression in the photo would not be present. But I guess the question is can the photo itself be used as a substitute for the map, and I'd have to say that is arguable. It really doesn't show its public context, which would make a difference probably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{FoP-Poland}} covers this. Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
many logos in copyright Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No sources for individual images used in derivative expression. ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Person on the photo don't want it. No relevant person. Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Non notable person, not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Probably scanned from a book. Precautionary principle applies here Diego Grez return fire 07:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not scanned from a book. I have updated the licensing to be correct; I recall using the UploadWizard at the time and having difficulties using it. I forgot about needing to correct the licensing tags since then.
- The picture is a crop of a scanned postcard which was printed in 1961 and does not have a copyright notice. Having been published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice, this work is in the public domain. --Hmich176 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, can you upload the full postcard so that we can check?Alright, nomination withdrawn --Diego Grez return fire 20:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, as a merely personal shot, hardly usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted/Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Diego Grez return fire 08:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per both nominator. The user has no other significant contributions so far apart from copyright violations. Green Giant (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fanghong. Yann (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably still copyrighted in France Diego Grez return fire 08:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We "Réalités Nouvelles" are the owner of the French Copyright and so we share it freely in this case for a fair use, not commercial.--Realitesnouvelles (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- On Wikimedia Commons we can't accept content released not-for-commercial use. It will have to be deleted. --Diego Grez return fire 14:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Miss upload -Yhama
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The name of the author is missing, and the provided source is a dead link. Iaaasi (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Modified. Source link was the digitalized version of the Jónás-Villám book which I own. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU. Yann (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This file is lacking author information. Also, the source link is a dead link. Iaaasi (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Modified. "Dear" Iaaasi, source link was the digitalized version of the Jónás-Villám book which I own. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU Yann (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This file is lacking author information. Iaaasi (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Image is a black-and-white detail of a painting which is kept in Makó. According to the National Portrait Collection, the painter is unknown, because this information is not included in the register. A counter-example: portrait of Irma Bittó which gives thename of the painter (Miklós Barabás). "Nemzeti Portrétár" is a charitable foundation supported by Ministry of Human Resources. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU Yann (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This file is lacking author information. Iaaasi (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I added the info according to the book which I own. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU Yann (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely that the uploader is the creator. An Abdenour Boushaki claims the copyright too. Com:PCP. Ras67 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Einsbor as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: company logotype. But it looks to me simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. JuTa 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-US}}-fail & unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 2012 by StefanNickl (talk · contributions · Statistics) the photo was taken - as indicated - somewhere from http://www.tobias-reiss.de and is copyrighted by "Tobias Reiß". Permission & and adequate license infos needed. Gunnex (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
omdat ik het niet meer leuk vind Skinkam (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per author request, additonally we have enough images like this on Commons. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader is not artist who created this illustration and it is not in the PD 184.190.204.162 04:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- This artist is the creator of the work (see it at Nat Geo here), and judging by their other uploads User:Varing is not this artist and cannot upload this image as their "own work" or release it to the public as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license". 184.190.204.162 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Low-quality (filetype, resolution, etc.), unused and replaceable by File:CucurbiturilSynthesis.svg from same author. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 14:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Speculation of styling for an unreleased car (and at the time of upload, unleaked as well). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The architect (or the artist), Léon Azéma, died in 1978. There is no Freedom of panorama in France.
Cette œuvre de Léon Azéma, mort en 1978 ne peut être diffusée sous licence libre. En effet, la loi sur le droit d'auteur en France interdit toute diffusion de reproductions d'une œuvre sans le consentement de l'auteur ou de ses ayant-droits, et ce jusque 70 ans après le décès de l'auteur (pas de liberté de panorama). Sauf cas particulier, cette photo sera restaurée sur Wikimedia Commons en 2048. Trizek from FR 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Clear advertising. Out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
not a single author of the source images is named (violating the Attribution requirement) + the license has a wrong version as it has to be 3.0 at Minimum. Denniss (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Requested changes are done.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
not a single author of the source images is named (violating the Attribution requirement) + the license has a wrong version as it has to be 3.0 at Minimum. Denniss (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Requested changes are applied, correct licensing has been done. Regards.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The logo of this football club is incorrectly labelled "Own work". I am not sure if it meets the threshold of originality. ErikvanB (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 2002 monument in Donetsk Ukraine made by living artist ru:Скорых, Александр Митрофанович (Alexander Mitrofanovich Skorikh) and living architect ru:Вязовский, Виталий Евгеньевич (Vitaly Yevgenyevich Vyazovsky)
- File:Donetsk 0017.jpg
- File:Donetsk-Solovyanenko.jpg
- File:Donezk-048.JPG
- File:Donezk-050.JPG
- File:Solov'janenko A.B..JPG
- File:Анатолій Солов'яненко - 1.JPG
- File:Анатолій Солов'яненко - 2.JPG
- File:Анатолій Солов'яненко - 3.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Анатолію Солов'яненку!.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Солов'яненку А. Б., співаку, народному артисту України.(г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 001.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 002.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 003.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 004.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 005.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 006.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 007.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 008.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 009.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 010.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 011.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 012.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 015.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 016.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 017.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 018.jpg
- File:Памятник Соловьяненко в Донецке 019.jpg
- File:Театральная площадь 006.JPG
- File:Федоренко. Ринат Ахметов у памятника Анатолия Соловьяненко.tiff
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hughes monument in Donetsk
[edit]No FoP in Ukraine - 2001 monument/sculpture by living artist ru:Скорых, Александр Митрофанович, displayed in front of a modern building in Donetsk Ukraine
- File:Donetsk 0011.jpg
- File:John Hughes memorial Donetsk.jpg
- File:John Hughes monument.JPG
- File:Джон Юз (г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Джон Юз 2(г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Джон Юз и его потомки (г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Джон Юз и его потомки 2(г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Донецьк, Пам'ятник Джону Юзу.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Юзу (Донецьк) - 1.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Юзу (Донецьк) - 2.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Юзу (Донецьк) - 3.JPG
- File:Памятник Д.Юзу(г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу - основателю г. Донецка.jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу в Донецке 001.jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу в Донецке 002.jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу в Донецке 003.jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу(г.Донецк).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hughes monument in Donetsk
[edit]No FoP in Ukraine. Artist Alexander Skorih died in 2020
- File:John Hughes.jpg
- File:Основатель города Джон Хьюз(Юз) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Джону Юзу, засновнику м. Донецька.jpg
- File:Памятник Джону Юзу в г. Донецке.jpg
- File:Памятник Юзу.JPG
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1969 monument in Donetsk Ukraine by ru:Гинзбург, Наум Абрамович (died 1991)
- File:Donetsk puskin.jpg
- File:Donezk-062.JPG
- File:Alexander Sergejewitsch Puschkin.jpg
- File:Бульвар Пушкина 027.jpg
- File:Памятник Пушкину А. С..jpg
INeverCry 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted mascot, and there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine
- File:2006-04-26. Пасха красная 12.JPG
- File:2006-04-26. Пасха красная 13.JPG
- File:2006-04-26. Пасха красная 14.JPG
- File:2006-04-26. Пасха красная 17.JPG
- File:2006-04-26. Пасха красная 18.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1966 monument in Drohobych Ukraine INeverCry 21:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1986 monument in Drohobych Ukraine INeverCry 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1999 monument in Drohobych Ukraine INeverCry 21:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1970 monument in Drohobych Ukraine INeverCry 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1991 monument in Drohobych Ukraine INeverCry 21:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1993 statue in Brody Ukraine
- File:Brody 066.jpg
- File:Brody Pomnik Tarasa Szewczenki 01.jpg
- File:Brody Pomnik Tarasa Szewczenki 02.jpg
INeverCry 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1990 monument in Horodok Ukraine INeverCry 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1981 monument in Ukraine INeverCry 22:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1986 monument in Ukraine INeverCry 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1952 WW2 statue/monument in Lviv Oblast Ukraine INeverCry 22:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1991 monument in Rava-Ruska Ukraine INeverCry 22:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![22:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-INeverCry-2014-10-09T22:12:00.000Z-File:Рава-Руська_пам"ятник_жертвам.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
![11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Krd-2014-10-18T11:14:00.000Z-File:Рава-Руська_пам"ятник_жертвам.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1991 monument in Rava-Ruska Ukraine INeverCry 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-INeverCry-2014-10-09T22:14:00.000Z-File:Пам"ятник_Б.Хмельницькому_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
![11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Krd-2014-10-18T11:14:00.000Z-File:Пам"ятник_Б.Хмельницькому_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
File:Пам'ятник Хмельницькому Б.М,, гетьману України (ск. І.Кушнір, 1966, мармурова крихта), с. Кунин,.jpg
[edit],_%D1%81._%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD,.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_%D1%81._%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD,.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1966 monument INeverCry 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1960 monument INeverCry 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-INeverCry-2014-10-09T22:20:00.000Z-File:Пам"ятник_Т.Г.Шевченку_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
![11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/10/09#c-Krd-2014-10-18T11:13:00.000Z-File:Пам"ятник_Т.Г.Шевченку_(Рава-Руська).JPG){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine - 1991 monument in Zolochiv Ukraine INeverCry 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1993 monument/statue in Zolochiv Ukraine
- File:Markijan Shashkevich Zolochiv.JPG
- File:Zolochiv Lvivska-Markiyan Shashkevych monument.jpg
- File:Золочів.Пам'ятник Шашкевичу М. С.JPG
INeverCry 22:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1996 bust/monument in Lviv Oblast Ukraine INeverCry 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1979 monument INeverCry 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1954 monument INeverCry 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1994 monument INeverCry 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1959 bust/monument INeverCry 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1993 monument
INeverCry 23:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 2000 monument/statue INeverCry 23:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1993 monument INeverCry 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:950 Years of Belz memorial
[edit]No FoP in Ukraine - 1980 monument
- File:1.Белз (29).JPG
- File:Belz Zabytki 08.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник на честь 950-річчя першої літописної згадки про м. Белз.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник на честь 950-річчя першої літописної згадки про м. Белз2.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 23:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1989 monument INeverCry 23:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1996 monument INeverCry 23:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1996 monument INeverCry 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1997 monument INeverCry 23:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1997 monument INeverCry 23:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1997 monument and modern building
INeverCry 23:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
not simple text logo Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex logo. Green Giant (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
_DiagramaELISAIndireto-page-001.JPG){kind=link}
_DiagramaELISAIndireto-page-001.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The "ELISA indireto" (portuguese for indirect ELISA) is incorrect. The diagram depics a direct ELISA test. Gusloureiro (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
_DiagramaELISAIndireto-page-001.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Please use {{Rename}} to correct the filename. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
_DiagramaELISAIndireto-page-001.JPG){kind=link}
modification Elovince (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. We need permission from Fabrice Foures. Green Giant (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work. It was probably a government work, but then we would have to find a proper source and then tag it {{CC-GobCL}}. Until then, my opinion is that this should be gone. Diego Grez return fire 21:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncertain copyright status. Green Giant (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio logo file; also no sign that contributor of this file has rights to release this image under the licence listed. AsteriskStarSplat (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation - we need permission from the copyright holder. Green Giant (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
erreur de chargement Serge Ottaviani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested on day of upload. In future please use template:speedy. Green Giant (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
erreur de téléchargement Serge Ottaviani (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested on day of upload. In future please use template:speedy. Green Giant (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
False Namecoin Logos
[edit]- File:Namecoin Logo 2 SVG.svg
- File:Bitcoin & Namecoin SVG.svg
- File:Bitcoin versus Namecoin 2.svg
- File:Bitcoin versus Namecoin.svg
- File:Namecoin favicon.png
- File:Namecoin Powered SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Logo 2 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Ring SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Symbol SVG.svg
- File:New Namecoin Logo.svg
- File:Namecoin Video - Cover Picture.png
- File:Namecoin Accepted Here 1 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Accepted Here 2 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Button SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Login Here 1 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Login Here 2 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Debit Card SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Tablet SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Wallet 1 SVG.svg
- File:Namecoin Wallpaper 2.png
- File:Namecoin Wallpaper 3.png
- File:Namecoin Wallpaper 4.png
- File:Namecoin Wallpaper.png
- File:Namecoin_Video.ogv
Info: Someone has been trying to force their own logo onto the Namecoin project they have brought their crusade to Wikipedia. The logos listed here are all using this unofficial logo that has been rejected by the developers (of which I am one). When I corrected the main Wikipedia article, an account with the username "Namecoin" reverted my edits and scolded me for using the term "correct" when referring to the correct logo. This puppet account was in violation of the username policy and it was locked. However, edits from anonymous accounts and revert wars got the article placed into semi-protected status. --Indolering (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))- Comment - I have notified en:Talk:Namecoin of this DR. I request it be left open longer than usual so that people can comment. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Info: The OTRS "permission" comes from a Gmail address. FDMS 4 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)*
- Close without deletion – as with disputed territories, there can be different versions of a logo. After this DR is closed, I will start a scope DR. FDMS 4 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Disputed territories? I'm not sure of the Commons equivalent to relevancy and notoriety, but these logos lack both items. I've made multiple alternative logos which have even been used in semi-official capacities but they shouldn't be posted here! If I came up with an alternative logo and branding for Apple and set up a bunch of social media accounts and fake Apple stores, I'm sure my branding would be on the Commons but not because anyone saw this as a legitimate dispute. Indolering (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
- The Namecoin brand appears to be neither protected by trademark nor copyright laws. There are different websites and social media accounts using different logos. It is not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide which one is correct. Therefore, both version should be kept and the decision left up to reusers (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use. FDMS 4 21:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- "The Namecoin brand appears to be neither protected by trademark nor copyright laws." We have common-law claims on the trademarks and plan on applying for formal trademark protection. I recreated all of the files in vector and I hold the copyright on those files. However, this is a straw-man argument made for the sole purpose to try and debase our credibility without any bearing on scope.
- "There are different websites and social media accounts using different logos." Incorrect: the official website and all official social media accounts use the blue logo. Only social accounts controlled by a single person uses the purple logo. That person and those accounts were making false and dangerous claims about anonymity. These claims had the potential to place people's lives at risk and the core developers decided to step in.
- "It is not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide which one is correct." You are right: it is up to the Namecoin community to decide which one is correct: I am a core Namecoin contributor and I am telling you that the purple logo is incorrect and the blue logo is correct!
- "Therefore, both version should be kept and the decision left up to reusers (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use." As both your points supporting this conclusion are ALL fatally flawed, I will assume that you will reverse your stance and vote in favor of deletion. --Indolering (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (updated --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
- You are simply failing to provide evidence that "your Namecoin (community)" is the "official Namecoin (community)". Instead, you are just insulting another person, despite being told not to do so. Wikimedia Commons is not the right place to live out any personal quarrels with another person. FDMS 4 11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm listed as a core developer and the [Github repo], website, and social media accounts all use the blue logo.
- Images with the purple logo are not in use on MediaWiki related properties.
- Even if if they had the correct logo, most of these images are not educational.
- I find your assertion about myself and the project insulting: they are unrelated to scope and only serve to undermine our credibility. I'm sorry if my reaction to such comments also insulted yourself. I would prefer to stick to scope and I would honestly appreciate a response to my scope analysis below. --Indolering (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are simply failing to provide evidence that "your Namecoin (community)" is the "official Namecoin (community)". Instead, you are just insulting another person, despite being told not to do so. Wikimedia Commons is not the right place to live out any personal quarrels with another person. FDMS 4 11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Namecoin brand appears to be neither protected by trademark nor copyright laws. There are different websites and social media accounts using different logos. It is not up to the Wikimedia Commons community to decide which one is correct. Therefore, both version should be kept and the decision left up to reusers (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use. FDMS 4 21:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Close
without deletionand keep all, except files in the comment by me below per FDMS4's comment above. Josve05a (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Namecoin videos
[edit]- File:Namecoin_Video.ogv
- File:What is Nameoin?.ogg
- File:Namecoin Video - Music Track.flac
- File:Namecoin Video - SoundFX Track.flac
- File:Namecoin Video - Voice Track.flac
Delete (only one of these were on this DR) as no permission, evidence to belive music is NC and other reasons brought up on IRC, as no evidence the YouTube-account is the copyright-owner to begin with and that the WIkipedia logo shown inside the videos are a breach of WMF's Trademark rules, but hey IANAL. Josve05a (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
DRs split and filenames moved into a list. FDMS 4 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'What is Namecoin?.ogg' links to a YouTube page where the rights clearly laid out. I believe that the use of the wikipedia logo falls within fair use.--Indolering (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete the flac files as out of scope. The music might or might not be de minimis in the video. FDMS 4 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Scope Analysis
[edit]From the Commons Project Scope article:
- File not legitimately in use
- A media file which is neither:
- realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
- legitimately in use as discussed above
- falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons.
- The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that "it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X", where X happens to be the subject of the file.
None of these files are in general use by Wikimedia related projects, including the english Namecoin Wikipedia article. The only user of these images is a single bot who automatically generates lists of new content.
The content of these logos are not educational and FDMS4's argument that "both version [sic] should be kept and the decision left up to reusers [sic] (including Wikipedia) which version they want to use." falls under a hypothetical use case which as outlined in the official guidelines does not validate the usefulness of these images.
Indeed, the VAST majority of these logos (login buttons, dummy debit cards, ) are inherently inappropriate even with the correct logo:
However, even the vanilla logos are far outside the scope of the Wikimedia commons. --Indolering (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that these files are outside our project's scope. FDMS 4 11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Should we delete the non-logo images and then clean up this page to address only the incorrect logos or do everything at once?--Indolering (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope -- unused personal art. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
_at_Institute_of_Human_Virology_fogarty_board_meeting.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Institute_of_Human_Virology_fogarty_board_meeting.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's got no true or relevant information Tubotonba.harry (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no metadata, no indication of own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely "own work". Uploaded by 90SEM (talk · contributions · Statistics) on 21.06.2013 given copyrights to "Karin Eurén" (a Danish singer), the photo was most likely taken from official website http://www.euren.dk/index.php/press = http://www.euren.dk/images/Pressefoto%20-%20Karin%20Eurn.jpg (identical res, last modified: 20.06.2013), configured to be a "Press photo". A "Press photo" does not necessarily mean cc-by-sa-3.0. The photo itself is part of an album cover, published before upload date by "Karin Eurén" via official Facebook https://www.facebook.com/karineuren/photos/pb.297085424894.-2207520000.1412853098./10151525353759895/?type=3&theater on 18.06.2013. The album itself was released - considering http://www.amazon.co.uk/Take-Away-Karin-Eur%C3%A9n/dp/B00D1G5FZK - on 03.06.2013. Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hej Gunnex.
I have a hard time finding out how Wikipedia works... I have no idea if this message reaches you. Karin Eurén is my mother and she has given me the permission to use every info and picture. The text is my 'own work', and the picture could have been as well. I miss an easier layout on Wikipedia. It's very difficult, so can you guide me how to write in the copyrights and sources like the homepage etc.?
Greetings, Signe— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90SEM (talk • contribs)
- Hi! Please read COM:OTRS and send via e-mail (preferably from @euren.dk) a related permission (see template) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In the meantime I accordingly tagged the file to prevent deletion in the next days. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion Krd 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Page 3 is marked "Copyright © 2012". The year in the copyright tag is typically supposed to be the year of first publication. This contradicts with the claim in the copyright tag which states that this was first published before 1923. Stefan4 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Did you read the page 5? The author ([[:w:en:Ellen G. White|Ellen_G._White) died in 1915. But, Commons is not Wikibooks, so Delete. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: mimimum the front page does not look like a 1915 work. JuTa 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Per File:Windows logo - 2002.svg;
The gradient and shadding effects put this logo above the TOO so the {{PD-textlogo}} license does not fit here. Moreover, it is currently place on the English Wiki under a fair use rationale (as can be seen here) Fma12 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you use to notify dr in uploaders talk? Anyway there is also File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is what exactly I did on your talk page, as you was who transferred this logo to Commons from the It wiki. Fma12 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Fma12, something strange happened. I did not received any notification; moreover I had to purge my talk to see your message--Pierpao.lo (listening) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is what exactly I did on your talk page, as you was who transferred this logo to Commons from the It wiki. Fma12 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why this was undeleted. Seems to be an error. Seems to be identical to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg which closed as delete. Stefan4 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- maybe because I call this File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg for SD referring to this DR--Pierpao.lo (listening) 04:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I had nominated this logo and I don't understand why it was undeleted, either. The shadows and gradients put this logo clearly above the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as per Carl L. on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo and wordmark - 2002.svg. Yann (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
completely replaced Antemister (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no need to delete this one. JuTa 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rail tickets of Russia
[edit]Complex artwork in the background. If this is PD-gov in Russia for some reason, the copyright tags should get replaced ({{PD-scan}}).
- File:Belovo Tomsk train ticket 2009.jpg
- File:Belovo Tomsk train ticket.jpg
- File:Billet train russie.png
- File:Russian train ticket.jpg
- File:Ticket on the express. Yasnogorsk, Russia, 2014.jpg
FDMS 4 10:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 14:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. I think we need more info if we should keep this one. MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete We need a date and sculptor. There are 5 sculptures listed in Smithsonian for Pawtucket, and this is not one of those. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If it pre-dates the 1970s (which from the weathering and style it looks like it likely does)and lacks an explicit copyright notice (I can't recall seeing such a notice on a pre-1970s US cemetery monument - I'm not saying there are none, just that they are exceptionarally rare.) So I'd *guess* this is *probably* fine. But a bit more information on it (eg, date?) would allow a more precise determination. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion; "probably ok" is not sufficient. Krd 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low-quality image, not realistically usable. Fry1989 eh? 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep it is in use, therefore it is usable. --Rotkraut (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- In use does not make something usable. There is of course also the copyright status that is not determinable. Fry1989 eh? 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Being in use proves that something is usable. Commons is not the editorial board of all other Wikimedia projects. The projects decide on their own what they consider to be usable content. Simply by using it. It's not on us to override their decision. --Rotkraut (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- No it most certainly does not! That's a ridiculous oversimplification that suggests I can upload File:Smiley face with no title.svg and insert it on an article about physics and that makes it useful. The resolution of this image is so poor that it is unusable, whether it has been inserted somewhere ore not. You also have no addressed the copyright status. Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fry1989, we have policies here in Commons. Deletion requests must have a reason. Valid reasons for deletions are listed in COM:DG. The only valid reason to delete a file that comes halfway close to your not usable would be Out of scope. What is in project scope is defined in COM:SCOPE. This document clearly states that "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose".
- On the copyright status, you have by now not given any hint on what issue you see here. --Rotkraut (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- No it most certainly does not! That's a ridiculous oversimplification that suggests I can upload File:Smiley face with no title.svg and insert it on an article about physics and that makes it useful. The resolution of this image is so poor that it is unusable, whether it has been inserted somewhere ore not. You also have no addressed the copyright status. Fry1989 eh? 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Being in use proves that something is usable. Commons is not the editorial board of all other Wikimedia projects. The projects decide on their own what they consider to be usable content. Simply by using it. It's not on us to override their decision. --Rotkraut (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- In use does not make something usable. There is of course also the copyright status that is not determinable. Fry1989 eh? 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The file is very small (60×63), but it is used in en.wiki and so automatically in scope. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unless the copyright status it determined, I will renominate on the basis of an invalid keep. Just making that clear for the both of you who so far have completely chosen to ignore that question. Fry1989 eh? 17:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I made it clear I would renominate this if the copyright status is not addressed. There is every reason to believe the Tri-Service Badge of the Pakistan Armed Forces is copyrighted. Unless there is evidence it is not, the "in use" excuse means nothing, it must go. Fry1989 eh? 22:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I see here a ring, which is divided into 3 equal sectors. Sectors have different colors. This does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Then you are deliberately ignoring the truth, as each sector clearly contains the coat of arms/badge of the three services in the Pakistan Armed Forces, that of the Navy, Air Force and Army. The resolution does not change the copyright status. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Fry1989: If there are multiple reasons to delete a file, please put them all into the original deletion request. Thank you. --Krd 14:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 14:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The name of the author is missing, and the provided source is a dead link Iaaasi (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I added a new link. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The link you provided is to the image, but provides no information about source or author. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: author unknown, no evidence for PD-old Krd 14:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1954 monument INeverCry 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Не знаю, суттєво це чи ні, але 1) сам пам'ятник художньої цінності не має, бо є стандартним (масове виробництво) з тих часів (1960-ті), тому дане фото авторських прав не порушує, і 2) фото я зробив особисто. Вважаю, що видаляти нема потреби. — MSha (обг.) 08:00, 10 жовтня 2014 (UTC)
- @MSha: : чи можете ви знайти автора пам'ятника? Пам'ятник встановлений у 1954 році, тож якщо це масове виробництво, є певна ймовірність, що перший такий пам'ятник був встановлений до 1951 року, і в такому разі цей пам'ятник може бути суспільним надбанням. В іншому разі згідно з українським законодавством потрібно отримати дозвіл скульптора на публікацію фото пам'ятника. Щодо художньої цінності, то ЛОР визнала його пам'яткою монументального мистецтва, тобто таким, який має художню цінність — NickK (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Знаю цей пам'яткик з дитинства, але жодною інформацією про автора не володію, нама там теж жодної таблички чи клейма про виробника тощо. Подібні пам'ятники доводилось бачити і в ішних містечках і селах, тому це, очевидно, було масовим виробництвом. Більше відомостей на цю тему не маю. — MSha (обг.) 09:00, 14 жовтня 2014 (UTC)
- @MSha: : чи можете ви знайти автора пам'ятника? Пам'ятник встановлений у 1954 році, тож якщо це масове виробництво, є певна ймовірність, що перший такий пам'ятник був встановлений до 1951 року, і в такому разі цей пам'ятник може бути суспільним надбанням. В іншому разі згідно з українським законодавством потрібно отримати дозвіл скульптора на публікацію фото пам'ятника. Щодо художньої цінності, то ЛОР визнала його пам'яткою монументального мистецтва, тобто таким, який має художню цінність — NickK (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence that DW is not copyrighted Krd 06:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Антон патріот (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern monuments, sculptures, and buildings in Donetsk, Ukraine - No FoP in Ukraine
- File:Залізничнй вокзал (Донецьк)-7.JPG
- File:Залізничнй вокзал (Донецьк)-6.JPG
- File:Видавничий будинок Донеччина.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 8.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 9.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 7.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 6.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 5.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 4.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 1.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 3.JPG
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 2.JPG
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 5.JPG
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 4.JPG
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 3.JPG
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 1.JPG
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 2.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Пушкіну (Донецьк) - 1.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Пушкіну (Донецьк) - 2.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Юзу (Донецьк) - 3.JPG
- File:ФілФак ДонНУ - 3.JPG
- File:Гуров - Донецьк -1.JPG
- File:Гуров - Донецьк -3.JPG
- File:Гуров - Донецьк -2.JPG
- File:Грін Плаза.JPG
- File:Донецьк-Постишева, 44.JPG
-7.JPG){kind=link}
-6.JPG){kind=link}
_-_1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 09:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- A mix of different cases, I'll try to split into groups:
- File:Видавничий будинок Донеччина.JPG is a standard bulding for a 1960s-1970s institution (almost identical to those in Moscow, Tomsk or Kazan), built according to a project by Donetskyi Prombudndiproekt (Донецький Промбудндіпроект) and is below COM:TOO. Ukrainian law states that in order to be protected, an object should be a "work of art" (твір мистецтва), with art being defined as "creative artistic activity" (творча художня діяльність). This building is of a perfectly rectangular shape and does not display any creative or artistic character and thus is below COM:TOO.
- File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 4.JPG and File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 7.JPG depict plaques with lists of names of killed journalists. Lists of names itself can't be subject of copyright per {{PD-UA-exempt}}, and the font used on these plaques is very simple and definitely below COM:TOO (Ukrainian law states that in order to be protected, an object should be a "work of art" (твір мистецтва), with art being defined as "creative artistic activity" (творча художня діяльність). The only protected elements may be small images like a branch on File:Журналістам - Друга Світова - 7.JPG, but it is both COM:DM to the lists and trivial
- File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 1.JPG, File:ЗОШ №2 - Донецьк - 2.JPG and others from this series depict a school that clearly is not modern: it is known as a school where studied WWII hero uk:Двужильний Юрій Михайлович (1919-1944), thus it had to be built by early 1930s. There is also a 1939 postcard depicting this school, thus it is clearly a pre-WWII building.
- File:Донецьк-Постишева, 44.JPG depicts a front wall of the pre-1917 building integrated into a modern office centre. While the office centre is modern, the central part of the building is dating from early 20th century and is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Prominent copyrightable elements may be cropped if they are not considered COM:DM
- File:Грін Плаза.JPG most likely depicts nothing copyrightable, as hardly anything (except the name and a few windows) is visible, we can't even see the shape of the building. On the other hand, it has not that much value either, as one can hardly understand what is depicted on it — NickK (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- @NickK: I highly appreciate your work on ua fop cases, but in this case I'd take at most not modern school as valid, all other arguments (TOO, DM, not artwork) do IMO not apply. --Krd 12:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: (most) per above Krd 12:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, but vitae resumes, online articles that you yourself have posted links to social networks like facebook, links to books published by yourself on Amazon (his is relatively easy to do by anyone, just sold and mostly with negative feedback), all that can not be used as evidence of importance . If you were really a major artist would not need you to defend yourself, especially by publishing a list of spam links made for yourself. It is amazing the time you have spent in doing your own advertising on different portals and social networks, however, commons is not a good place for selftpromotion.
In addition, low quality image (blured, motion blur, oversatured, out of focus), personal experiment only used in one of your subpages commons. A selfpublication of a not important book in Amazon is really easy. I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. like the first comment of your book in Amazon. It is likely to become the next Picazzo, however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry --The Photographer
The Photographer (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
KEEP
OVERVIEW:
(For a detailed rebuttal of each point Rodríguez asserted see the numbered # paragraphs below):
Virtually all of the work Rodríguez wants to delete is deliberately experimental and carefully put together -- which is clearly noted on the commons.wikimedia pages. Many of these photographs are considered some of the best experimental work today (see list at the end of this response). Many of the photographs were taken at very slow shutter speeds and many involve motion -- all of which is deliberately recorded as blur. If commons.wikimedia deletes photographs such as these which deliberately contain motion blur, then it is subscribing to a quite narrow definition of photography that excludes deliberate and carefully constructed experimental work. The work I posted here was made over about 15 years, many of it published in a book by a major photography publisher, my third book on digital photography -- none of which were self published (see below). Other work Rodríguez tagged for deletion has been displayed in major university art galleries and contemporary art conferences or reviewed by a major publication.
Whether a reviewer likes or does not like the work is not the point. The point is that these are experimental works from a leading artist who works with experimental digital photography and has done so for about 15 years. These are not low quality, poorly focused photographs instead I believe my works on commons.wikimedia are some of the best examples of experimental digital photography. Experimental digital photography needs to be judged differently from a traditional photograph, as blur and motion and other effects which were often thought to be 'bad photography' are used in experimental photography for artistic and expressive purposes.
How can I say that I am a leading artist who works with experimental digital photography? Do a Google search for "experimental digital photography" and I normally come up at or near the top, along with several other results in the top 10. Do a search on commons.wikimedia for "experimental digital photography" and my page comes up.
You might also want to check out my resume going back more than 40 years at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RickDoble/CurriculumVitae
EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF THESE EXPERIMENTAL DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
As for their educational value -- there are a number of courses in high schools and colleges today that are called experimental digital photography or that use my book Experimental Digital Photography for the course.
My reason for uploading these photographs to commons.wikimedia was to make my work available for public use for students, teachers and artists. A number of the photographs tagged for deletion by Rodríguez are from my book Experimental Digital Photography. Here are a list of college libraries where my book can be found and also courses that are now being taught on the subject of experimental digital photography.
== Over 40 college and university libraries have a copy of my book -- see the listings at this URL:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results
Here are links to educational institutes with courses in experimental digital photography:
== Oldham College, Creative Arts (UK): Digital Photography Skills - In week 6 they concentrate on "Experimental Digital Photography- Long exposures" which is exactly what my experimental photographs here on commons.wikimedia involve
http://www.oldham.ac.uk/creativearts/Factsheet.aspx?id=2956&title=Digital%20Photography%20Skills%20Part%201%20Beginners
== Ocean County College (USA): Experimental Digital Photography course: COPH - 187
http://www.ocean.edu/content/public/study-on-campus/academics/college-catalog.html/courses/6591
== Peters Valley School of Craft (USA): Course - Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.petersvalley.org/store/html/product.cfm?id=421
== Faculty of Creative Arts at Colchester Institute (UK): Art and Design Degree; Experimental Digital Photography is listed under year 2
http://www.ukademics.com/course/art-and-design-fashion-textiles/university/colchester-institute
== Suffolk Country Community College: Course ART259: Experimental Digital Photography
http://depthome.sunysuffolk.edu/West/ArtsHumanities/Photographic%20Imaging%20Courses.html
== Kabul University in Kabul Afghanistan has held a seminar in ‘Experimental Digital Photography.’
See a reference to it at this URL.
http://beforeitsnews.com/fine-art/2012/10/masood-kamandy-2447772.html
== My book Experimental Digital Photography is listed as textbook, on Textbooks.com
http://www.textbooks.com/Experimental-Digital-Photography/9781600595172/Rick-Doble.php
HERE IS A REBUTTAL OF THE REASONS RODRÍGUEZ CITED FOR DELETION OF MY PHOTOGRAPHS
I am responding to the following deletion request by Wilfredo R. Rodríguez
"Low quality image (blured [.sic], motion blur, oversatured [.sic], out of focus), personal experiment. A selfpublication [.sic] of a not important book in Amazon is really easy. I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon. It is likely to become the next Picazzo [.sic], however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry -- H.
This deletion request is an attack on the professionalism of my work. It is also an attack on me personally -- it is sarcastic and addresses itself to me personally -- which has no place in this kind of request. But since it has been made, I will respond to the various criticisms. And I ask for the patience of reviewers reading this -- as I feel I must go into detail to refute a number of things Rodríguez has said.
- 1. Asserted: Low quality image
My response: These were uploaded at the highest original resolution possible. Since the work spans about 15 years of experimental work, some of the earlier work will be at lower resolutions since the cameras did not take photographs at higher resolutions.
- 2. Asserted: Out of focus
My response: These are not out of focus. These are experimental digital photographs which involve motion. To a personal unfamiliar with motion blur, they may seem out of focus, but the focus is correct. The blur is due to intentional motion recorded in the picture -- see #3.
- 3. Asserted: Blurred (Rodríguez misspelled as blured)
My response: Yes, these are blurred. They are experimental digital photographs using purely photographic techniques -- usually very slow handheld exposures at 2-20 seconds. So of course they are blurred. In most cases on commons.wikimedia, there is an EXIF file that details this.
BTW: If you think that deliberately blurred photos should be deleted, then you will need to also delete the work of Bragaglia 100 years ago who I was inspired by and whose photograph you have listed on commons.wikimedia.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bragaglia-violin.jpg
- 4. Asserted: Motion blur
My response: See #3. Many of the subjects of this work are in motion, so again, naturally there is a motion blur aspect to them. Also motion blur, itself, is a category of photographs on commons.wikimedia
- 4. Asserted: Personal experiment
My response: Not sure what the criticism is here. These are experimental photographs some of which are personal but which hopefully will inspire other students and artists to do their own personal experiments. The self portraits of Rembrandt which span his lifetime were personal but also great art; the same could be said about van Gogh's self portraits and Roger Bacon's. In addition some of the greatest art work of the 20th century such as cubism and abstract art could be called personal experiments. Self portraits and selfies are categories in commons.wikimedia
NOTE: A number of the photographs that Rodríguez has tagged for deletion have been shown in museums, symposiums, conferences, and on major websites. Please see the rather long list, at the end of this response to the deletion request by Rodríguez.
- 5. Asserted: Self published book
My response: Calling my book Experimental Digital Photography "A selfpublication" is incorrect. Rodríguez jumped to conclusions which a reviewer should never do. This book is *NOT* self published. I was published by a major publisher of photography books, Pixiq in the Lark Photography Book series -- which is clearly listed on the Amazon site. (Pixiq used to be called Sterling Publishing and is now part of Barnes and Noble). Experimental Digital Photography (Pixiq, New York/London, 2010).
ALSO NOTE: I am the author of 3 books on digital photography *NONE OF WHICH WERE SELF PUBLISHED; THEY WERE PUBLISHED BY MAJOR PUBLISHERS*:
The Everything Digital Photography Book
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Digital-Photography-Book-professional/dp/B002YX0BQE
Career Building Through Digital Photography -- a book for libraries
http://www.amazon.com/Career-Building-Through-Digital-Photography/dp/1404219412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412916697&sr=1-1&keywords=careers+in+digital+photography+rick+doble
- 6. Asserted: Not important book
My response: Calling the book "not important" is a personal opinion which again has no place in a deletion request. He needs to check his facts.
The book sold out in its first printing.
My book is in over 240 libraries around the world, including New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and South Africa in addition to the United States.
Here is a listing of where my book is in libraries around the world:
There are 41 pages of listings with six libraries listed per page.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results
I also have 1200+ followers on my Facebook page for my book Experimental Digital Photography
https://www.facebook.com/experimentaldigitalphotography.book.rick.doble
- 7. Asserted: "A selfpublication of a not important book in Amazon is really easy."
Response: A comment like this is factually incorrect, personal and is not appropriate for a deletion request. Rodríguez has jumped to conclusions and not checked his facts. Amazon is only one bookseller where my book is listed; there are dozens of others around the world where my book is listed. As for "easy" the book was drawn from about 15 years of work and it took me nine solid months to write, edit, and proof it.
Here it is listed on Barnes and Noble:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/experimental-digital-photography-rick-doble/1102180849?ean=9781600595172
- 8. Asserted: Negative Comments on Amazon
My response: Rodríguez wrote, "I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon." The comments Rodríguez refers to are amateur reader comments, some of which are quite complimentary, some are not. And even the negative 1-star review Rodríguez cites on Amazon contains this line, "If you're into colorful shiny things, this might be a good book for you..." Other readers gave this book 5 stars which Rodríguez ignored. Most importantly Rodríguez ignored the professional reviews on that same page on Amazon which are as follows:
Professional Reviews verified by Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Experimental-Digital-Photography-Lark-Book/dp/1600595170/ref=cm_rdp_product_img
== Outlines how to express yourself through experimental photography. I like the hands-on exercises - great way to experience the information and techniques taught through this book. Extremely well done! --thereviewsource.net -- review by Thomas Nelson
== Doble, a photographer for more than 40 years, throws out the rule book and teaches techniques that foster expressive, experimental images. ---- libraryjournal.com -- by Daniel Lombardo
== Filled with stunning images...the book is a feast for the eyes and so can be both read as a book and flicked through for inspiration at other times when you are feeling creatively constipated. Wayne Cosshall, Digital ImageMaker. --dimagemaker.com
- 9. Asserted: "I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon."
My response: Addressing me personally in a deletion request is inappropriate. He used the word 'your' twice.
- 9. Asserted: "It is likely to become the next Picazzo [.sic], however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry "
My response: This is another personal opinion which has no place in a deletion request. Even so his logic is flawed. This sentence by him is a bit garbled but I think he means "He, Rick Doble, is likely to become the next Picasso, however until that happens, these photographs should be deleted." So I have to ask, if I am likely to become the next Picasso, why would you want to delete my work? -- and if you do delete my work, you are making it that much harder for me to become the next Picasso. Ending his comment with, "I am sorry," is also inappropriate. And BTW if my work is deleted, don't expect me to ever submit it to commons.wikimedia another time and go through this process again.
- 10. I have a Masters Degree in Media from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1974. I have been a photographer for 40 years. I have put up some of my very best work to make it publicly available for students, teachers and artists, forgoing any money I could have made from these photographs. While people may not like my particular work, they should understand it is deliberate and carefully constructed which merits keeping the work on commons.wikimedia. I am hoping that commons.wikimedia will keep an open mind and realize that experimental photography needs to be looked at differently than traditional photography. And one way to judge its quality is to look at the experience and background of its creator.
You can see my full 6 page resume going back more than 40 years at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RickDoble/CurriculumVitae
- 11. NOTE: As a contemporary photographic artist who some feel is significant, I put some of my best work on commons.wikimedia. I have forgone any money I could have made from those photographs, since they are now available for public use. I wanted students, teachers, artists to be inspired by them, to learn from them, to maybe reuse the work in some of their own work. I thought that commons.wikimedia would be open to experimental work and not hampered by a traditional view of photography when it came to experimental work.
So, unfortunately I must say the following: If *ANY* of my experimental photographs are deleted due to this deletion request, I will not put any more of my work up on commons.wikimedia. I was planning on adding new work as I created it. I also feel that deleting original work made by an artist who some feel is significant will send a chilling message to other artists who might be considering putting their work up on commons.wikimedia. And I will let such artists know about my experience here at commons.wikimedia and that their work may not be welcome here.
=========================================================
LIST OF EXHIBITS, CONFERENCES WHERE WORK TAGGED FOR DELETION HAS BEEN SHOWN PLUS INTERVIEWS WITH DOBLE ABOUT HIS EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Listed in Chronological Order from 1998-2012
== Many of the GIF animations listed for deletion were included on the Enculturation website in 1998 where I was the featured artist for this work
http://www.enculturation.net/2_1/toc.html
http://www.enculturation.net/2_1/doble/
My work was also reviewed as being quite remarkable by the Film-Philosophy Journal of London, UK
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol3-1999/n15martin-jones
== File:01 - File:03 classical greek 4 elements air.gif
These were put on the French site DOC(K)S in 2000 and also these animations were included on a CD in their with their book. These animations are still online
http://www.akenaton-docks.fr/DOCKS-datas_f/collect_f/generiqueanim.html
== https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01_self-portrait_early_experimental_digital_photography_by_Rick_Doble.jpg
This picture was shown at the 5th Photography Biennial Exhibit in 2007 in at the Gray Art Gallery, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC (USA) and included on a full page in the museum catalog
== My interview with NPR (National Public Radio) about my experimental work
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105371296
== Many of the picture listed for deletion were in the SCIENAR exhibit in Bucharest Romania in 2010 and then put together in the following PowerPoint show
Link to SCIENAR site: http://virtualimage.co.uk/SCIENAR/html/painting_in_light.html
Link to PPT PowerPoint File: http://virtualimage.co.uk/SCIENAR/html/lightppt.html
== This file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9781600595172_a030.jpg
was used as the principle image for the poster for the SCIENAR exhibit in Bucharest Romania in 2010.
It is not unlike the Bragaglia 100 year old photograph mentioned earlier, that is on commons.wikimedia.
https://www.facebook.com/experimentaldigitalphotography.book.rick.doble/photos/a.111134282288829.11731.111124322289825/111134285622162/?type=3&theater
This is an interview with Art Digital Magazine, that has the largest collection of interviews with digital artists, about my experimental work with long shutter speeds
http://www.artdigitalmagazine.com/?p=2810
File:06 - File:10 camera painting motion blur experimental digital photography by Rick Doble.jpg
Photos from this series were shown at the Bridges Mathematical Art Galleries in 2012; two in a month long show at the Towson University Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland and one at the conference
http://gallery.bridgesmathart.org/exhibitions/2012-bridges-conference/rickdoble
--Rickdoble (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a reply to Wilfredo R. Rodríguez [User:The Photographer] in his latest comment:
Since you are addressing me directly as 'you', I will now address you directly.
In your original mass deletion nomination you referenced my book as self published, you said I only sold on Amazon, and my work was not important. So I have the right to respond to those accusations since that was part of your reason for deleting my work -- and you should know that.
What else can I use for evidence of importance if not exhibits, conferences, museum catalogs, reviews in prestigious journals going back 15 years. Do you honestly think that the quite positive review in Film-Philosophy Journal of London in 1999 was something I made up, for example? Do you honestly think that the 240 libraries worldwide today that carry my book and the 40 college libraries that carry my book are spam links?
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results
Are you saying that if I were a major artist and you decided to delete most of my work that I should say nothing?
You wrote, "If you were really a major artist [.sic] would not need you to defend yourself." My reply is that if you knew about the field of experimental digital photography you would know who I was, but clearly you don't know about this field.
Furthermore, all your accusations about self publishing -- with the books I listed in my reply to your mass deletion nomination -- are not substantiated and simply assumptions you have made, assumptions you have no right to make. You have no evidence because my books that I listed that are on Amazon were published by major publishing firms. If you cannot back up your accusations and provide evidence, you need to apologize. Otherwise you are quite unprofessional.--Rickdoble (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Response to those who have posted delete on this deletion nomination:
My work here on Wikimedia is not Out of scope. As a teacher and educator myself, or course, I respect the purpose for which Wikimedia was created. I have clearly noted how my work has an educational purpose -- with 40+ college libraries (over 240 libraries worldwide) carrying my book, Experimental Digital Photography, and also a number of courses being offered with the name Experimental Digital Photography which is what my work is about -- so my work here has an educational purpose. As I stated in my response to this deletion nomination of over 100 of my files, I put them up there for students, teachers, schools and educators to use.
If you think it is okay for The Photographer to accuse me of making up links and self-publishing the 3 books I listed on Amazon about digital photography (which is untrue) without any verification -- then commons.wikimedia is not being fair and is not the place I thought it was. You instead should be asking him to verify his comments. Also he does not know the difference between focus and camera/subject movement. This is basic knowledge which any photographer should know. And both of these last statements are enough to disqualify him. And if you think that my reasoning is flawed, you must live in a different world than I do, a world where accuracy and fairness are not considerations.--71.48.15.92 01:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)--Rickdoble (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently a decision has been made in just 2 days to delete my work
According to User:Yann
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rickdoble#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3D.7Cbase.3DProject_scope.2Fheading.7D.7D
my work is now scheduled for deletion, having been nominated for deletion only 2 days ago (nominated on October 9 and decision made to delete on October 11). Is this normal procedure? Is this fair? Do I not get more time to respond or ask others I know in Wikimedia to respond? Told that my work was out of scope, I responded this way:
My work here on Wikimedia is not Out of scope. As a teacher and educator myself, or course, I respect the purpose for which Wikimedia was created. I have clearly noted how my work has an educational purpose -- with 40+ college libraries (over 240 libraries worldwide) carrying my book, Experimental Digital Photography, and also a number of courses being offered with the name Experimental Digital Photography which is what my work is about -- so my work here has an educational purpose. As I stated in my response to this deletion nomination of over 100 of my files, I put them up there for students, teachers, schools and educators to use. I clearly detailed all of this in my response to the deletion nomination. Did it get read? And if what I have said does not qualify for an educational purpose, why not?--Rickdoble (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
KEEP Definitly keep: this is truely experimental and original artwork. Ot pushes bounderies of photography beyond the canons of "focused, centered and reality based" etc. It has also been studied in Universities in Europe ( Marcella Giulia Lorenzi, phd, artist, University of Calabria, Italy).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsloan (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Somebody is creating accounts to vote keep here 13:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)The Photographer (talk)
- Hi, could be nice see a litle more of your opinion --The Photographer (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time seeing your claim that this account was created in order to vote in this DR as anything other than blatantly false, given the age of the account and its edit history massively predates the DR. --Elvey (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks. BrightRaven (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As per BrightRaven.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- DeleteNot relevant to Commons, which isn't a personal art gallery or image hosting site. Please try Flikr or Imgur. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: As the user opened a very large thread in the COM:AN, the user expected respect of his works, but the user clearly don't want to follow the Project scope, and mentioning Wilfredo R. Rodríguez not qualified to nominate my work for deletion in the COM:AN thread is assuming bad faith (anyone who know the policies can nominate files clearly outside the PS). Also, as The Photographer mentioned above about possible sockpuppet of the mentioned user commenting here (oppising to this DR), I strongly recommend to do a Checkuser. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because there is always a lot of fuss around artistic images, I am uploading "nice shots", that are not unambiguously educative to Flickr and ask for a second opinion first. Other users do the same. Transfer from Flickr relatively easy in case some pictures are considered useful. -- Rillke(q?) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment(Jameslwoodward): It's nice to see an admin take a stand AGAINST Arbitrary, out of process, actions ! Kudos, Jim! --Elvey (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for File:01_self-portrait_experimental_digital_photography_by_Rick_Doble.jpg, IMHO the best of the lot; nice cubist effect. I think the uploader has made some valid points that I hope the closer looks at, e.g. #6. While I think the photos are generally quite "bad", that's my view. I don't think they're out of scope and I think deleting 'em all is not in accord with policy other than IAR and misinterpretations of scope. I also note the quite "bad" quality of some delete !votes. The AN thread should be speedily closed if it hasn't already been; discussion should be in one place.--Elvey (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, all considered. Maybe some of these can be later on shown to be off-scope, but there’s enough good stuff in here to make such a bundle nomination a bad idea. Lots of sensible re-categorizing is necessary, though, and surely some descriptions should be “tamed”. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment When I first glanced through the vast overkill above -- 3,400 words of diatribe -- my first reaction was that we don't want this guy on Commons and we should delete them all. However, I note that he actually has had three books published, and is arguably an expert in the field, so perhaps my knee jerk reaction was wrong. I think that perhaps we should consider keeping some of the images, provided that they do not appear in his books or on any copyrighted site on the web. Images that have been previously published require OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Hi @Jameslwoodward: , Publishing a book on Amazon and other social networks is relatively easy, especially when done by the same author. The books were published by him also watching the reviews are mostly negative. I myself have read his books (Available on his facebook page), the books seem to try to convince the reader of the importance of the author rather than teaching, secondly, most of the images here nominated for deletion are not present in their books. However, I have not nominated to deletion all his photos, although, I must confess that it was hard for me to think about a possible future use. Additionally, the author is present in many of his photos. --The Photographer (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- As you will see above, I have reverted your arbitrary removal of the comment by Lsloan. While Lsloan is an editor with only the one contribution, there is no evidence that he is anything but what he says he is. It is very unlikely that the account is a sock. Arbitrary, out of process, actions such as yours don't make difficult DRs easier. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, surely that PHD expert user found this nomination searching in google and her interesting enough to register to vote. --The Photographer (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- As you will see above, I have reverted your arbitrary removal of the comment by Lsloan. While Lsloan is an editor with only the one contribution, there is no evidence that he is anything but what he says he is. It is very unlikely that the account is a sock. Arbitrary, out of process, actions such as yours don't make difficult DRs easier. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sarcasm is not helpful -- remember that this is a multi-lingual project and many Commons editors will not understand your meaning. I have no doubt that Doble asked Lsloan to make the comment, but that is not against policy and certainly does not justify your removal.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- James, apply the rules excessively does not help either. One thing to assume good faith and another thing is ignore the problem. I invite you to see it. --The Photographer (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sarcasm is not helpful -- remember that this is a multi-lingual project and many Commons editors will not understand your meaning. I have no doubt that Doble asked Lsloan to make the comment, but that is not against policy and certainly does not justify your removal.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of Commons:Offsite_discussion#Canvassing.2Fadvertising. Nowhere there does it even hint that anyone may remove such comments. As I said above, your breaking the rules does nothing to make this difficult DR easier. I have certainly not ignored the off-site discussion -- I said as much above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- You wrote It is very unlikely that the account is a sock, unfortunately, I do not agree with you and everything else derives from this premise. However, I respect your opinion, thanks for your recommendations --The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- On what basis do you disagree? Please remember that I am a CU -- I checked them and the two accounts are on different continents, as you might expect since that is what is claimed above. As I said above, I have no doubt that the Lsloan comment was solicited, but it is not a sock. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Waiting quietly for me to I say something wrong, then pull out a trump card that you never showed. You used your checkuser without any formal request. You had checkuser and You never mentioned this until now, why? . A user with no contribution and going alone to vote is sufficient evidence of canvassing. This simple vote you make it a ridiculously long discussion, which makes it a tough vote, though, paradoxically, you blame me for something you are doing yourself. Excess application of the rules stop the process. I invite you to leave this discussion here (because it was off topic) and continue on my talk page. Thank you very much. --The Photographer (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- On what basis do you disagree? Please remember that I am a CU -- I checked them and the two accounts are on different continents, as you might expect since that is what is claimed above. As I said above, I have no doubt that the Lsloan comment was solicited, but it is not a sock. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Amitie 10g made a clear request above, but no formal request is required for a CU to act. It's certainly no secret that I am a CU and given the circumstances it should be no surprise that I ran a check before flatly stating "It is very unlikely that the account is a sock." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Next time write clearly what you did, that really helps to clarity of the process. All this discussion would have saved if you had started saying you did a checkuser, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep I was searching for a water animation on Commons and this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:02_classical_greek_4_elements_water.gif) was the only one that came close to what I had in mind. The description clearly states the source: the uploader and the author of the book are one and the same person. Users can judge for themselves what this means. Why not just strip these files of the self-aggrandizing categories and keep them until a better alternative comes along? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Done @Judithcomm: Waiting for a better image in the cat. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody who was able to keep up to discussion please summarize the arguments in as few words as possible? Thank you. --Krd 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mr Doble attests that he is notable, that he and his work is/are notable (both in the real world, in print, and he is a successful educator), educational and within the project scope. The nays (me included, for clarity) support the opinion that they are neither educational, good quality nor in the project scope. There are also suggestions that as Mr Doble is included in a lot of the photos that there may or not be ulterior motives in their publication (both here and elsewhere). I hope I've been fair in my summary, as it wasn't my intention to give you a biased summary. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fred, thank you for this summary, I consider it very helpful.
- I personally see each single image clearly out of scope, but more than a few are in use, and taken as a series they _may_ be educationally useful on photography topics.
Neutral --Krd 15:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- What a lard mound is that? That summarizes the arguments for deletion only.
- Could somebody who was able to keep up to discussion please summarize the arguments against deletion in as few words as possible? Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- So why don't you do it then if you think the summary is so biased? So what did I miss out in the 'keep column'? Or are you all piss and wind? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personal attack above removed by User:Elvey and restored by Fred the Oyster Someone please re-remove the personal attack.--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are 4 keep !votes, not including the uploader's or Jim's, and a neutral; their 6 arguments were not summarized. Your summary creates the false impression that the uploader's is the only !vote that's not for deletion. I think a summary should cover the EVIDENCE presented. Here goes:
Summary
[edit]Nays argued that the works are blurred, ayes that the blur is intentional. Several deletionist claims were debunked (e.g. of socking, that the works are out of focus, unused, the book was just on Amazon...). (Comment: IMO, numerous false claims against (for) deletion are strong evidence of I (don't) like it, respectively.) The uploader provides adequate evidence of this kind of photography being studied in educational settings currently, and evidence that it's been around since the birth of photography, and proof that hundreds of libraries worldwide carry 1+ of the photographer's books. The arguments for deletion based on policy were generally not sound. The arguments for keeping based on policy were generally sound. And that's a summary from someone who doesn't even like the photos, as my !vote clearly shows. --Elvey (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that the blur is intentional does not negate the fact that they are blurred. I don't see much evidence that the author's photography is being studied in educational settings; surely the fact that, say, oil painting is studied in educational settings does not make all oil paintings in scope.
- Generally user art is hard to get past scope. If someone on Wikibooks was writing a book on this, I'd be happy to see them upload photos for their needs. But it's hard to say that any of this useful in absence of someone trying to use it, and it's easy to generate.
- Unused was not debunked in general. It's trivial to put one or two images out of a large DR to use somewhere, but the only place outside the uploader's userspace these are used on is the gallery he created that's functionally a copy of one in his user space. If you want to argue that they're in use, show links, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- [Reply removed. Done with this. Bowing out of the discussion.] Don't put it back unless you want to show that you're here only to argue. Don't put it back unstuck again. --Elvey (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- The policy at COM:EDUSE defines in use, and "legitimately in use" and what the scope of the project is; the most relevant "use" question is which files are "legitimately in use", as defined therein. " the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." is also relevant. --Elvey (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why is the uploading of a small number of images relevant? 114 images is not a small number of images. We have never defined "educational use" to include arbitrary artistic works, they don't seem notable as artistic works (there's no evidence the works themselves have been published, for example), and the artist isn't nearly enough notable for every image he makes to be educationally useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
My conclusion
[edit]The author has provided evidence of social networks, facebook, amazon and other online libraries, portals where you can upload your own book (not necessarily good books). I invite you to see the comments from users who have been scammed by his book on amazon. I also invite you to download the free version of his book available on facebook. You will find some surprises. Another problem is self-promotion, the user has created User:Rickdoble/My Gallery Experimental Digital Photography a subpage for promotion with his photos many times himself] (especially which shows only his face (see also the page)). You have used evidence of courses in experimental photography of others in the which have made a detailed comparison, this can not be counted as valid evidence, basically because there is a kind of experimental photography, this does not mean that the work presented here is whether experimental photography, or an relevant author. In addition, We can not stimulate Narcissistic personality disorder. Perhaps I can be very frank with my comments and my intention is not to offend, is a sincere comment for the author. I do not consider myself a major artist, however, I would like to apologize if my comments were too strong despite being sincere. I really want you to be a famous artist when that happens, we'll be here waiting with open arms around your massive work, much of what we consider art (especially modern art) is incomprehensible to many people, however, Commons is not the place, until other people recognize your work and you as an important artist, an immortal artist. Many pictures of me have also been deleted, I remember the administrator Jammes, some time ago proposed for deletion one svg image made by me, about an African American woman, is another matter and has nothing to do with this, however, I believe important to quote him because I am not an important artist and while that may be so, my artwork should not be in commons, especially modern or experimental art. Regardless of the final decision, I would be very happy to keep watching you work in commons. Greetings. --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- "her book"??? Please provide free download link (I can find none; you seem to not understand the facebook page) and say what surprises I should be looking for. What are you saying about the world cat link? You seem to be saying that those hundreds of entries don't represent physical books on the libraries shelves, but AFAICT, they do. That seems to be yet another untrue statement. Besides, this section belongs with the other comments. --Elvey (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done I am sorry for tell her book, translation problem, this is the link Download book here --The Photographer (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm... That seems to be a link to a different thing; it's not to his book thats showing up in worldcat; it's something else - an e-publication of his. I guess your lack of response means you're conceding that the world cat link does show hundreds of entries that DO represent physical books on the shelves of hundreds libraries. I think you need to take a look at w:WorldCat... --Elvey (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(This section now properly retagged under an H5.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It is still controversial if the files are in scope or not. Anyway, I'm going to keep them for now as there is no concensus for deletion. Krd 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
CommentWhy does Lsloan NOW seem to be a LONG-established user who voted "KEEP"w/o reason??? Weird. Doesn't seem to have been a new user though described as "an editor with only the one contribution"!?! [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rickdoble&diff=136997914&oldid=136997639 inserts a novel-seeming reason allegedly removed by a disappeared user named wilfredor that Lsloan's edit history shows they never provided in the first place?!? (Is a Winston Smith at work??? Seems like it.) --Elvey (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adam Cuerden as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: No evidence this was taken in Sweden - necessary for the copyright tag to apply - and plenty of definitely out of copyright images that could be used. Faulkner did not actually go to the Nobel Prize ceremony until 1950, so this image cannot be from Sweden on the date given. INeverCry 00:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. {{PD-Sweden-photo}} applies to photos first published in Sweden, whoever took them (Commons:Simple_photographs). I see no evidence that this photo was first published not by the Nobel Foundation. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that it's extremely unlikely the photo was taken in Sweden, as said, we'd need evidence the photograph was first published by the Nobel Foundation, not handwaving. For other photographs from the Nobel Prize leaflets, we know photographers, so it would seem that more information would exist than is actually put here, that might clarify the situation - but "I didn't check, but it might be okay" is never the same as "definitely out of copyright". Hell, the Nobel Prize site used as the source of this photograph does not actually say that this photograph was used by them when the prize was awarded; it has no information about the photograph whatsoever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can not find a single original publication of this photo, other than cloned copies from Wikipedia or Nobel web site, attributed or not.
- If you look in Lex Prix Nobel, which used to be the primary Nobel publication before the Internet era, you'll find that most photos there have no author information, only the name of Swedish printer. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that it's extremely unlikely the photo was taken in Sweden, as said, we'd need evidence the photograph was first published by the Nobel Foundation, not handwaving. For other photographs from the Nobel Prize leaflets, we know photographers, so it would seem that more information would exist than is actually put here, that might clarify the situation - but "I didn't check, but it might be okay" is never the same as "definitely out of copyright". Hell, the Nobel Prize site used as the source of this photograph does not actually say that this photograph was used by them when the prize was awarded; it has no information about the photograph whatsoever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is, you wouldn't expect to, would you? Not everything in print is online, and not everything that's put online is indexed in such a way to be findable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Per the evidence at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chadwick.jpg, this should be deleted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- What evidence would that be? Materialscientist (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence that at least some of the photos used in Le Prix Nobel were almost certainly not taken in Sweden? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- They don't have to be taken in Sweden for PD-Sweden to apply (see Commons:Simple photographs). Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- While true, Faulkner is American, so the photographer would most likely be. Don't worry too much about it; I've found a substitute that definitely is free-licensed. I'll have that up in a couple days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- They don't have to be taken in Sweden for PD-Sweden to apply (see Commons:Simple photographs). Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The evidence that at least some of the photos used in Le Prix Nobel were almost certainly not taken in Sweden? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion, reasonable doubt that the photo is PD Krd 14:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
