Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/03/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![101 File:"Kolam".jpg](#File:"Kolam".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
includes web-adress, promotional Motopark (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
pdasl;sda0wa;sd0;as/dapsad apsa /as/adsap -sp;a-s [sa'-s'sa=sd'as [=as=a]ds[=sd =as]wd 121.97.218.55 06:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. No readable reason for deletion given. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalical DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bonnard died in 1947, thus less than 70 years ago. This file can be restored in 2018 TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Coyau (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bonnard died in 1947, thus less than 70 years ago. This file can be restored in 2018 TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Coyau (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bonnard died in 1947, thus less than 70 years ago. This file can be restored in 2018 TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Coyau (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Restored -- now PD. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaded by vandal user on es.wp Rastrojo (D•ES) 00:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
información falsa Sara Hernández Barroso (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
esta persona no soy yo Sara Hernández Barroso (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: dr for a dr. JuTa 19:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Private part, using Google Picasa. Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy; logo ~ Nahid Talk 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Orphaned non-free image. Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy; poster ~ Nahid Talk 08:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Taken from here. No permission Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy ~ Nahid Talk 08:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. No evidence of permission for radio recording.
- File:Gino y brujeria.jpg
- File:Gino y metaleros.jpg
- File:Adler y gino.jpg
- File:Metallica y Gino Alache.jpg
- File:Gino y Napalm Death.jpg
- File:Gino Alache y Paul Dianno.jpg
- File:Gino Alache.jpg
- File:Alex Sckolnick- TestamenT- Stations ID.wav
- File:David Ellefson station id.wav
- File:Rockum2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Eugene, It is my work, I did it all. please check the link for the official Rockum web, Gino Alache Site supporting my affirmantion. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gipsyska (talk • contribs) 21:21, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User provided authorship confirmation on radio station web site. INeverCry 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
speedyDelete|personal junk Rahulazm (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Given the #34 of 3i4 ('i' between 3 and 4). Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand the reason. The file description has currently a wrong date, but "3i4" is actually the logo of the publisher Tres i Quatre. Keep if I am not missing anything.--V.Riullop (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arshehkaran (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
possible copyvio - at the source, the video begins with a black screen indicating a non-commercial license which conflicts with the Youtube CC license given in the license section below - not sure if the uploader understood that the Youtube CC license wasn't a non-commercial license INeverCry 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader is one of the organisatrions who made the film. There is a contact e-mail, if You prefer I can contact them.--Coentor (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- The video at the YouTube source displays a CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license from 0:04 to 0:11. We need to know for sure that the creator/copyright holder knows the YouTube CC license allows commercial use, and that the video would be under CC-BY-SA 3.0 here and not CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. INeverCry 17:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete The very clear NC license in the film on YouTube overrides the license shown there. I am also troubled by the fact that someone removed the license from the beginning of the film before it ended up here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
possible copyvio - this particular source blog has the usual CC license at bottom, but there are photos from several different websites/photographers with watermarks, which makes me doubtful about the trustworthiness of the overall license INeverCry 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of a CC-BY license. --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
possible copyvio - this particular source blog has the usual CC license at bottom, but there are photos from several different websites/photographers with watermarks, which makes me doubtful about the trustworthiness of the overall license INeverCry 23:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
possible copyvio - this particular source blog has the usual CC license at bottom, but there are photos from several different websites/photographers with watermarks, which makes me doubtful about the trustworthiness of the overall license INeverCry 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Press photos. No evidence of permission
Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alescudero (talk · contribs)
[edit]EXIF information states it's been taken from www.robertobeltran.com, the copyright holder
Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: permission is needed McZusatz (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alescudero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works: low-res images with inconsistent styles and EXIF data: File:CAROLINA MONROY 005.jpg credited to Author Alec Gonsenheim, File:Adrian Rubalcava.JPG credited to Author Cursos, File:Ricardo Monreal Ávila.jpg has transmission code in EXIF data. Unreliable uploader.
- File:CAROLINA MONROY 005.jpg
- File:Adrian Rubalcava.JPG
- File:Salazar10.jpg
- File:Ricardo Monreal A.jpg
- File:Ricardo Monreal Ávila.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all files already deleted by others. --Rosenzweig τ 12:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
the image does not match with the source Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Rodrigolopes: , sorry about that, I was not careful when I was uploading. I edited the link - please check now that it matches. Thanks. Wikimandia (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed, can anyone close this DR? Rodrigolopes (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: McZusatz (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - COM:SELFIE Scoopfinder(d) 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Poor quality photo as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Lots of images from different parts of the world, with different EXIFs, different resolutions, and which are found all over the internet before Commons. In short, none of these are self-created.
- File:Tunel Ivica (popularno TUNJEL).jpg
- File:Termoelektrana Plomin.jpg
- File:ZIKS in Ottawa.jpg
- File:Cătălina Ponor 15.jpg
- File:Lianne Laing (right) in Ottawa park.JPG
- File:Alexandra Bridge-March 2015 (Ottawa).JPG
- File:Macdonald-cartier to gatineau.jpg
- File:2015-Macdonald-Cartier Bridge.jpg
- File:Macdonald Cartier Bridge.jpg
- File:Sozina.jpg
- File:Anna Úrsúla Guðmundsdóttir.JPG
- File:EUR 10 reverse 2nd series.jpg
- File:EUR 10 obverse 2nd series.jpg
- File:Ecological Tax vignette in Montenegro 2010.JPG
- File:Montenegrin vignette for 2011.JPG
- File:@ VOICE OF AMERICA WASHINGTON 2009.jpg
- File:1A Screen of Voice of America in Serbian.JPG
- File:German Eco Vignettes.jpg
- File:New Registration mark of Montenegro.JPG
- File:Serbian Vignette.jpg
- File:Croatian Vignette 2012.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_Ottawa_park.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date, because it is a montage of Rigel and Sun as seen from SDO, not a comparison. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This file has a wrong date. This is not an image of Rigel (colored blue). This is not a size comparison of Rigel and Sun. Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Bad private soccer picture. Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No need for an empty category when there is already a usefull category for this building. Dqfn13 (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Some people who plays guitar. Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Lizenz doch nicht gemeinfrei , siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LauraSánchezDomènech (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures of pictures, no permission. See COM:DW and COM:OTRS.
Yann (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Replaced with Category:Transport in Gotland. Saftgurka (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted McZusatz (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Footballer copyvios; low res, no camera EXIF, File:Luis Muriel.jpg is here; File:Giovanni-Simeone.jpg is here; etc.
- File:Asprilla Colombia.jpg
- File:Tino-Asprilla.jpg
- File:Pibe Valderrama.jpg
- File:Teo Gutierrez.jpg
- File:Giovanni-Simeone.jpg
- File:Luis Muriel.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Pibe Valderrama proven copyvio & deleted. Tabercil (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Highly copvios, found on many websites, hardly user's own work, missing EXIF/permission
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Talisson19 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Footballer copyvios; low res, no camera EXIF, File:Matías.jpg is here; File:Rodolfo Grêmio.jpg is here, etc.
- File:Matías.jpg
- File:Rodolfo Grêmio.jpg
- File:Braian-Rodríguez-comemorando-gol-640x480-Lucas-Uebel-GremioFBPA.jpg
- File:Marcelo Grohe atuando pelo Grêmio em 2014.jpg
- File:Associação Nova Prata de Esportes.jpg
- File:Nova Prata-RS(BRA).png - unfree logo
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Pornographic. No encyclopedic value. LT910001 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Certainly not "pornographic" (what a ridiculous claim), apparently notable subject, in use at three different Wikipedias. So much for "No encyclopedic value" (as if it really mattered, as Commons is not Wikipedia nor only a repository of encyclopedic images). The nominator should look closer before making such careless deletion requests. --Vydra (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Notable subject, if a somewhat poor image. Note COM:CENSOR commons is not censured, therefore deletion is not warranted due to subjectively objectionable content is not a valid deletion rational. Nicoli Maege (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use McZusatz (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Pornographic. No encyclopedic value. LT910001 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Another deletion request from the cookie cutter. This image is of course not "pornographic", and the subject is notable (check the category for her). --Vydra (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nudity is not inherently "pornographic". Photo depicts person with articles about them in Wikipedias in 2 languages, thus within project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation McZusatz (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as no source (No source since). However, it has a source, which has been deleted as a duplicate of this file. FDMS 4 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We're working on digging up the sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I swapped in a new bottom middle image and uploaded that newer version because I couldn't find the source for the old bottom middle image. All images now properly identified and credited. Please delete the old version. Many thanks. I hope this sorts everything out now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: McZusatz (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Advertising. --Hydro (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE Scoopfinder(d) 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. INeverCry 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deportes Rengo (talk · contribs)
[edit]More out of scope content.
- File:Deportes Rengo vs Colchagua.jpg
- File:Rengo (2).JPG
- File:DESTACADO-OHI-RENGO.jpg
- File:Rengo7gde.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by THISACCOUNT70 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:CSBC.png
- File:Caidies2.png
- File:Riversue.png
- File:Shh.png
- File:Riversuerazi.png
- File:Tiddlers.png
- File:Whisper2.png
- File:Togball!.png
- File:Uhoh.png
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by THISACCOUNT70 (talk · contribs)
[edit]derivative items, probable copyvio
Pippobuono (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This was my first attempt at uploading source documents for Wikisource, but this file is redundant to and inferior to File:The Theory of Evolution as an Aid to Faith and God.pdf, which has the complete text (4 pages). Animalparty (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by OfficialKane (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
================
[edit]Document is free. It's taken from Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
({{Information |Description={{en|1=fotolog}} {{es|1=obtenida de fotolog}} |Source=fotolog |Author=fotolog |Date=desconocido |Permission= |other_versions= }} ) Kambo troyano (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio DieBuche (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
File not in use. The description ("pretty" in English) doesn't indicate that this is a serious upload. Out of scope. I have no idea why this file was undeleted. Dontreader (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (Note: Previous different photos were uploaded by other users under this same file name, a fairly common name.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a Own work but more a poster exhibition. -- Christian Ferrer 05:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
it's not an own work, it's the work of Berto Brezo -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If this is own work, then the uploader must explain why the image appears on this entertainment website page: http://www.starupdate.com/?p=269406 Dontreader (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Own work? Then why is it here, on an entertainment website? http://www.starupdate.com/?p=269406 Dontreader (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment It's one of the smaller pictures - second row, to the right. Dontreader (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs permission from this entertainment website, where it appears (one of the smaller pictures, top, left): http://www.starupdate.com/?p=269406 Dontreader (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from a movie or something similar. Own work rationale doesn't work just like magic. Permission is needed. Dontreader (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. Own work? I don't think so. Dontreader (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Where should I begin? Screenshot of copyrighted material, and seemingly out of scope, among other problems. Dontreader (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Very nice family portrait, but totally out of scope. Dontreader (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not used. Maybe there's a very good reason to keep this image, but I can't think of any. Out of scope, in my opinion. Dontreader (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not used... and is it useful? I think not. Dontreader (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not used, and not useful. Look at this uploader's contributions to see a pattern. Dontreader (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Horrible quality, too much tilt, soft and fuzzy, low res, better version is File The_Priory-1a.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Promo photo. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Promo photo. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While "the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed", this is unused and therefore likely out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cholerik93 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical maps. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Národnostní mapka království Českého dle politických a soudních okresů 1910.jpg
- File:Chorvati. Slované bulharští..jpg
- File:Svět staroslovanský.jpg
- File:Národní zeměvid Rakouské říše dle Šafaříka.jpg
- File:Mapa škol Království českého 1891.jpg
- File:Chorvatsko a Srbsko (rukopisná mapa).jpg
- File:Volkekarte von Europa.jpg
- File:Vindové (rukopisná mapa).jpg
- File:Karte der Bevölkerungsdichte.jpg
- File:Mapa Pruska z roku 1827.jpg
- File:Karte der Bevölkerungsdichte (relative Bevölkerung) des Königreiches Böhmen entworfen und herausgegeben von A.L. Hickmann (kartografický dokument).png
- File:Rukopisná mapa.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_des_K%C3%B6nigreiches_B%C3%B6hmen_entworfen_und_herausgegeben_von_A.L._Hickmann_(kartografick%C3%BD_dokument).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Starsun168 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Starsun168 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. No EXIF data, single uploads. Promo photos.
Smooth O (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope (tr:Egit alane) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Agrupación Adalu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Véase el alcance del proyecto (es:Adalu)
- File:Sleiter Baterista.jpg
- File:Dennis Tawa.jpg
- File:Dennis Tawa Corzo.jpg
- File:Sleiter Rodas.jpg
- File:Adalu sesión.jpg
- File:Dulce Adios Inolvidable.jpg
- File:Adalu Banda.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Véase el alcance del proyecto (es:Arnaldo Domínguez) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Véase el alcance del proyecto (es:Usuario:Julialvarez) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Véase el alcance del proyecto (es:Cha!) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Own work? Really? Taken around 1945 and uploaded here in 2007, 62 years later. It's possible -- if User:Ogrom was 20 when he took the pic and 87 in 2007... releasing this long-held historical photo the public domain at that point seems odd. I would like more explanation from the person (he made a few uploads and left, so that's not likely) or actually an OTRS ticket. I do not think it's eligible as being free on other grounds, since it's Russian. Maybe it is. Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
See above. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Worthless fuzzy overexposed Polaroid Swinger snapshot of a building. My cat can take better pictures. Out of scope, being cruft. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
![08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/03/20#c-Jcpag2012-2015-03-20T08:39:00.000Z-File:"Kolam".jpg){kind=link}
![02:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/03/20#c-INeverCry-2015-03-27T02:08:00.000Z-File:"Kolam".jpg){kind=link}
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a foolish request ! This chart (carte de Cassini) of the kingdom of France has been published between 1756 and 1815 and specially the sheet of Saint-Omer in 1758 from which this part with the village of Essars has beeen extracted . Therefore, it is old enough to belong to the public domain. Furthermore, it was a public command ! You can easily see that this chart is freely accessible on many websites and you may copy it as you want. It was just a bug for the date. It woul have been finer to find the right one and change it instead of requesting a deletion. Thanks ! --Channer (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. OMG Fuck. Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete the file — just correct or remove the bogus date. Also, be polite, please. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete the file — just correct or remove the bogus date. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete the file — just correct or remove the bogus date. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Original replicas of Statue of Liberty for 2008 All-Star Game
[edit]- File:All Star Game Statue of Liberty 4.jpg
- File:All Star Game Statue of Liberty 5.jpg
- File:Arizona Diamondbacks Statue of Liberty.jpg
- File:Atlanta Braves Statue of Liberty.jpg
- File:Baltimore Orioles Statue of Liberty.jpg
- File:Boston Red Sox Statue of Liberty.jpg
- File:Brooklyn Dodgers Statue of Liberty.jpg
- File:Chicago Cubs Statue of Liberty.jpg
Their category is nominated for discussion, but the discussion has received no replies yet. As for the replicas of the Statue of Liberty, they are creative enough to be copyrightable. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York Yankees Statue of Liberty 2.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Ugly guy who plays guitar in private part. Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: In use. Also, DR rationale is weak (just correct or erase the date), includes unappropriate comment (will delete all these over ugliness, too?), and unsubstantiated claims (private party, or maybe an historical performace in a small venue, fully in-scope — you just don’t know). -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather out of scope, promotional content, doubtful own work too as there is missing EXIF/permission Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe the license. No author, no good source. The subject died in 1929, but who is the photographer and when did (s)he die? Taivo (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. See COM:SELFIE as well. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather out of scope, promotional content, doubtful own work too as there is missing EXIF/permission Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hardly own work, found on many websites, missing EXIF/permission, low resolution Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted book without evidence of permission from copyright owner (in scope?) GermanJoe (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation? From a book published in 1941, see http://www.albanianews.it/uncategorized/1355-montagne-albania-piero-ghiglione - I don't know in which year the author/photographer died Albinfo (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It shows only a small crescent. It could be an image of virtually anything and it appears to be a pointless artist's impression. JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a low-quality artist's impression of the Sun. Much better actual images exist, so this can find no actual good use. JorisvS (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
unclear source - most likely not own work of the uploader Albinfo (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Many pictures of Mercury even Mariner 10. Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This file is an own work of NASA as a copyright violation. 210.23.85.5 22:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Works from NASA are in the Public Domain. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader does not hold the copyright to this image and has been warned on his userpage not to upload any additional images until the matter has been resolved. It appears this warning has been ignored. KDS4444 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
From http://www.jhankaarlpu.in/, unverified claim of own work. --ghouston (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
unused personal file 37.5.5.119 11:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
dubious "copyright holder" 37.5.5.119 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, uploader and author are different. I did not see any license in source site. Probably this is violation of photographer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see user:Jahful's answer in talk page. As uploader is not the author, OTRS-permission from author is needed. If the file is deleted meanwhile, it can be restored after receiving permission. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A portrait of the uploader? (unused) 37.5.5.119 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Dubious "own work". TinEye has found some copies of 2008 37.5.5.119 11:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
unused personal file 37.5.5.119 12:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Own work", stolen from getty images: http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/david-bain-stands-in-christchurch-high-court-for-the-nachrichtenfoto/85265471 37.5.5.119 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
permission from the PHOTOGRAPHER is missing, see OTRS 37.5.5.119 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
taken or stolen from her website http://www.isabelle-garna.com/ 37.5.5.119 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
unused personal file 37.5.5.119 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
small size, no EXIF-data, possible copyvio screenshot from some video Motopark (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
unused personal file 37.5.5.119 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
small file (53 KB), no EXIF 37.5.5.119 12:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://fotos01.lne.es/2014/09/11/318x200/paradoja-crezca-1.jpg KDS4444 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Watermark suggests uploader is not also copyright holder. —Andrei S. Talk 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, replaced by File:Kugelwolken-Atome-2-He voll.png by the same uploader. Leyo 13:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, das Bild ist nicht aufregend, entspricht aber dem Kugelwolkenmodell von Helium mit zwei Elektronen, so wie ich es benutze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Spielhoff (talk • contribs)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Invalid license: Bluenomics does not offer a compatible license JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Invalid license: Bluenomics does not offer a compatible license JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Invalid license: Bluenomics does not offer a compatible license JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think, that the license is incorrect and the photo is still copyrighted. Explanation is needed about how the photo was simultaneously published in USA and USSR. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope Andriod65 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Does not fall under PD-UA-exempt. Church is not state authority. Anatoliy (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Does not fall under PD-RU-exempt: not official document of state authority. Anatoliy (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the texture of this logo make it no electible to PD-textlogo. Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per this. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Buenas, borrese. Podré subir esta imagen entonces? [1] Me gustaria saberlo antes de hacerlo, para no tener incovenientes. Gracias. Es la pagina oficial del canal. [2]--Ellibriano3015 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. Primero, porque es el mismo logo. Segundo, porque como dice la página "© Copyright 2014 América TV – Todos los derechos reservados". --Ganímedes (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
esta imagen podrá ser viable? --Ellibriano3015 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pues no se como explicarte, deben ser imagenes con diseño simple, es decir sin efectos de imagen, ese logo tiene demasiados efectos de imagen y pro ello no se podría colocar PD-textlogo. Saludos, --Chico512
19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Far above the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not official money, does not fall under PD-UA-exempt Anatoliy (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonnard died in 1947, thus less than 70 years ago. This file can be restored in 2018 TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Restored -- now PD . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The copyright holder of this photo is JAM NEWS. OTRS-permission from author is needed. see here. Y.haruo (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
picture collection needs local pictures from Commons as source Motopark (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 02:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
typo, I have an updated file Akdieli (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- No Contest, Please also inform local project, so it can be evaluated for fair use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Cathedral was built in 1992. According to that information and no-FoP in Albania, image should be deleted. Halavar (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works - photographs of contemporary paintings by de:Sergio de Castro who died in 2012. Cannot be PD due to age; no evidence of free license from heirs/estate.
- File:Sergio de Castro 73.78 - Agamemnon (diptyque).jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 55.163 - Don Quichotte et Sancho Panza.jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 73.77 - Oreste (diptyque).jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 61.43 - Autoportrait.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
These images have been posted with the autorization of the heiress, Mme Dominique de Castro. A message has been sent today to confirm the free license. Jonaselie talk 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Email with permissions is received and validated. --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
OTRS is invalid. 1) The email says "Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur [...]" ("I hereby confirm being the author [...]") The author, de:Sergio de Castro, was been dead since 2012, so this cannot be true. 2) Copyrights are transferred by formal, written conveyance. If the email is from Castro's heirs, they would need to supply a scan of that document for it to be valid. Being related to the author does not mean one has inherited copyrights.
- File:Sergio de Castro 73.78 - Agamemnon (diptyque).jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 55.163 - Don Quichotte et Sancho Panza.jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 73.77 - Oreste (diptyque).jpg
- File:Sergio de Castro 61.43 - Autoportrait.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:42, 27 March 2015 (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)
Unlikely authorship claims given the apparent age of the photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Includes big poster which copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The text is simple, and the images on the poster are de minimis for the whole picture. Yann (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Includes big poster which copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
includes cover pictures which copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
image used only by page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Low res, no camera EXIF, author per EXIF is Ahmed Sajjad Zaidi; all other user uploads are copyvios. Quack. Эlcobbola talk 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Found image here. Taken from Facebook. Эlcobbola talk 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of trophy - see User:Elcobbola/Awards#Commons_examples for examples/precedents Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
redirect not used ; error in date Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright [3] Uğurkent (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
![[3]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/567808206231961600/HNB7aqpr.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
image used only by article deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't want file to be downloaded by others. 24.60.126.122 00:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Well, are you the person who made and uploaded the file back in 2009 (User:Artforart? If you are, that's one thing; if you're just a random person, that's another. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep unless nominator shows themself to be same person as the uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and I am the author of this painting. I want to delete it because it doesn't have watermark. If you need to make sure I am what I stated I am – do this. My website www.spivakart.com You will find this painting on my site. Press the button "contact" and email me. I will answer "I want to delete my painting from wikimedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.126.122 (talk • contribs)
- Can you log in on the account where you uploaded it? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Yes, I can. But I couldn't delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.126.122 (talk • contribs)
- Commenting while logged in will help confirm that the anon person requesting deletion is the same as the uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Enh, the anon is probably the uploader. Maybe he forgot his password or whatever -- it was uploaded a while back. At any rate, look: the image has very very little downstream value. I'm not saying it's a bad painting or anything, and would look fine on someone's wall or whatever, I'm just saying, what else would it be used for? It's just a surrealist painting and no offense but its not Dali. It could be used for something useful I haven't thought of, but very unlikely. And the person wants it deleted. So do him the courtesy. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Well, Dalí's work won't be free for Commons until 2060. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: May be in scope, but permission from artist needed. Yann (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not an image of Arcturus, not even an artist's impression of it. Instead, it is a general SDO image of the Sun from NASA colored orange. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No source, bogus license. Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not an image of Rigel, not even an artist's impression of it. Instead, it is a general SDO image of the Sun from NASA colored blue. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No source, bogus license. Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not an image of Antares (formerly known as red giant sun or Sol), not even an artist's impression of it. Instead, it is a general SDO image of the Sun from NASA colored red. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sol is another name for the Sun (Latin name). The description just says "red giant", which it's not. But it may not be educationally useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No source, bogus license. Yann (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Future gateway. Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Bigger copy here, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong date. Newspaper scanned, private picture uploaded by someone. Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Wrong date. Cannot see the people in the sand. Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
He uses the laptop. Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Map language text incomplete. Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
cover art file Anita francis2504 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned use. Anita francis2504 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned use. Anita francis2504 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned use. Anita francis2504 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned use. Anita francis2504 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To prevent more distribution of this photo Iamhao (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not want this photo to be displayed anymore. Iamhao (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Apparently used in old revisions of some pages somewhere (see previous nomination) and deletion would break the history of those pages. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: License not revocable. Yann (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
To prevent the photo from further distribution Iamhao (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion nomination is by uploader. Image is in use in 3 Wikipedia pages. File has been on Commons for more than a year. Why did you upload this under a free license if you don't want it distributed? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not want this photo to be displayed anymore Iamhao (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per previous listing. Good quality useful free licensed image; no specific reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per Infrogmation and previous DR. Yann (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Pornographic. No encyclopedic value. Woman has veiled her face so clearly does not want this image to be publically associated with her. Should be deleted LT910001 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nudity is not inherently pornographic; Commons is not censored for prudery. In scope as showing culture of San Francisco "World Naked Bike Ride"; file is in use in de:W. Veil across her face or not, this is how she appeared at a public event in a public place. (File could benefit from a better title, but that is a non-deletion related issue.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Pornographic. No encyclopedic value. LT910001 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. _NOT_ pornographic, artistic nude photography, and "encyclopedic value" doesn't matter - Commons is not Wikipedia and it is not a mere image repository for Wikipedia. --Vydra (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored to promote prudery. Human nudity is not inherently "pornographic". (And this file is well photographed technically and artistically.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Ready to fukk and sukk! Eh @Achim55, Tm, and Hasley: I slept with your momma... and your poppa! Oh your momma squealed like a pig last night! 92.40.182.4 22:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Non administrator closure. Usual vandal, making his lockdown childish routine. Tm (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Pornographic. No encyclopedic value. LT910001 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense. _NOT_ pornographic, artistic nude photography, and "encyclopedic value" doesn't matter - Commons is not Wikipedia and it is not a mere image repository for Wikipedia. --Vydra (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination; nominator seems to simply object to human nudity. "mere nudity is not pornography" -- Jimbo Wales [4] -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor-quality image with no encyclopedic value LT910001 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Poor-quality image (close up of ?arm with no identifying features) with no encyclopedic value LT910001 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To prevent this photo from further distribution Iamhao (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Further distribution is good. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not want this photo to be displayed anymore Iamhao (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Nothing new since the previous nomination. The picture is in scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality photo under unrevocable free license by author. (See: Commons:License_revocation) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: by McZusatz (00:26, 26 May 2015)
To prevent further distribution of the photo Iamhao (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of File:Ayrton Senna Interlagos.jpg. Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayrton Senna Interlagos.jpg WTM (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fair use; el fotografo no detenta los derechos de autor de las pinturas reproducidas en la imagen. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No permission from Cristian O. Arone. Yann (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
esta persona no soy yo
información falsa
Por que no soy propietaria de la información Sara Hernández Barroso (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
esta información no es mia Sara Hernández Barroso (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copy from [5]. Yann (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
equivocación de contenido Sara Hernández Barroso (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. Yann (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I Alexey Glyva are the author and owner of the exclusive rights to this photo (quay Saratov bridge), never gave permission to place pictures on Wikipedia, and has not placed himself, did not give exclusive rights to the image. The use of pictures, and spread it on the license Wikipedia is illegal and violates my copyright and exclusive rights. I pointed out this article, where you previously used the photo, and require to remove it from the warehouse to Wikipedia. You can contact with me by e-mail alexgl88@mail.ru. /// Я Алексей Глыва, являюсь автором и владельцем исключительных прав на эту фотографию (набережная саратова с моста), никогда не давал разрешения на размещение фотографии в википедии, и не размещал сам, не передавал исключительных прав на изображение. Использование фотографии, и распространение ее по лицензиям википедии противозаконно и нарушает мои авторские и исключительные права. Я указывал это в статье, где ранее использовалась фотография, и требую удалить ее из склада википедии. Связаться со мной можно по электронной почте alexgl88@mail.ru 88.147.153.224 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: If you actually are the copyright holder, please contact to OTRS. Also, no other souces of this picture found in Google Images Search in other place than Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment:Заметьте, Ваше фото в 16 статьях на разных языках используется. Это огромная аудитория. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment:я не знаю, что такое OTRS. Для чего мне замечать, в скольки статьях, и на скольки языках используется моя фотография? Мои права охраняются законами Российской Федерации, мне не нужно регистрировать свою интеллектуальную собственность. Публикация мною моей фотографии в открытом доступе, не дает права посторонним брать ее, кадрировать (что было сделано справа на фото), осуществлять показ, без моего письменного согласия, тем более, в свободных лицензиях. Публикуя ее в википеддии, вы вводите в заблуждение тех, кто в последствии берет фотографию, производит на ее основе рекламную печатную продукцию, подпадая под судебную ответственность.//// I don't know what OTRS. What I notice in how many articles and how many languages you use my picture? My rights are protected by the laws of the Russian Federation, I do not need to register their intellectual property. Publication I have my pictures in the public domain, does not give the right of strangers to take her, framing (what was done right in the photo), to carry the show without my written consent, especially in free licenses. Publishing it in Wikipedia, you mislead those who later takes the photo, produces on the basis of promotional printed products falling under legal liability.
Алексей Глыва.
- Notice that this is not Wikipedia, is Wikimedia Commons. Please provide a link where the file was uploaded before Commons (both the page that is published, and a direct link to the picture itself). --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: It is almost impossible to deal with the support of Wikipedia, like the endless bureaucracy, to add language and programming skills! Here is the link to the page that I have created on my personal website.[6]. These data are enough even in court to prove authorship, despite the presumption of authorship under the laws of the Russian Federation. If you ignore this information, I have the impression not only of incompetence support group Wiki, but even some evil intent, the legalization of the use of illegally taken from me the image.
Практически невозможно разобраться с поддержкой Википедии, похоже на бесконечный бюрократический аппарат, добавить сюда еще и незнания языка и навыков программирования! Вот ссылка на страничку, которую я специально создал на своем персональном сайте.[7]. Этих данных достаточно даже в суде, чтобы доказать авторство, несмотря на презумпцию авторства по законам Российской Федерации. Если игнорировать и эту информацию, то у меня уже складывается впечатление не только о некомпетентности группы поддержки Вики, но даже неком злом умысле, легализации использования, незаконно взятого у меня изображения.
(Алексей Глыва)
- Then Delete, but is better to replace this picture with a free-licensed one, because is widely in use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then
I'm still waiting for my photo will be deleted. I don't work under a free license. Few in Russia who reads discussions and comments under the photo, so the number of cases of illegal use of photos in Commerce is growing every day! Алексей Глыва
Speedy delete. The link provided by Mr Glyva shows that this is a blatant copyvio, with his watermark having been cropped before being uploaded to Commons. Telling the copyright holder to contact OTRS is outrageous; the burden of proof rests on the uploader, not the the copyright holder. — Kpalion(talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file has a wrong date. Using Google Picasa to view the monument. Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Ugly picture? Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. Also, stop marking as source- and license-less files which obviously have both. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Miquel Torné i Pibernat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Canvi de nom, o no emprats
- File:Colegio Jesus Maria Sant Gervasi.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 011.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 060.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 050.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 100.JPG
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 040.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 080.JPG
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 070.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 030.jpg
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 020.gif
- File:CEJMSG-Escut 010.gif
Miquel Torné i Pibernat (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- KeepFile:Colegio Jesus Maria Sant Gervasi.jpg No valid reason to delete.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: most by User:Fastily. JuTa 20:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems the uploader wants to replace this image by File:Tsitsernakaberd24.04.2009.JPG, which is nearly a duplicate. Didym (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Didym, I want you to delete a file Ծիծեռնակաբերդ.JPG.--6AND5 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- in use is no reason to keep duplicates, the file can be replaced. --Didym (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- One thing is a {{Duplicate}}, another is «nearly a duplicate». Most of the times I’m all for collapsing such “semantic duplicates”, but, as also with actual duplicates, the use of the file in other projects needs to be changed first, only then deleted. Or else the image will redlink (as delinker bot fixes fast most of the times, but still), and that’s a disruption of sister-projects that should be done only for urgent cases, such as copyvios or worse. Also, having uninvolved editors going around in dozens of different language wikipedias changing images without a clear quality improvement might cause unnecessary attrition. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- in use is no reason to keep duplicates, the file can be replaced. --Didym (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Having two (or more) nearly identical photos such as this, taken few seconds apart with slight framing/location differences, is not always a bad idea. A reuser could want use both — to create a “shaking” animation effect, or a “spot the differences” puzzle. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to have been taken from this website: http://www.irlandesmexico.com/masculino/jesus.html without permission Xochiztli (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Krd 05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Files of User:Pi-gimjiRu
[edit]- File:Dendrochirus zebra (Cuvier, 1829).jpg
- File:Dendrochirus brachypterus (Cuvier, 1829).jpg
- File:Dendrochirus biocellatus (Fowler, 1938).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Uploader has claimed to own the copyright to these and about 90 additional images, which actually belong to an organization called "BEDO" which also claims to own the copyright and had not released the images under a free license. I have not listed all 90 files here due to the tedium involved (copy, paste, copy, paste... is there no more efficient way??) but all of them but two (the two earliest uploads) are copyright violations and should be deleted. --KDS4444 (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This file only appears on the talk page of the uploader in the Spanish Wikipedia. Seems to be a tribute to female beauty. No name provided. Could be his girlfriend. Out of scope (not educationally useful). Dontreader (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: This is ca case of non-legitime use of a picture in User/User Talk namespace. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: In use, nothing more to be said. (Admins of w:es may want to clean up this user’s talk page or frivolous image use, maybe they have a policy for that. Not a matter for Commons to discuss, anyway.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Tuválkin, could you please explain your keep rationale a bit better so that in the future I will be less likely to nominate suitable images for deletion? I assume you are invoking COM:INUSE. However, if so, I'm still not convinced. Quoting:
- "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, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."
- Yes, but that does not seem to apply to user pages and talk pages:
- "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."
- See? Non talk/user pages. However, the remaining paragraph might be open to interpretation:
- "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed."
- This file is on a user page, but that doesn't make it educational automatically. If it were an image of himself, then yes (sadly, in my view). The problem is that it reads "(e.g. of yourself)", without specifying a list of acceptable cases. That paragraph is contradictory, in my opinion, because on the one hand it says "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page" while on the other hand it does not define properly the exceptions, only stating that a picture of oneself (as an example) is okay. Poorly written policy, I believe. What we have here is a male user with the description of the word "beautiful" on his user page, and concluding that she (the girl in the picture) is beautiful. I just fail to see how that image is educational in that context. Or are you using a different rationale? Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The key aspect here is even quoted by you: «Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects». Although user pages as explicitly excepted in COM:INUSE, I don’t think it would be a good idea for most of us, Commons’ users, to just go to a w:es user page and edit it in order to allow the deletion of a file on mere scope concerns. As I tried to say above, that causes a friction between Commons and each of the other projects and such friction should be minimized, and reserved for more serious cases of copyright violations and personality issues.
- In my opinion, what should be done in these cases is the following: Upon finding that an otherwise off-scope image is only used in another project’s user page, the Admins of that project should be contacted in their noticeboard and asked to wheigh in and, if agreeable, release an image from what is a frivolous use. Once that is done, the Deletion request can go ahead, unmarred by COM:INUSE issues.
- (Dontreader, you may want to consider indenting with
:and paragraph quoting with<blockquote>.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Tuválkin, for clarifying a few things that I was unsure about. You have lots more experience here on Commons than I do. I think the COM:INUSE policy should be rewritten because files uploaded to Commons should have an educational purpose, or so it is claimed, but INUSE badly undermines that principle, in my opinion. I mean, I guess I could upload a selfie picture of myself sitting on the toilet, stick it on my Wikipedia user page, and by invoking INUSE it might stay on Commons. I'm sure I could come up with more extreme examples. Anyway, I agree with your proposal for administrators on other projects. Keep in mind, however, that some Wikipedia versions, such as the Spanish-language Wikipedia, are quite dysfunctional compared to the English Wikipedia. I quit the Spanish Wikipedia out of frustration. But nevertheless it's the best solution I can think of unless INUSE is rewritten.
- I do use indentation very often, and I should have used it in my previous edit. Sorry. I will have to experiment with <blockquote>. Thanks for the suggestion, and again, many thanks for your very helpful reply. Dontreader (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong date. Image uncompressed like a blurry image (seen from Google). Jcpag2012 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Urdatei Lizenz nicht gemeinfrei siehe http://www.toffi.net/kiss/kunst/k_052.htm Ludki (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
useless without description (w:George Cruickshank) 37.5.5.119 11:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Took me 30 seconds to find https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gene_Poole&oldid=6980358 --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, and no longer in use there, so out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Part of a deleted article : w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ralph Hawkins 37.5.5.119 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Please see uploader's answer on talk page. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Plinio discurso dom bertrand.jpg
- File:Plinio lucilia bispos maquinas legioonario.jpg
- File:Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira discursa no Congresso Eucarístico, São Paulo, 1942.jpg
- File:Natal 1970 Campanha pobres TFP com Plinio.jpg
- File:Auditório São Miguel, São Paulo, palestra de Plinio Corrêa.jpg
- File:Deputados na Constituinte de 1934 com Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira em destaque.jpg
- File:Natal 1970 Campanha pobres TFP.jpg
- File:Exemplares do jornal "O Legionário".jpg
- File:Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira de prior carmelita.jpg
- File:Orgão da Ação Universitária Católica da Faculdade de Direito de São Paulo (AUC).jpg
- File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg
- File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira, na sede do Legionario.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
-> Done. Please check if anything is wrong.
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HASSANIMAM110 (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of older documents, some handwritten uploaded as "own work" of uploader. As they predate WWI, I question the own work of these and am nominating these for the consensus of the community regarding retention (none are in use), and proper licensing should they be retained.
- File:COLLECTOR AFRIN NAMA PANJU DERO DACOITY 001.jpg
- File:RECT FUND WORLD WAR I 001.jpg
- File:WORLD WAR I RECT 001.jpg
- File:SP AFRIN NAMA 1 001.jpg
- File:COLLECTOR CHAIR 001.jpg
- File:Afrin Nama Commissioner in Sindh 1909 given to Land lord Ghulam Kadir.jpg
- File:IMPERIAL RELIEF FUND VICEROY INDIA 1916 001.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HASSANIMAM110 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and docs, missing original author, source, date, and permission.
- File:Police Officers Imperial Rule Sindh 1914.jpg
- File:MILITARY OFFICERS THANKS.jpg
- File:SP POLICE AFRIN NAMA II 001.jpg
- File:Letter of Appreciation from Collector larrkana.jpg
- File:Pioneer Sindhi Police Officers 1913..jpg
- File:Rato dero Landlords in Imperial rule Wdaero Ghulam Kadir.M.B.E.jpg
- File:Landlords in Sindh during Imperial Rule Wadero Ghulam Kadir M.B.E..jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge St Patrick’s Day Parade March 2015.jpg
- File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge shares a moment with Prince William March 2015.jpg
Not released under the OGL. Files have MOD News License only. DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Technically most of the MOD News licence images falls under OGL (unless specified), these images do not fall under the UK Government but UK Ministry of Defence...Nearly all OGL images are under Crown Copyright as well..An example of a MOD News/crown copyright image allowed on commons..--Stemoc 13:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- That image is licensed under OGL [8], as shown by the exif metadata. The images nominated for deletion are licensed under a different license: MOD News License, which is not the same as OGL [9]. Compare the acceptable image with a nominated one. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- A quote from here "In general, Crown copyright material which has not been made available under the OGL or Crown Copyright MOD News Licence, cannot be re-used or reproduced for any other purpose, unless permission has been granted to you in writing by DIPR", these images fall under the 2 desired licences..if you read the "MOD News Licence", it does not discourage the use of the images but informs the user and quote "*Images specifically acknowledging the copyright of a third party are not covered by MOD's delegation from HMSO. If you wish to use an image that states the copyright owner is not the Crown (ie it does not say "© Crown copyright"), you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner directly, as MOD cannot give you a licence to use someone else's work." the reason why images in the section has a limited licence is due to personal information/data which can be aprt of a package such as speech or legal documents (which i will not upload) and in this case,there is no such things--Stemoc 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- These images are released with the MOD News License; the conditions attached to images not released under that license are irrelevant. Specifically, the MOD News License does not permit commercial use: "You must not Use the Information in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation for You or for any third party", nor does it permit adaptation or alteration: "You must not copy, adapt, modify or alter the Information in any way". This is different from the OGL, which permits commercial use and adaptation. DrKiernan (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/10#MOD News License. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but "That image is licensed under OGL [10]" , why are you linking to flickr?, I'm reading the EXIF of that image on that page and if you look at the "Usage terms" and quote "Licensed for use under the terms and conditions of the MOD News License: http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/20130715_Crown_Copyright_MOD_News_Licence_V2.pdf" < how is that any different?..i can find a dozen more images with the same exif licence and the one for catherine's image states and quote "© MOD / Crown Copyright, 2012. This image is for current news purposes only and is available for further use under the Open Government Licence scheme" so as mentioned above MOD NEWS Licensing is allowed under OGL depending on the image used as long as it does not violate their policies, its allowed for use (edit conflicted 3 times)..--Stemoc 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The flickr image (13720072185) is the same as the image from defenceimagery.mod.uk (search for 45157025), which is clearly labeled OGL. I don't see where the OGL is mentioned at the source files for the nominated images. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- yes, but the original image was not uploaded from flickr was it? and if you are going to use flickr, then aren't all recent images there "MoD News Licence" copyright? but they are still being uploaded to commons, not to mention the whole stream is licenced under non-commercial...and also, the news section of the mod site goes back only as far as Feb 2015, where did all the old images go? do they not end up in the OGL section anyways? its obvious that the MOD News images are OGL images but "current/recent", pretty much the same as images on the US secretary of state's flickr stream and even though its not directly called "OGL", its is under crown copyright which is actually allowed..infact all images on that site are both crown and OGL and though contradictory, are actually allowed as all images uplaoded form that site will have the "crown copyright" trademark...I'm convinced that the images under MOD NEWS section are 'mostly" not OGL because of the government documents/personal data which i have mentioned above and unless i directly upload an image of a document or private data, only then an it be deleted or removed per OGL policy violation...if they really intended to make "MOD NEWS Licence" images non-free, they would have completely protected it under crown copyright and not allowed for re-use under OGL.. .--Stemoc 14:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The flickr image (13720072185) is the same as the image from defenceimagery.mod.uk (search for 45157025), which is clearly labeled OGL. I don't see where the OGL is mentioned at the source files for the nominated images. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but "That image is licensed under OGL [10]" , why are you linking to flickr?, I'm reading the EXIF of that image on that page and if you look at the "Usage terms" and quote "Licensed for use under the terms and conditions of the MOD News License: http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/20130715_Crown_Copyright_MOD_News_Licence_V2.pdf" < how is that any different?..i can find a dozen more images with the same exif licence and the one for catherine's image states and quote "© MOD / Crown Copyright, 2012. This image is for current news purposes only and is available for further use under the Open Government Licence scheme" so as mentioned above MOD NEWS Licensing is allowed under OGL depending on the image used as long as it does not violate their policies, its allowed for use (edit conflicted 3 times)..--Stemoc 13:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- A quote from here "In general, Crown copyright material which has not been made available under the OGL or Crown Copyright MOD News Licence, cannot be re-used or reproduced for any other purpose, unless permission has been granted to you in writing by DIPR", these images fall under the 2 desired licences..if you read the "MOD News Licence", it does not discourage the use of the images but informs the user and quote "*Images specifically acknowledging the copyright of a third party are not covered by MOD's delegation from HMSO. If you wish to use an image that states the copyright owner is not the Crown (ie it does not say "© Crown copyright"), you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner directly, as MOD cannot give you a licence to use someone else's work." the reason why images in the section has a limited licence is due to personal information/data which can be aprt of a package such as speech or legal documents (which i will not upload) and in this case,there is no such things--Stemoc 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- That image is licensed under OGL [8], as shown by the exif metadata. The images nominated for deletion are licensed under a different license: MOD News License, which is not the same as OGL [9]. Compare the acceptable image with a nominated one. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The process being followed for these images appears to be a form of transient press embargo. They are starting out under the "News" licence (which is Crown Copyright but not free apart from the purposes of journalism) and later (by 4 or 5 weeks) appear to move on to being available under the OGL. When the licence moves to OGL, this should be clear on the MOD website and the file can be undeleted or re-uploaded if necessary. Unfortunately the MOD do not appear to have explained this procedure on their site.
- Note that all Government agencies/services are encouraged to use OGL as widely as possible, however the licence cannot be presumed as it remains optional depending on circumstances. In this case a press embargo allows the MoD to pull mistakes in the first few weeks of the press release, which makes perfect sense from their perspective of managing potential risks of having complaints about misrepresentative images, or accidental copyright violations by their photographers.
- BTW, I systematically upload all OGL released images from http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk, and have previously corresponded with the MoD to make sure they were happy about it. --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm sorry Stemoc but I think that Fae is correct. Natuur12 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Mad Anna square.jpg
- File:Spanish Ballet Dancer.jpg
- File:The fairy glances back.jpg
- File:Flowers 08.jpg
- File:Circlet Square.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep at least these two:
- File:Mad Anna square.jpg: Interesting case of Category:Hands on head. (File page should be expunged of unnecessary details that might cause privacy concerns, including filename.)
- File:Flowers 08.jpg: Interesting case of Category:Butterfly costumes and Category:Bun hairstyle (only case of a child wearing those).
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of the concert footage, in all probability. This particular angle was used in the final cut of the footage. Kigsz (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Would be detrimental to Germany–United States relations. 84.61.171.92 21:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep A fictional humoristic-satirical flag? Perhaps made only to criticize Imperial American politics?--Carnby (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Nomination reasoning completely invalid. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this out of scope, though? Illegitimate Barrister 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. There are many neo-Nazi groups in the United States, it's very likely this flag exists in reality. Fry1989 eh? 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to doubt it -- the only group which receives any significant media coverage in the U.S. which has an emblem at all like this is File:Drapeaux National Socialist Movement.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Makeshift flags are extremely common with such extremist groups. It is entirely plausible and is supported by this flag source. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to doubt it -- the only group which receives any significant media coverage in the U.S. which has an emblem at all like this is File:Drapeaux National Socialist Movement.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. There are many neo-Nazi groups in the United States, it's very likely this flag exists in reality. Fry1989 eh? 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- If this is intended to express someone's personal hatred of the United States, and has no ascertainable legitimate useful purpose, then I'm leaning towards "delete"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Go to Special:ListFiles/JimDyne to see a list of JimDyne's "contributions" (one photo of tropical beach, possibly one or two real flags, and all the rest phoney Nazi flags)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- It obviously isn't meant to express hatred of the United States, so that point doesn't matter. Neither does the uploader's history, some of their flags are fake and should go but as I showed in various DRs some of them are real flags and simply need to be renamed and their descriptions cleaned up (for example: this flag). Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Go to Special:ListFiles/JimDyne to see a list of JimDyne's "contributions" (one photo of tropical beach, possibly one or two real flags, and all the rest phoney Nazi flags)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Delete, per COM:SCOPE. Unless proven to be in outside use. Keφr (keep talk here) 10:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as out of scope per AnonMoos and Keφr. Natuur12 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
to prevent the file from further distribution Iamhao (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion request is by uploader. Image is in use. Why did you upload it under a free license if you want to prevent distribution? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Está repetido Cquintas (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyrightstatus Natuur12 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Poor-quality image with no encyclopedic value, possible copyright claim. This highlights the arm for an odd reason, and has many, many better pictures. LT910001 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Strange image with no encyclopedic value LT910001 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derechos de autor de la Editorial Jurídica de Chile Churrasco italiano (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The copyright status must be discussed because:
- The Código Penal comes from 1874, and then is in the PD.
- The cover itself consists only in text and a version of the the Coat of Arms of Chile, and may be bellow the COM:TOO, and therefore in the PD
- Copyright belongs to the BCN. I don't know if the official documents published by the BCN (including the Editorial Jurídica de Chile) are in the PD or not. Therefore, I'll request a Transparency information to the BCN to get the actual licensing of this specific file.
- Therefore, here may apply {{PD-Chile}}, but the BCN must answer first. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Almost one month later and it's not solved. We can't hoste images with uncertain copyright status forever Natuur12 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Restored by Steinsplitter per COM:UDEL. Correct license added. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
URV: Die Datei wurde offensichtlich der Webseite der Firma Schaper entnommen Johamar (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nachtrag: Zum Vergleich die Webseite der Firma Schaper und Brümmer: Basisinformationen zu den Produkten der Firma S&B -- Johamar (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
and File:Remifemin feuchtcreme schatten 2015 3c medizinprodukt.pdf
URV: Die Datei wurde offensichtlich der Webseite der Firma Schaper entnommen (siehe "http://schaper-bruemmer.com/de/produkte/feuchtcreme.php") Johamar (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Force de l'art 2009
[edit]This is an exhibition of original artworks by living sculptors and artists. There is no COM:FOP#France : according to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Most of the authors are is still alive.
In the description of the first photo of the category, we can read : La diffusion des photographies des oeuvres est limitée à mon cercle d'amis en raison des risques d'intervention de l'ADAGP auprès de Flickr qui interdit toute diffusion sur internet et tout partage public (=Diffusion of the photographs of the artworks is restricted to my good friends, because of the risk of intervention of the ADAGP (?) to Flickr which forbides any broadcast onto internet and public share).
So it seems that these photos are not free of rights according French law. --Civa (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- File:Espace de repos de lexposition "la Force de lArt" au Grand Palais (3566453514).jpg
- File:La Force de lart (Grand Palais) (3494046531).jpg
- File:La Force de lArt (Grand Palais) (3566448520).jpg
- File:Lentrée de lexposition "la force de lArt" au Grand Palais (3565616561).jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Bruno Peinado - Sans titre, Silence is Sexy.jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Grout - Mazéas (2).jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Grout - Mazéas.jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Guillaume Leblon, Maison Sommaire - 1 (2).jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Guillaume Leblon, Maison Sommaire - 1 (3).jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Guillaume Leblon, Maison Sommaire - 1.jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Nicolas Fenouillat -partition 01.jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 - Philippe Mayaux.jpg
- File:La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009. Installation - Kader ATTIA.jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (10).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (11).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (2).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (3).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (5).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (6).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (7).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (8).jpg
- File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_(3494046531).jpg){kind=link}
_(3566448520).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Civa (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep; the description, "La diffusion des photographies des oeuvres est limitée à mon cercle d'amis" is from this file, the description of which conflicts with the license actually granted on Flikr. There are other possible issues about FOP and art which may vary from file to file. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Most of the photographs are primarily or entirely photos of the Grand Palais, see Category:Grand Palais, and incidental objects, not the art that would be a license problem. As to the first photo shown above, the man reading a paper on a red sofa, is the sofa art on display? Or is it a sofa? Looks like a sofa to me, and most displays in art shows are not for sitting on.
- By including so many photos that were simply taken during La Force de l'art 2009, of the Grand Palais, the nomination was overbroad. There are photos in the lot that do appear to be primarily of a work of art, so the nomination of those could be proper. However, others are not. For example, File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (4).jpg, just the steps, and File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009 (3).jpg, showing what appears to be some cafe tables with a background of Grand Palais metalwork. Some include some of the art, for example, [[:File:Paris, Grand Palais - La Force de l'Art 02 - 2009.jpg], but the main subject there is the exhibit hall, with most exhibits hidden by the partitions. I looked at this photo and did not really understand it until I saw the tiny people, talking in the lower left. The art is not the focus; rather the exhibit hall and the scale of the show is the focus. And some of the photos are clearly about the art. --Abd (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: procedural keep. The problems with those files vary greatly and they should not be discussed in a single DR. It is impossible to discus the complicate legal status of those images this way. I say complicate because a lot of cases are within the grey area. Natuur12 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)