Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/07/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_آصف_جاوید.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![123 File:"Shonen Knife" Overdrive.jpg](#File:"Shonen_Knife"_Overdrive.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Paul_Bourget.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: at best, self-promotion out of scope; at worst, harassment. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Own work? [1]. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
![[1]](https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F5b%2FTaylor_Rooks_BTN2.jpg%2F300px-Taylor_Rooks_BTN2.jpg){kind=link}
Delete TV screenshot I think - speedy. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a TV screenshot, but coming from Instagram. Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Another private image by this user, again not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This would appear to be a TV screenshot Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: not a TV screenshot, coming from Instagram. Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Identical to File:BethSteelLogo.svg, an unfree file. SounderBruce 22:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep There is no proof that the logo was created before 1923, but it is still a simple shape logo for me, so a change to a {{PD-textlogo}} template should be enough. Besides, the fact that a version of this logo has been uploaded to the en.wiki as a fair-use image does not necessarily seem this is above the TOO. - Fma12 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Yep, good candidate to be transferred to Commons, bellow the COM:TOO. Once transferred the SVG, I'll tag this file as {{Superseded}}.--Amitie 10g (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: Looks like we can add the SVG version to Commons. SounderBruce 02:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
André Masson is dead in 1987. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission, enters PD in 2058 Pitke (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
André Masson is dead in 1987. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 15:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission, enters PD in 2058 Pitke (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Description: "dgfds". Or in English, "sdfdss". Out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination "sdfdss"!. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Pierce Transit on Commerce.jpg and derivative
[edit]
Low quality image with most of the subject not in frame.
SounderBruce 00:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Now that there are good quality images of Pierce Transit buses available these are really pretty useless. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. - out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Undescribed image; low quality, questionable value. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
_%D8%A2%D8%B5%D9%81_%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D8%A2%D8%B5%D9%81_%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
_آصف_جاوید.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
_آصف_جاوید.jpg){kind=link}
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
image used only by page deleted off enwiki (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galay) and thus outside project scope DS (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Galay Wheel.jpg, from the same uploader. DS (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - private photo of a non-notable person Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Personal vanity image of unknown man. Stuchka (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Personal vanity image. Stuchka (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuel teixeira cabingano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuel teixeira cabingano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality vanity images of non-notable people. Unused as images for an userpage. Out of project scope.
- File:Xatho IMG 20150801 103856.jpg
- File:Xatho PhotoGrid 1435513909015.jpg
- File:Xatho IMG 20150729 131849.jpg
- File:Buda fe IMG 201505141 094504.jpg
- File:Xatho IMG 20150628 170423.jpg
- File:Buda fe20150729 132019.jpg
- File:Xatho 20150729 132744.jpg
- File:Xatho PicsArt 1438207115429.jpg
- File:RF em grande PicsArt 1438037474673.jpg
- File:Xatho PicsArt 1435526083869.jpg
- File:S.viegasPicsArt 1438015430712.jpg
- File:1977294 270974599765858 34548546236124150 n 2.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20150727 160910.jpg
- File:RF PicsArt 1438008705979.jpg
Wiki13 talk 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Do Beez Unico (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, metadata shows image was edited with Adobe Photoshop and created on 22 July IndianBio (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete © Getty Images. Josve05a (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo of a tourist. Eleassar (t/p) 06:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- If his article en:Bobby badshah stays, which I doubt, the image is in scope. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, artice deleted in en.Wiki George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality image of almost nothing, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 22.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 20.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 18.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 14.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 13.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 12.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 11.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 10.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 8.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 9.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 7.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 5.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 4.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 6.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 2.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 3.JPG
- File:Fireworks during Deepavali 1.JPG
Ies (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ies, yes. thanks for the notification. You can delete those files mentioned here. I unknowingly uploaded the low quality files. Thanks. You can delete those. -- SuryaPrakash Talk... 08:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused fictitious emblem; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused fictitious flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Antigng (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
too low quality 1957birth (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
too low quality 1957birth (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
too low quality 1957birth (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kumaranand13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos uploaded in December 2013, with little educational use per COM:EDUSE.
- File:PhotoChooser-f66db913-9584-4b17-b890-297e2569fe.jpg
- File:PhotoChooser-fcf3a07b-6930-4122-80b3-34c76c1374.jpg
Green Giant (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense image of nothing
- File:96941Sans titre.jpg
- File:98159Sans titre.jpg
- File:88873Sans titre.jpg
- File:95662Sans titre.jpg
- File:56756Sans titre.jpg
- File:93574Sans titre.jpg
- File:1437735272864Sans titre.jpg
Ies (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope. Additionally tagged db-g7. Achim (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Kid MC - O Apagar da Esperança (feat.ogg
- File:Claudio Fenix- Recuso Me (Zouk) (Prod. by Wonderboyz) (www.saimonlirico.com).ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Please see our project scope.
- File:Quem é o Gangster(Prod. By Guccic Gutchic) 6.ogg
- File:Os Muggabi - Louco (Produnced By Guccic Gutchic).ogg
- File:00ː1.JPG
- File:011N.JPG
- File:015f.JPG
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of 37 unused personal images, out of scope. Commons is no private photo album.
- File:FNT 066.JPG
- File:FNT 061.JPG
- File:FNT 068.JPG
- File:FNT 067.JPG
- File:FNT 064.JPG
- File:FNT 054.JPG
- File:FNT 053.JPG
- File:FNT 052.JPG
- File:FNT 048.JPG
- File:FNT 047.JPG
- File:FNT 045.JPG
- File:FNT 038.JPG
- File:FNT 031.JPG
- File:FNT 030.JPG
- File:FNT 029.JPG
- File:FNT 028.JPG
- File:FNT 027.JPG
- File:FNT 020.JPG
- File:FNT 018.JPG
- File:FNT 014.JPG
- File:FNT 016.JPG
- File:FNT 013.JPG
- File:FNT 011.JPG
- File:FNT 010.JPG
- File:FNT 009.JPG
- File:FNT 004.JPG
- File:FNT 006.JPG
- File:FNT 001.JPG
- File:FNT 003.JPG
- File:FNT 057.JPG
- File:FNT 056.JPG
- File:FNT 042.JPG
- File:FNT 041.JPG
- File:FNT 036.JPG
- File:FNT 050.JPG
- File:0̠5m7.JPG
- File:0̠m31.JPG
Achim (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some may very well be off topic, but many are not: A blanket DR like this is good for nobody, nominator included. Lets keep them all for now and file proper DRs once homework is done. Meanwhile, I’ll add a few categories to these photos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure your categorizing will increase the encyclopedic value of these images. Good luck! --Achim (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Categorization increases the encyclopedic value of Commons as a whole, but the value of each item does not depend on how it is categorized. Categorizing is something we do, just like deleting is, so when you consider a deletion request wondering «If only this was properly categorized…» that’s the wrong approach: Categorize it, instead, or leave it for someone else to do it.
- This deletionist approach equates increasing the total encyclopedic value of Commons by either actually improving curation (categories, descriptions) or deleting miscategorized or uncategorized content items (thus improving the quota of those who are properly curated). That’s lazy and amounts to vandalism.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- These 37 photos constitute 100% of our Category:Girls of Angola and 97% of our Category:Namibe, and 5 of them constitute 100% of our
(t.b.c.)Category:School uniforms of Angola. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- These 37 photos constitute 100% of our Category:Girls of Angola and 97% of our Category:Namibe, and 5 of them constitute 100% of our
Comment FYI: Uploader Celebrities Namibe (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is blocked indefinitly. Uploads might be copyvios at all. --Achim (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Uploader Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitly because s/he uploaded recorded music and related imagery without any reliable permission. What is obviously home-brewed shooting sessions with their girl friends in the school grounds was left out the copyvio DRs. These images are very unlikely they are also copyvios; they are being evaluated on their scope merits. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Info A few celebrities images can be seen at facebook as well as at blogspot. Facebook reads here Celebrities From FB Namibe Modelo Comercial Agência so we have to consider them to have found a reliable way presenting their images at Commons. At least OTRS seems to be needed. --Achim (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that’s a bummer. It is likely that they used Commons as one more platform for promotion (even if for amateurish promotion of play-pretend modelling) and didn’t care much about copyrights. But previous publication and impossibility of ascertaining authorship makes the licensing technically dubious. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Suggestion 1: If any of these files are seen as valuable for the project, the 37 files could easily be reduced to about six. Most are close variations which could be seen as amounting to unnecessary duplication. Suggestion 2: per the logos... I can't see why Wikimedia should help in the promotion of some kind of modelling agency, so on the basis that we are not here as an advertising vehicle for commercial enterprises, I think those with the logo certainly should go, which would leave File:FNT 027.JPG, FNT 047.JPG, and File:FNT 048.JPG. Acabashi (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- (Sorry I had to split your comment in two in order to allow threadable replies.)
- About suggestion 1: Close variations of the same image (unlike actual duplicates) may be of specific interest to reusers, as they can be used constratively — for things like “before/after” or "standing/sitting" mosaics or montages.
- About suggestion 2: For the logo, see below. However note that this is not really a modelling agency — it’s just some kids playing pretend.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- (Sorry I had to split your comment in two in order to allow threadable replies.)
- Comment Update: I see that the three files mentioned above had their advertising logo cropped. This might be another option for the lot, however, cropping many of them will largely impair the subject, so, in those cases, they could be removed. Acabashi (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Only in one case was the logo cropped off; in the other it was “painted over” — for the exact concerns Acabashi raises. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment Oops, accidentally deleted them all, will restore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Some Deleted, some kept: Duplicates removed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celebrities Namibe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files with a watermark impressed, so copyright is to be assumed. The user is a sockpuppet of User:Wikimedia Angolla, with an infinite ban for copyviol, so I would assume these files are copyviol too. Moreover, Commons is not a private album/host site.
- File:FNT 066.JPG
- File:FNT 061.JPG
- File:FNT 067.JPG
- File:FNT 064.JPG
- File:FNT 054.JPG
- File:FNT 053.JPG
- File:FNT 048.JPG
- File:FNT 047.JPG
- File:FNT 045.JPG
- File:FNT 038.JPG
- File:FNT 031.JPG
- File:FNT 027.JPG
- File:FNT 020.JPG
- File:FNT 018.JPG
- File:FNT 014.JPG
- File:FNT 016.JPG
- File:FNT 011.JPG
- File:FNT 010.JPG
- File:FNT 009.JPG
- File:FNT 004.JPG
- File:FNT 006.JPG
- File:FNT 001.JPG
- File:FNT 003.JPG
- File:FNT 057.JPG
- File:FNT 042.JPG
- File:FNT 041.JPG
- File:FNT 036.JPG
- File:FNT 050.JPG
- File:Angolan girl wiht braids on merry-go-round.jpg
- File:0̠m31.JPG
Ruthven (msg) 22:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all (in face of what was argued in the previous DRs above), speedy close this thread, and trout Ruthven for ignoring past DR discussions covering the same tired arguments. Look, you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons? I get that, as I’ve seen so many attempted deletions with thinly veiled arguments. But at least make a new argument and admit it: After all this is the “post-reality” era, and being uncouth and bigoted gives you the Oval Office. Rehashing the same bogus concerns (excuses, really) already attempted, and failed, in the past is expressely discouraged («This page was kept after a deletion request. Please contact the administrator who kept it before re-nominating. ¶ Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/so and so– that links to this page.»). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think that Copyviol is a "thinly veiled argument", as you think... and found your accusation of racism quite offensive and superficial, but maybe it's dictated by personal issues you have that do not find their place here. If you would have assumed GF, you could have simply understood that when you nominate all the uploads of a user (that are all possibly a copyviol in this case) with the tool for bulk operations, you aren't necessarily aware of past deletions; my mistake on the method, not on the form. --Ruthven (msg) 08:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Aside from any personal opinions, Ruthven is trying to open a recently-closed DR. Assuming good faith, (s)he didn’t do their homework; assume bad faith and it’s POV-pushing. Regardless, it’s too soon either way. Useddenim (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Do we really need those unused personal photos? They seem to be out of our com:scope. --Mhhossein talk 10:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) personal unused pics?
- Keep based on Hedwig in Washington already removing duplicates and the previous DR discussion. The out of scope reasons being put forward due to "self promotion" are dubious, and are not by themselves a rationale to delete if the photograph by itself has some educational value or illustrative value. If the watermarks can be explained, for example previous DRs have shows that some mobile apps can put user's watermarks on images when they take them, then these are not necessarily evidence of a copyright problem. However, I would like to see a clear explanation of why they are there. --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, in my opinion they are all out of scope. Taivo (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. They are all of the same girl, so this is like someone's personal photo album or Facebook page. Therefore, unused personal images, clearly out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Japan. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Published at http://www.ufjf.br/medicina/institucional/hospital-universitario/ Py4nf (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See COM:FOP#Bulgaria. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Apologies, didn't spot that one. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO. Uploader did not take picture and does not hold copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
similar image http://www.designfesta.com/exhibitors/introduction/jp/img_honban/413643_1_052316.jpg 愛されて100年コストパフォーマンス抜群 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small size, low resolution, can be found at the school website since 2011. Sealle (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The statue was inaugurated in 2009 (see sources: here and here) FoP does not covers sculptures in Argentina. Besides, the creator and copyright owner of Mafalda, Joaquín Lavado (aka) "Quino", is still alive. Fma12 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Derivated work. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
FoP does not covers sculptures in Argentina. Besides, the creator and copyright owner of Mafalda, Joaquín Lavado (aka) "Quino", is still alive. - Fma12 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, from Google as explained by this search IndianBio (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably copyvio as all other uploads (one tagge out of scope, tho) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
間違ってアップしたから ふぉふぉふぉふぉふぉ (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio from the official site. --KurodaSho (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I cannot determine the license for this image. Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep fixed it now, reviewed OK by bot. Dudek1337 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I can see the license now. I don't know what the problem was. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused fictitious emblem; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No FoP for non-architectural artwork in Russia. A.Savin 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private child image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Modern monument (2001), unfortunately has to be deleted since there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from music. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be an official photograph; see http://www.patersonpd.com/about/paterson-police-director-jerry-speziale.html. Likely copyvio. (Note that the uploader's name suggests "New York PD", but the page is from Paterson, New Jersey, which can hardly mean that the NYPD owns the copyright.) Drmies (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominated as a copyright violation. --Kelapstick (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Polarlys Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Magog the Ogre Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Magog the Ogre Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That's from the user Martin, seen here. Probably copyright violation, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete In all likelihood, yes. Michael Barera (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Looks like a personal portrait rather than an education image. Fma12 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not "simple text" so the texture and 3D effects make this image look above the TOO. - Fma12 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Jdforrester Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
the advertisement in the background is copyright protected and significant enough to not be considered deminimus. It should be edited out for this picture to stay. Vera (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Picture cropped and somewhat optimised. If is enough, please speedy close this DR; if the previous version is not actually de minimis, please remove from file history. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, Vera (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Exposures that aren't useful for educational purposes by themselves, used to create File:Freeway Park.jpg.
SounderBruce 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think having the original three exposures is useful for the following reasons:
- The process of combining an HDR photo inherently loses information.
- The process of correcting perspective distortion inherently loses information.
- Having the three original exposures allows others to create a better HDR tone mapped photo.
- Having three exposures has the clear educational merit of illustrating the process of creating HDR photographs. For example, see the precedents: File:Toronto Skyline HDR1.jpg, File:Toronto Skyline HDR2.jpg, File:Toronto Skyline HDR3.jpg; and File:StLouisArchMultExpEV-4.72.JPG, File:StLouisArchMultExpEV-1.82.JPG, File:StLouisArchMultExpEV+1.51.JPG, File:StLouisArchMultExpEV+4.09.JPG. In this case, the very bright highlight in the tunnel beneath the park and the dark park itself creates a particularly compelling didactic example.
- Unlike the aforementioned precedents, my photo is created by blending exposures manually rather than an automated tone mapping algorithm.
- dllu (t,c) 00:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, with the precedent, I'll be withdrawing this nomination. SounderBruce 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as above. Yann (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO. Author Andrew Campbell Copyright holder andy@andycampbell.org according to metadata is not same as uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for duplicated page. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files under Category:Lupin III 2015-07-12. --Sinryow (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Revealing such a photo (photo including copyright-ed character in an open space) is permitted with restrictions according to Japanese copyright laws; for example, not permitted for commercial uses. This conflicts the rule of Wikimedia Commons, but I uploaded it without understanding it enough. Sinryow (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation IndianBio (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, metadata shows image was edited with Adobe Photoshop and created on 22 July IndianBio (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, metadata shows image was edited with Adobe Photoshop and created on 22 July IndianBio (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this text need to be a jpg file? Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably not own work Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC) and:
Both taken on the same date, two different cameras used. Other uploads mainly copyright violations. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not the official logo of the singer Isabella Castillo, but a mere writing of her name. To me it's a useless file. ChoHyeri (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: In use at user's page. --Achim (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No source, no date, no author. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality duplicate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_cathedral_of_Sion,_Valais,_Switzerland-LCCN2001703277.jpg Yann (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused flag, not symbolising anything recognisable; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not own work - copied from the subject's own Twitter at https://twitter.com/mattcarmody16 Mr Potto (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blackening of the faces compromises the quality of the image too much. Jonund (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Lower resolution duplicate of File:Las Aguas, San Juan de la Rambla.jpg Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
the image is misssing licence and has no camera info, could be copvio from http://ilovegoalies.blogspot.se/2010/07/mask-of-week_24.html Egon Eagle (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Picture of a television set - see COM:DW. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I question the copyright. The source is Janice Karman, but does she agree? There is no author, no meta data, the user has contributed only one photo and Google gives images with a higher resolution. See here. Wouter (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Terrible quality, the colours do not correspond to country borders but include waters. Replaced by File:Turkic-oghuz.png (redirect there?) Zoupan (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. see en:File:Overdrive Shonen Knife.jpg 195.50.31.213 15:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
![15:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/07/26#c-195.50.31.213-2015-07-26T15:36:00.000Z-File:"Shonen_Knife"_Overdrive.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
![18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/07/26#c-Yann-2015-08-02T18:21:00.000Z-File:"Shonen_Knife"_Overdrive.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Paul_Bourget.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Paul_Bourget.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Henri Grand'Aigle is dead in 1951. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
_de_Paul_Bourget.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
_de_Paul_Bourget.jpg){kind=link}
Henri Grand'Aigle is dead in 1951. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 15:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Louis-Gustave Cambier is dead in 1949. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 16:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Fédérico Beltran-Masses is dead in 1949. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files of User:Blythe Spirit
[edit]
Blythe Spirit (talk · contribs) has requested deletion[2][3][4] of their three images, which were uploaded three years ago. The user misunderstood the Creative Commons license. Opened on their behalf as a courtesy. See also Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_requests. – czar 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish to thank CZAR for formally opening this request on behalf of both me and René Bazinet. I unwittingly uploaded the (3) images, in question to correspond with a comprehensive career summary, which was subsequently deleted due to being based upon taped interview material rather than published references. It therefore did not adhere to Wikipedia's stringent standards. It was also very frustrating to deal with other posters, who do not know Mr. Bazinet or his work, but continually edited my profile, with inappropriate additions and deletions. I realize this is a poor excuse, but the fact of the matter is that I'm not at all well versed about Wikipedia and Wikimedia rules and even most of the instructions are unfathomable, to me, sorry to say. I was unaware and quite ignorant of the policies regarding non-revocable licenses, etc. After my profile was deleted, along with the images, no one reinstated the photos for about a year so I didn't press the issue about having them permanently removed. One of the main reasons for petitioning the removal of the images, in question, is that I don't want my photographic work representing someone else's text, especially, after my very nice profile was deleted and all that remains are sparse and lackluster entries, which are unworthy of his talent and embarrassing to both me and Mr. Bazinet. Another reason is that I did not realize that by uploading them to your site no one need gain my permission, now, to use the photos for whatever purposes they see fit, or give me credit for my work, which as an artist I strenuously object to. Please respect and honor my request to permanently remove the photos from Wikimedia Commons, as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind indulgence and consideration regarding my above stated petition. Blythe Spirit (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quibble: you say “no one need […] give me credit”, but the CC-BY-SA licence you chose does in fact require that; it has the most restrictive terms that are still considered consistent with being “free“ content.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see, Odysseus1479. Thank you for your input and its explanation. Well, once again I must plead ignorance of the licensing stipulations, as I really have a hard time fathoming the rhetoric. To be perfectly frank I'm somewhat dyslexic. The primary issue is that my photos are currently representing what Mr. Bazinet and I find to be a very sketchy and rather unacceptable "article," which is an embarrassment to us both. You are welcome to read the article that I initially composed, but which was rejected by Wikipedia, as it appears unaltered on the IMBd site, if you feel it might give you a frame of reference. Also, I believe an artist should be able to have a say in who uses his/her work and those who wish to do so should be required to contact me and ask permission to use the photos. That's not an option as I understand it, now, otherwise those who posted the images on Mr. Bazinet's page would not have been allowed to once I deleted them. Blythe Spirit (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- You uploaded these pictures through the upload wizard. Why did you not read the info on that page? It specifically says to remember that "by sharing your work on Wikimedia Commons you grant anyone permission to use, copy, modify, and sell it without notifying you." You would have been prompted again to choose a licence, which says: "I, , the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code)." and "(Anyone may use, share or remix this work, as long as they credit me and share any derivative work under this license.)" Do you routinely agree to do things and then go back on agreements when you can't get your way? If you are unhappy with the article at English Wiki, fix it. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Proper 2012 upload with non-revocable license. Having a beef with editors on enwiki is no reason to delete photos on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question ColonialGrid 1.) and respond to your statement Hedwig in Washington 2.), all I can say is: 1.) I don't remember back in 2012 having read anything when I uploaded the images. I honestly don't recall those passages you have quoted and would not have knowingly agreed to giving up all my rights to my work. Those passages may very well have been present, at that time, but I either didn't notice them or didn't comprehend them, as I confess to being somewhat dyslexic. Granted it is a condition that has caused problems for me in the past and something that makes it difficult in circumstances such as this. I guess, since most if not all artists' work is protected by copyright laws I assumed mine still was. As previously stated I had initially composed an article and it was rejected due to its having been based upon 5 hours of taped interview and lacking verifiable published references, so I cannot "fix" the present page. 2.) I have no "beef," as you put it, with anyone who is respectful and considerate of my wishes, as the photographic artist, not to share my images on a page which is devoid of art or anything much at all. It is simply an -embarrassment- to have them associated and appearing to represent the very poorly realized page, as it now stands. I spent many hours composing a beautiful comprehensive tribute to Mr. Bazinet only to have it routinely and inappropriately edited by people, who didn't know what they were doing, then was notified that the article didn't meet the Wikipedia standards, so deleted it all, rather than get embroiled in a "beef," or antagonize anyone. However, when the images were once again instated, as mentioned above, to represent a poorly constructed page, I needed to take a stand against their posting. I implore you to please try and understand my situation and how exasperating it is to see my work used to represent this page, that contains nothing of any significance, especially, after my fine, (8) paragraph, composition, which the pictures were meant to represent, was not considered up to Wikipedia's standards. Blythe Spirit (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it really does seem like the only reason you want them deleted is because of an editorial dispute about how an article on English Wikipedia should look. I suggest you go there and try to improve the article rather than arguing that you didn't know the irrevocable free licence you released images under was irrevocable. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I reiterate, ColonialGrid, my reason is valid, since the page is an *embarrassment* "as is" and the pictures were -meant- to represent my previously posted composition, which was rejected due to having been based on (5) hours of taped interview and lacking verifiable published references. I can't just materialize such references, so am not able to improve the article. When something is as *embarrassing* as it currently is, to both me and its subject, and lacking any substance I should not have to allow my photos to represent it. That I believe is a valid reason for allowing me to have my photos permanently removed as stated in the rules, is it not? Blythe Spirit (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just because you can't use an unpublished tape doesn't mean there aren't other sources, or that you can't improve the article. I have found a few, very quickly:
- A small bio at rouge2,
- A chapter in a book called Clowns: In Conversation with Modern Masters (pp. 66-75),
- A book he wrote on Amazon Le Clown (maybe he could lend you a copy?),
- A New York Times article about a performance, which makes mentions of him,
- A mention on the Cirque du Soleil website that he did a two-man tour with David Shinner,
- An interview where someone calls him "[one of] 2 of the greatest living clowns",
- An article in German,
- Not to mention, a bunch of books on Google Books.
- There is clearly information out there; if you don't like the article, fix it. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just because you can't use an unpublished tape doesn't mean there aren't other sources, or that you can't improve the article. I have found a few, very quickly:
- Keep None of these are valid reasons for deletion. The claim by Blythe Spirit that she is "somewhat dyslexic" and therefore could not read or understand the clear conditions under which she was uploading the images is not credible. The lengthy written commentary here and the form of her additions to the article, e.g. [5] attest to that. The current state of René Bazinet could in no way be considered "embarrassing" to the subject. It is short, but accurate and well-referenced (thanks to other editors). Note also that the truncated state of the article is due to this edit made by Blythe Spirit herself because she was apparently not prepared to find acceptable sources when the article was tagged for reference improvement, and the use of an unpublished interview was queried on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore why are you being so hard-nosed about this matter? The article now is pitifully -inaccurate- lacking in any substance, IS causing an embarrassment to René Bazinet and anyone who actually knows him thinks it is a joke. Read my IMDb article and you'll understand what I mean. Mr. Bazinet is a top clown with 30 years of -lead- roles to his credit. My lack of references caused Wikipedia to put a notification on the top of the page when my article appeared, there, because I didn't have access to verifiable published material to prove my contentions. My posts take a great amount of focus to compose and you're making light of a condition I genuinely suffer from, which is simply unkind. When I began working on Wikipedia I enlisted the aid of many helpful members, because I was all at sea here. I just happen to be a good writer, which has nothing to do with my medical condition. Moreover, if I really knew that I'd be giving up the rights to my work I would not have uploaded the images, which were only meant to accompany MY composition. This should be quite comprehensible. My experience, here, is becoming more and more frustrating. What could (3) measly pictures possibly mean to you, ColonialGrid, or Hedwig in Washington? On the other hand it should be obvious, by now, how much they mean to me. Why can't you just let me delete them permanently? Why do you find the need to cause me such misery, over this issue?
- It is important that everyone keeps to the agreement they make when uploading because Commons also needs to protect those who re-use the images and may have built a considerable amount of work around them. For example one of your images is already used in this video and there may be more. Please read about this aspect of the policy here, and you will understand why a request you are making three years after uploading simply because you could not have your way with the text of an English Wikipedia article is highly unlikely to be considered a valid reason for making an exception to this important policy. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Please consider the fact that everything was seemingly going fairly well, on Wikipedia, until I encountered the rejection of my article and then deleted it along with the pictures to avoid any further problems. I didn't press the issue concerning my photos, then, because I was under the impression that no one would use them, after that. The utilization of the image in the video you refer to was approved by me, as I contacted the author when I noticed that he was using it and agreed that he could employ it for his purposes if he gave me the proper credit for it, which he hadn't at first. Your last sentence makes no sense to me, in view of all that I've already mentioned above. Why would anyone who knows Mr. Bazinet want their photos of him to represent such a unsatisfactory page? I cannot stress too adamantly how *embarrassing* it is to both me the photographer and Mr. Bazinet the subject. Please reconsider your "keep" status on the basis of all I've said and please read my IMDb article as I feel it might give you a better overall perspective of the situation. Thanking you, in advance, for your reassessment of the facts based on a logical approach to the matter at hand. Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your claim about the video is not accurate, Blythe Spirit, as you well know. You were told back in April 2014 [6] that you were credited on that video by another Wikipedia editor who actually examined the links and before you even contacted the person using the image. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Essentially, our policy dictates that we keep images which are appropriately licenced, and of educational use. We don't delete upon request without a valid reason supported by policy. Again, if you are unhappy with the article, the solution is to improve the article. I have listed ample sources above which should be more than enough for you to make a good start at expanding it (if it gets expanded five-fold you could even nominate it for and have it listed on the front page of English Wikipedia). ColonialGrid (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This is given in your guidelines section, ColonialGrid. -|- "The subject, photographer, or uploader of an image may request that it be removed from Commons. The reasons for removal may include such things as "It causes embarrassment" or "It was published without my consent", etc. Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests if good reasons can be given. In any case you may address a removal request through the normal public review process of a deletion request. If discretion is required, a deletion request explaining this may also be sent privately through Commons:Contact us/Problems." -|- According to that, my reason is very valid. I've already explained, several times, why I cannot improve the article and by now that should be apparent to you. By the way none of the sources you listed are accessible to me and Le Clown was not written by Mr. Bazinet, it's a book about him in French, which I do not speak. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why can you not use the sources I provided above? ColonialGrid (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The rouge bio is part of his resume and therefore not applicable. With the exception of Eric the buffoon saying he's one of the top clowns none of the rest are accessible. For example the New York Times site asks that you join up in order to read their articles, etc. Wikipedia administrator "John of Reading" and I discussed all of this before I deleted my article, there. Please read my IMDb article and you'll get a better perspective regarding the situation. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- What ColonialGrid said. Blythe Spirit, your issues with the English Wikipedia article are simply not a valid policy excuse for deletion on Commons. The images in themselves are not remotely embarrassing or unflattering to the subject. Nor are they images of a private person—he is a public performer. Nor are they of poor quality. Your issues with that article belong on its talk page. They are utterly irrelevant here and it is pointless for you to keep reiterating them. I have read the IMDB article [7] which is virtually verbatim with "your" version of the Wikipedia article [8]. If you published the IMDB article first, then it was a copyright violation to copy it onto Wikipedia in whole or in part. If it was the other way around, the IMDB article violated copyright by not crediting the original source. There are many aspects of that text which violate key policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in addition to the lack of sourcing, most notably its blatant failure to adhere to a neutral point of view. I would be happy to discuss these issues at Talk:René Bazinet. I repeat, your problems with the article have no bearing whatsoever on this deletion discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore, please try and comprehend that it is Mr. Bazinet and I who are embarrassed to see my pictures of him on a page whose sketchy inaccurate information is vastly inferior to the article I wrote and posted, initially, with the pictures to accompany. Is that really too difficult for you to understand, or is your ego just getting in the way, now?
- Keep No valid rationale for deletion, nothing particularly inappropriate about the images and the insistence on removal is apparently the result of spite over control of the contents of the en.wp article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Now, FreerangeFrog your statement is just plain false and offensive. It's rather mean-spirited and petty, too. Don't any of you realize how you've all ganged up on me and this discussion has degenerated into a bullying session? Please reconsider your premises, here, and treat me with some respect. I am an artist whose work is being used to embellish a page that is completely without merit. I am embarrassed to look at the page and understandably both Mr. Bazinet and I are embarrassed to have the images of him representing such a collection of inferior, inaccurate, text. Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that it would be no skin off your noses to just respect my wishes to allow the permanent removal of these pictures. Why all this folderol for some pictures that mean nothing to you but mean so much to me? Please I implore you all to take a step back and cut me some slack. I'm literally on the verge of tears, now......... Blythe Spirit (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, your argument so far here and on en.wp is that the article doesn't look the way you want it to look, so therefore we cannot use these images. How the article is supposed to look I assume is some facsimile of the IMDb bio, which conveniently does not require sourcing. But that's not the way things work. I would be amenable to deleting them out of simple courtesy, but the reality is that anyone else can improve the article and use the images, which makes them useful to the project. That's the overriding criteria. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FreeRangeFrog, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd please revise your attitude, again on this, and as you mentioned above allow the images to be removed as a courtesy. There is nothing positive to be gained by causing me continuous unhappiness, by keeping them, when I have obviously gone to great efforts to persuade all the officials here that I truly want them back. If someone else can actually supply the requisite references and compose an adequate article they'll probably have their own pictures to contribute. Please put yourself in my shoes and realize how you would feel if someone was using your hard earned artwork for their purposes when you didn't think their purposes warranted it. Blythe Spirit (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Through this entire process I’ve consistently stated my reasons, which haven’t changed, in a civilized and mature manner. I’ve tried valiantly to hold my own in the company of a strong group of men, who have alternately contradicted me and at times were downright discourteous. I’ll continue to maintain my composure and genuinely apologize to anyone whom I may have inadvertently antagonized. Please understand, once and for all, I have been telling the truth and believe in defending the truth. Truth and love are the most important commodities in my life, as they go hand in hand and I ask you to open both your hearts and minds to the possibility that you might have jumped to unfair conclusions about me and my motives. I’ll try one more time to help you grasp the concept, at the root of this matter. To a casual observer visiting the René Bazinet page, the artistic pictures they see automatically makes them believe that the person whose pictures, they are, also wrote the perfunctory and nearly nonexistent text. This reflects in pretty much the following way. “What in the Hell is that?” “Why put such pictures with this poorly conceived text?” This is embarrassing to the two artists involved, me and Mr. Bazinet. I can’t be any clearer or unambiguous than that about the situation. After all is said and done, under the circumstances, will one of you show me the sympathy and compassion - I know you all have - to kindly do me the courtesy of deleting my images from the Wikimedia Commons site? Blythe Spirit (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blythe Spirit, I can't speak for the other people here, but I am a woman. This is not a group of men out to get a woman, and framing it that way is neither courteous nor constructive. When multiple people disagree with you, it is not "ganging up". It is simply multiple people disagreeing with you. I understand that you have no idea how Wikipedia (or Commons) works, or if you do, you don't care. But as someone who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years and has created over 400 articles, I can assure you that people generally do not assume that the photographer of an article's image also wrote the article. In fact the vast majority of readers do not even click through to the image page to see the image information. Nor do they denigrate the photographer if the article itself is less than optimal.
- I can also assure you that editing is a collaborative process. And indeed, the article's current state looks considerably better than they way you left it [9], when you (no one else) gutted it because you weren't willing to work on gradually building it up, sourcing the material properly, and ensuring that it complied with encyclopedic style and tone.
- You have repeatedly said that Mr. Bazinet is "
deeply[amended per comment below] embarrassed" by this article and does not want his picture to appear in any other version apart from the one you wrote. If that is indeed the case, then he (or his legal representative) should send an email from an address that verifies the sender's identity to info-commons@wikimedia.org to inquire what his options are. It doesn't necessarily mean that he will successfully have the images removed, but there is considerably more chance of that than with the tactics and rationale that you have been using here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly said that Mr. Bazinet is "
Well I stand corrected, then Voceditenore, as it seemed like the group was all male and most, including you, were overall quite discourteous in their accusations regarding my motives. Your words "tactics and rationale," are also meant to be offensive. There is no cause for such conduct among civilized people and I don't wish to antagonize anyone. Your quote is inaccurate, though, as I never used the word "deeply" in describing Mr. Bazinet's embarrassment, or mine. I disagree that the article looks better now than ever in the past. In my opinion it's simply bad "as is" and the few poorly worded statements, posted on it, give sparse information inaccurately about a top clown, who deserves much more. That I don't want my images associated with it because it is *embarrassing* for me to see them reflecting what I consider tripe, is a valid reason as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you're not an artist yourself, so find that difficult to understand. No offense meant. You're correct about my being disinclined to do any more work, on the article, since whenever I did - in the past - inappropriate edits were made by people who knew nothing of Mr. Bazinet or his work, which was frustrating and I don't wish to experience that again. As you obviously disrespect my journalistic composition skills, and have a strong dislike for me as a person it's vexing as to why you'd opt to keep my images. Anyway, thank you for your suggestion, which I will pass along to René. Now, I'll bid you goodnight... Blythe Spirit (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have struck the "deeply" as you appear not to have used that word explicitly, but you have certainly indicated here that you do consider the use of your images deeply embarrassing indeed. I did not "disrespect your journalistic skills". I was pointing out to you that what works in journalism, is often highly inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia. Not to mention the copyright violation you introduced by pasting in chunks of the IMDB article. Nor do I have a "strong dislike of you as a person". I don't know you as person at all. Commons does not hold or delete images on the basis of the putative personality traits of the photographer. And if you click this link, you will see exactly the state of the Bazinet article after you gutted it and then pronounced it "embarrassing". We all understand that you are upset, but calling anyone who does not accept your deletion rationale a bully, hard-nosed, mean-spirited, an egotist, etc. etc., well, I seriously doubt if that will contribute to a rational discussion. But that's your choice. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I only told the truth, much of which you alternately derided or misinterpreted. You made a particularly unkind statement regarding an infirmity I suffer from. If you review some of the discourteous, accusatory language, aimed at me, before I used those words you've listed out of context, you'll realize that. I'm not here to cast stones, though. I just wish everyone could have treated me with polite civility rather than jumping to unfair conclusions and lambasting my motives, quite harshly at times, seemingly in an attempt to discredit me. I deleted my article and the pictures, because Mr. Bazinet did not want it on Wikipedia after "John of Reading" posted two big notifications at the top of its page, citing problems that he and I endeavored to alleviate, no avail. The article as it stands, now, isn't much better, than the so-called "gutted" one and certainly doesn't deserve my pictures to represent it. I'm not aware of being guilty of any copyright infringement or violation, as the work I've posted and deleted was only my own and Wikipedia deemed it unsuitable, anyway. I still don't understand why -any- of you people would want to keep my images, which were only uploaded to serve as illustrations in conjunction with my article. The pictures are artwork I created and as previously mentioned if I'd known that I was signing away my rights to them I'd never have uploaded them to begin with. Wikimedia has a massive treasure trove of images, so what difference does deleting three, when the artist and her subject would rather have them back, really make? Blythe Spirit (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see you are endeavoring to beef up René's page, which I applaud you for, Voceditenore. Two of the images have been deleted, so can I have -them- back? Blythe Spirit (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I removed two images from the article, but the images are still on Commons. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Those images are still within scope and properly licenced, and could be added to the article later. You are still free to do what you wish with those images, but the CC license is irrevocable. I am glad Voceditenore is helping to fix the article, and if I get a chance, I will also help; but really, this is what I have been requesting you to do all along, it is by far the simplest way out of this situation. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Thibaut120094, I truly appreciate it. Although the article looks like it'll turn out very nicely I'd still rather not have my images representing other people's work, but guess I have no choice in the matter, anymore. I know you meant well, by citing all those references, ColonialGrid, but I don't speak French or German and most of the others I don't have access to. I don't know how Voceditenore gained access to the recently published, exorbitantly priced - $300.00 tome - "Clowns: In Conversation with Modern Masters." Anyway, truth be told I soured on the idea of redoing the article, myself, over a year ago - before deleting my initial work - mainly due to the constant editing by 'everyone and his mother' so to speak, which was frustrating for me to deal with... At this juncture I bid everyone a fond adieu...... Blythe Spirit (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The link to Clowns: In Conversation with Modern Masters that I provided ([10]) allows me to read the entire chapter. I'm surprised you don't have access to it (maybe it's a location thing, and as I am not in the USA I can read it); I wouldn't have provided a link to a resource which I didn't think you would have access to (what would the point in that be?). All except on of the links I provided were also in English, and all viewable for me (again, maybe a en:geo-blocking thing). Having anyone being able to edit is kinda the point, the tag line of English Wiki is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", if you can't live with that, I guess the en:free culture movement just isn't for you; everything that's added is released under a CC licence, even this comment, that's the point (check out the text above "Save page"). ColonialGrid (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again: Speedy keep / close! Holy cow, binding a lot of manpower for no reason. The intention was to use the photographs, yes? Suddenly they are an embarrassment? This logic doesn't compute at all. And again: WE ARE COMMONS, we have little to do with the wikis. We certainly will not punish any wiki or other interested party for not satisfying your needs. The photos have been properly uploaded and licensed in 2012. You haven't supplied one valid reason to delete. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, Hedwig in Washington. Now that Voceditenore has composed a -lovely- article to take the place of the embarrassingly sketchy, inaccurate drivel that the page formerly contained and that I objected to having my images represent, everything has changed. I want to thank her for her invaluable help. Once more I wish to thank ColonialGrid, too, for pointing out the Wiki licensing info. That small print is a killer, especially for someone with dyslexia. (smile) Thibaut120094, thanks again, to you, too. CZAR, you were very kind to get the ball rolling and provide me with backup when I needed a boost. The page, as it now appears, does Mr. Bazinet proud and I'm most appreciative to everyone who contributed to this. Adios amigos...... Blythe Spirit (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination All right, all good – czar 06:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fozolefozola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work, copyright violations already deleted.
- File:CT16-9D.JPG
- File:Carter01.JPG
- File:Goodsense.JPG
- File:Nama sherkat alamto.jpg
- File:Daftar alamto.jpg
- File:Alamto-logo-small.png
- File:لوگوی شرکت آلامتو.png
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alfredo Aleman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
El archivo en cuestión es un Proyecto Educativo realizado en el marco de una capacitación de Wikimedia Argentina, que debe ser cargado en [[11]] Saludos, Marostabile
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: TV screenshot I think Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- See also this DR (& Delete) on this one too as speedy) --Herby talk thyme 17:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: even ARR Didym (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: even ARR Didym (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The original licence, shown here is cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 what is not allowed on Commons. Ras67 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. ?
- It is part of the upload to wiki commons licence list ! (copied from here.)
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License is not allowed on Commons, see COM:L. --Ras67 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: even just the text license, images are ARR Didym (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 06:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 06:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 06:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused fictitious flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Do you intend to delete all flags within Category:Communism in the United States? Hellerick (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not if there is evidence that they have been actually used by some organisation, and are not a mere product of the uploader's imagination. Keφr (keep talk here) 17:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: personal artwork. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Raoul Serres is dead in 1971. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It's from White Cliffs Countryside Partnership not from DavidAnstiss! Ras67 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Self nom. This is an image of a Mazda6 sedan that has been edited to look like a coupe in Photoshop. This puts the image out of scope as it is not of educational value. Commons in not an art file hosting site. OSX II (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: misleading photo, no such model. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:MIchelle Rounds live.jpg
- File:Michelle Rounds, Cairo Jazz Club.jpg
- File:Michelle Rounds and sax duo.jpg
- File:Michelle Rounds.jpg
Uploader can not be the author as she appears on the picture Moumou82 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"family album" != "published before 1923" Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no license, copyvio. Wdwd (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
An unused sketch of a church, without source or author since 2011, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Along with clear copyright violations this user uploaded these files. Part of them have low resolution and no EXIF. Other made by about dozen different cameras. The user has numerous warnings for copyvio on ru.wiki.
- File:Garmazhapova.jpg
- File:Samodurov.jpg
- File:Shaposhnikov A.jpg
- File:Sergey lebedev3.JPG
- File:Sergey lebedev2.JPG
- File:Kynev.jpg
- File:Galina mikhaleva.jpg
- File:Ivan Bolchakov.jpg
- File:Памятник Курчатову в Челябинске.jpg <- deleted: No FOP in RU. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- File:Nidresu.jpg
- File:Alex zix.jpg
- File:Yaroslavmartynov.jpg
- File:Kavkazsky.jpg
- File:Masha solovyenko.jpg
- File:Kirill goncharov2013.JPG
- File:Alex gnezdilov.JPG
- File:Anton krasosvki.jpg
- File:LevShlosberg.JPG
- File:Walls and towers of Donskoy Monastery 123.jpg
- File:Pavlovskaya bolnica.JPG
- File:Goncharov flag.jpg
- File:Kirill goncharov.jpg
- File:Pointer from chulym.jpg
- File:Suren gazaryan.jpg
- File:Hram rostoshi.JPG
- File:Газовик орен4.JPG
- File:Mitrokhin.jpg
Sealle (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted --A.Savin 23:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Это Лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это Лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Авторские права под вопросом. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Авторские права под вопросом. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Авторские права под вопросом. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alissa4u
[edit]Artworks by w:ja:大久保公治, a Japanese painter, died in 2002 (ref: [12]). Protected by Copyright law of Japan. File:大久保公治.JPG is also unlikely to be own work.
- File:大久保公治.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ひまご.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:田植.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:庄内おばこ.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:タイトル不明①.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (8).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (10).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (26).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (28).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (36).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (32).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (40).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (29).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (44).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (48).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:大久保公治 (46).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
-KurodaSho (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I, Alissa4u, am Kouji Okubo’s granddaughter. I inherited the pictures from my father, Kouji's eldest son. Kouji had taken these pictures of his paintings and then donated the paintings to the Fujishima Middle School (Sasabana-86-1 Fujishima, Tsuruoka, Yamagata Prefecture). I uploaded the pictures, because even though they were donated to the middle school, my father has the copyrights to the pictures, since it was given to him, and then he gave me permission, so it isn't considered copyright infringement.
Alissa4u (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:OTRS. --KurodaSho (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
there is another the same picture 1957birth (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
{{NoFoP-Italy}} Josve05a (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
com:DW. Picture of a copyrighted modell. Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per above and User:Elcobbola/Models. Josve05a (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- American law. Not relevant in this case. Swedish law may be similar, but please argue with reference to Swedish legal sources. Edaen (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why would US law not be relevant? Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- We have our own law. Edaen (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is not an answer to my question. Those files are hosted in the US, not in Sweden. Natuur12 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, of course it is in the same way as Swedish FOP-rules are the relevant and not the US-ones. Edaen (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the other DR I did say that I'm not sure about the law. I did not seek this kind of polemic. Edaen (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is not an answer to my question. Those files are hosted in the US, not in Sweden. Natuur12 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- We have our own law. Edaen (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why would US law not be relevant? Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- American law. Not relevant in this case. Swedish law may be similar, but please argue with reference to Swedish legal sources. Edaen (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
com:DW. Photograph of a copyrighted model. Natuur12 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per above and User:Elcobbola/Models. Josve05a (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is rather complicated and something I would like to know more about. In Sweden buildings may be freely depicted in 2D, both outside and inside. 2D and 3D-depictions are instances of the copyrighted building and are protected. Protection for 2D-images is very weak. There is no exemption for 3D-models as there is for 2D-pictures. Copyright belongs to both the architect and the one who made the model, I think. However, architects make 3D-models of buildings as a routine and, to my knowledge, never ever ask for permission. Photos of such models are also common and I doubt that permisson is required. It could be the case that the statement in the copyright law that says that buildings may be freely depicted also applies to models of buildings made after the building. Models made before the construction of the building are protected. There could be informal rules guiding this. Such informal rules or branch-standards are permitted according to Swedish copyright law and are part of the law. It is also worth considering that Commons is big enough to possibly change this kind of customary law. This is something we should have a closer look at. Edaen (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Sweden: "Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form." A model is certainly not pictorial. Secondly, the person who created the models would indeed have a copyright. While there may be some provisions in Swedish law that allow the use of such photographs and models I doubt they comply with com:L. But perhaps @Stefan4: wants to give his opinion since he is quite familiar with Swedish copyright law. Natuur12 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely. That makes it unclear if the person who made the model has sufficient permission from the copyright holder. There is also an originality question. Anyway. Photos of this kind are standard. That begs the question: how come? and we should beware of changing the rules among architects. Edaen (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- O, I just came across Category:Scale models of Stockholm and instead of nominating everyting at once I decided to nominated three of them (the first three) as a test case. It doesn't matter if this person has permission to create the model or not at this stage and we are not "changing the rules" either. Natuur12 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. As I said, I'm not looking for a fight, but to find out what the law looks like. Edaen (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- O, I just came across Category:Scale models of Stockholm and instead of nominating everyting at once I decided to nominated three of them (the first three) as a test case. It doesn't matter if this person has permission to create the model or not at this stage and we are not "changing the rules" either. Natuur12 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Precisely. That makes it unclear if the person who made the model has sufficient permission from the copyright holder. There is also an originality question. Anyway. Photos of this kind are standard. That begs the question: how come? and we should beware of changing the rules among architects. Edaen (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep! Official material by Swedish authority (modells creatatd by Stockholms stad) is free. No artwork!--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I fail to find where in the Swedish law it is specified that nonliterary works by the Swedish government body makes it exempt of copyright. I can see in 1960:729 that it excepts decisions, laws, reports etc. But not maps or visual arts which this may constitute as both. If you know some other part of the law which I'm not aware off please enlighten me. I also see that different departments or organizations in Sweden like Sjöfartverket and theTransport Agency released some of their works, but this model of Stockholm located in Kulturhuset is not made by any of those organizations and does not fall within the scope of their releases either. Natuur12 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sospetta violazione di copyright, se di ciò di può parlare nel caso di murales in luoghi pubblici Teno85 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sospetta violazione di copyright, se di ciò di può parlare nel caso di murales in luoghi pubblici Teno85 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sospetta violazione di copyright, se di ciò di può parlare nel caso di murales in luoghi pubblici Teno85 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Mire el alcance del proyecto. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama for artistic works in Japan allows only for non-commercial reproductions. This sculpture looks modern enough to still be copyrighted, so we cannot keep the derivative photograph. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Who is an author of this bronze statue?--663h (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you should know this because you took the photograph. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Philippines. the "actual artistic carving of the façade" was rendered by Reynaldo Lopez Nanyac in 1968. -- Jarash (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
André Aaron Bilis is dead in 1971. Copyright violation. 86.217.8.42 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not a Choerades sp. or even Laphriinae. It is an Asilinae species. 87.209.69.188 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion, correct license, in use A.Savin 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fanduonghoangyen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, persoanality shot, user blocked for copyvios, unlikely to be own work.
Yann (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fanduonghoangyen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
---
Deleted Likely copyright violation --A.Savin 00:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused fictitious emblem; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 17:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not all that "fictitious"; it's just the non-fictious File:Azerbaijan people's government flag.svg cropped into a circle... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope / unused A.Savin 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
While sock puppetry on en WP is not relevant to Commons it can inform a deletion discussion. The bottom left hand corner suggests that this is copyright and property of the eponymous gentleman, but an article on en WP containing it will be deleted as the creation of a blocked user (0.99 probability).
I cannot see what useful purpose this image will perform on Commons and suggest it to be out of scope as neither having an educational nor an illustrative use Timtrent (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Photo 1939 = 76 years; highly unlikely to be PD-75 years after photographer's death MPF (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mclean museum & art gallery, greenock claims copyright, without photographer we can't disprove it! Ras67 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: A.Savin 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blurry, very low quality to the point of not being educationally useful – czar 19:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's from the Kazakh user Naturalist, published here! Ras67 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"Available on Google" doesn't mean public domain. This might be {{PD-US-no notice}}, but we'll need some sort of proof of that, I think. I know that a lot of publicity photos carried no copyright notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for temporary objects in Germany. 146.60.145.19 20:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
likely copyvio image Saqib (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seems to be taken from http://www.warismir.com/warismir/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2.gif (which predated the upload here), and which is shown on the warismir.com website, and is a crop from the photo http://amirmir.com/images/7.jpg . Although, the upload here might have been before the official launch of that website, so it may have been someone involved. File:Waris mir.jpg was uploaded by the same user... the image is floating around the internet a bit, but I don't see the same scan which shows the edges of the original print anywhere else in a quick Google Images search but it might be somewhere. The official website says "All Rights Reserved" though. The same user also created the en:Waris Mir wiki page at the same time. Even if it was someone involved with the Foundation and creating the website, I think we need to delete unless we get permission via the COM:OTRS process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. 93.80.79.29 21:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. 93.80.79.29 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Макет дома Анны Монс, каким он был в конце XVII века. Работа Николая Аввакумова из собрания народного музея Слобода.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation. 93.80.79.29 22:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. 93.80.79.29 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Это лишний файл, загрузился случайно. Анастасия Илюхина (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Purported flag of Pensacola. In reality, the city has no flag of its own: this file is made of the five flags separately flown on the city's masts, representing its historical sovereigns. This flag has an interesting history worth learning from, so I am going to sketch it here:
- 17 July 2011: the image is uploaded as File:Flag of Pensacola.png and promptly added to the article about the city. Probably somewhere around that time, the (now-deleted) article about the flag itself is created.
- 5 August 2011: the file is re-uploaded as File:FlagofPensacola.png
- 19 November 2011: the file is uploaded again as File:FlagPF.jpg
- 29 April 2012: this vector version is uploaded
- 9 July 2012: w:en:Template:Pensacola-stub is created, with this flag in it.
- 28 January 2014: the forgery is discovered
- 5 Februrary 2014: the article about the fake flag is deleted
- 14 February 2014: the JPEG version is nominated for deletion; it is later closed (the page says "deleted", but it seems to be an error) with the admin stating that the nominator "has not done very much research here" and "gives no valid reason to delete this"
- 10 May 2015: the very creator of the original image finally removes it from the city's article, claiming it was only made for "illustrative" purposes; the same day, the JPEG version is nominated for deletion again.
- 29 May 2015: A warning is added to the file's page. Later also a category. Nobody pays any attention to either.
By that time, the fake flag has already made it to the Afrikaans, Bulgarian, Spanish (along with an article for the flag itself), Finnish, Japanese, Lithuanian, Latvian, Marathi, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Swedish edition of Wikipedia, misleadingly presented as if it were an official flag. It also ended up in the data modules of Kannada and Urdu editions. Only two days ago I had it removed from all those places. And this story only has a happy ending because the original uploader came to their senses and requested to delete this. Kids who mistake Commons for imgur are probably not going to.
Moral of the story: phoney flags should be watched for, carefully, and not just swept under the rug while everyone pretends there is no problem. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure I see a real reason to delete; just rename it to something like File:Hybrid of Pensacola flags.svg and slap on {{Fictitious flag}} if necessary... The problem is not with the mere presence of the image file, but only if it's not clearly labeled as what it is. AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. We can treat it as all the other fictitious flags. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- What is the point of a label if nobody is going to read it? As happened in this case. Keφr (keep talk here) 10:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Naming a file "Flag of X.ext" creates a strong presumption that it's official, so renaming it to something else removes that presumption. If the file keeps getting added to Wikipedia articles after the rename, then it would be drifting into the Abbasid_flag.png zone, and could be deleted (as I pointed out on your user talk page almost four months ago), but I don't see any vital need to delete it now... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prevention is better than cure. If the file could only be ever misused, why keep it at all? Keφr (keep talk here) 05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Kephir. Delete. DS (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prevention is better than cure. If the file could only be ever misused, why keep it at all? Keφr (keep talk here) 05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Naming a file "Flag of X.ext" creates a strong presumption that it's official, so renaming it to something else removes that presumption. If the file keeps getting added to Wikipedia articles after the rename, then it would be drifting into the Abbasid_flag.png zone, and could be deleted (as I pointed out on your user talk page almost four months ago), but I don't see any vital need to delete it now... AnonMoos (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, thank you, Keφr! This was interesting to read! Taivo (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This self-created map without any sources seems to be a fake. The principality had neither definite territory nor any borders. In literature there is no information about a concrete territory of this attempt of statehood. That’s why there also exist no map about the principality. It was the WP-author who "invents" this first map at all. --Otberg (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is currently in use on several projects, so it is automatically within scope per COM:INUSE. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you realy like to keep a hoax map, just because it is in use somewhere? --Otberg (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but I'm not a hoaxer. You can easy verify my works since years, herr Otberg. In a first time, I have scan and upload the original map of 1942 but someone ask the deletion because the copyright problems. So, I draw this other map, but I'm agree with the deletion, but for two other reasons:
-The boundaries of this "Pindus principality" never have precisely fixed, so all maps (as the original of 1942) are approximative;
-The "Pindus principality" was a revendication recognised by anyone, not a real state de facto or de jure. Regards, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but I'm not a hoaxer. You can easy verify my works since years, herr Otberg. In a first time, I have scan and upload the original map of 1942 but someone ask the deletion because the copyright problems. So, I draw this other map, but I'm agree with the deletion, but for two other reasons:
- Do you realy like to keep a hoax map, just because it is in use somewhere? --Otberg (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are not a hoaxer, but the map is just fantasy. But some people thought it shows reality and put it in articles. --Otberg (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you think that the other wikis should remove the map from the articles, I suggest that you (or other like-minded editors who speak the wikis' respective languages) start a discussion on each wiki to remove it. But as long as it is used in at least one wiki, it is automatically within scope on Commons.
- By the way, I notice that the fr.wikipedia article that uses this image says "Cet 'état' n'a jamais eu d'existence réelle sur le terrain et ses frontières n'ont jamais été clairement définies." They certainly don't seem to be presenting these borders as reality—indeed, they seem to agree with your statement above that "the principality had neither definite territory nor any borders." —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you are concerned about Commons hosting an inaccurate map, rest assured that this would not be the only one. In fact, Commons has an entire category for inaccurate maps, including nine maps showing a single nonexistent river! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that commons spreads disinformation is suprising for me. --Otberg (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not for me. A lot of pictures aren't authentic, made by persons not informed about the real context of a time or a domain, as [13] (unique source: Hancock's books, but in this time the roman script were not in use in Wallachia and the title is a calque from the english syntagma Gypsy slaves), or anachronic, as [14] (the border here showed in Bukovina as a 1918 claim of the WUPR were in the facts created June 28, 1940). And this pictures have a large utilisation, in many articles. This is for me an additional reason to be agree with the deletion, because even if my map isn't "just" fanatasy, it is approximative, and my duty isn't to add approximations in this "big building site" where we're working. --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that commons spreads disinformation is suprising for me. --Otberg (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sclavi_Tiganesti.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#/media/File:West_ukraine.png){kind=link}
- Well, I don't think that's the most helpful way to look at it. Examples of incorrect information, assuming they're labeled as such, can be educationally useful for illustrating common misconceptions, historical understandings, or unrealized proposals. I do think that incorrect maps and other inaccuracies should be clearly labeled, though, to avoid misleading the reader. So maybe some edits to clarify the description of this file would be a good idea. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The incorrect map is used in most language projects like being a correct one. It isn't possible to ensure correct use in all exotic language projects. The only way to avoid this disinformation is to delete it here. --Otberg (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that's the most helpful way to look at it. Examples of incorrect information, assuming they're labeled as such, can be educationally useful for illustrating common misconceptions, historical understandings, or unrealized proposals. I do think that incorrect maps and other inaccuracies should be clearly labeled, though, to avoid misleading the reader. So maybe some edits to clarify the description of this file would be a good idea. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, all of this discussion is really irrelevant—the fact is, the file is in use, so it is within scope per COM:INUSE, no questions asked. If you want to avoid misconceptions and make it clear that this place never had exact borders, I encourage you to edit the file's description. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can't believe that a discussion about a hoax in Wikipedia is irrelevant. Next time I create my own fantasy map, use it in some exotic projects where people don't care about, and then it's not allowed deleting this nonsense. Great --Otberg (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
fictitious and erroneous map
I fully appreciate the work and the logic of the person who created the map, however, it is fictitious, since there was never such a territory and can create confusion, as it shows the non-existent principality as if it were a fourth entity in the occupied Greece during the 2d world war. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. As pointed out in the above deletion discussion, this file was formerly in use on pages in several projects (see archive), and I notice that it was FocalPoint who removed it from several of those pages. Moreover, it is labeled with {{Fictitious map}} to prevent confusion. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is not "fictitious and erroneous" but a copy since an original map of 1942 (background : the Aromanian areas in Balkans and added, the claims of Alcibiades Diamandis). But I'm agree with the deletion, because the boundaries of this "Pindus principality" never have precisely fixed, so all maps (as the original of 1942) are approximative, and the "Pindus principality" was a revendication recognised by anyone, not a real state de facto or de jure. However a lot of other maps from Commons represents claimed boundaries or states as real countries, for example [15] or [16], and their creators aren't agree with deletions or even modifications. Wishes, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
![[15]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banat_historique#/media/File:Banat_republic.png){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_ukraine.png){kind=link}
_______________ Kept maps is labeled with correct tag. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)