Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/08/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unclear copyright status / out of scope. FDMS 4 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: (c)vio per weblink Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brasão de Peixoto.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aberystwith Castle, Cardiganshire.jpeg
This file was initially tagged by Mayankb09 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: -u1 Yann (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no permission, but I cant find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: found souces [1]. JuTa 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hillstationsneardelhi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Hill stations near delhi-Spa&massage.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi-Spa Resorts.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi-best.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi-Classic-hill-top-resort.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi- Classic-hill-top-resort.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi-best packages&booking.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi.jpg
- File:Hill stations near delhi-best pakcages and booking.jpg
Ies (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of any permission (refer watermark) F-14A Tomcat (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of person removal Adjutor101 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Great potential for such motifs, but unfortunately not good quality. Out of scope, blah blah, it's in my delete category for some months which apparently some are too scared of touching blah blah blah F-14A Tomcat (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason was given for deletion. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Apparently uploaded solely for use in es:Pedro Marcos Volf/es:Mr.Pedro Marcos Volf, which has been deleted multiple times for being unencyclopædic self-promotion and because the subject does not meet Spanish Wikipedia's notability guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: self promo Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
copyright on photo = non-free? Mjrmtg (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep It doesn't matter. Look at the license on Flickr – it's suitable for use on Wikipedia. I asked the guy whether he'd change the license to free license and he happily did so. Dudek1337 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Yup, free as a birdy. I removed the big watermark, tho. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't think it should have the copyright watermark on it. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused, small; have several PNG and SVG in Category:Phosphaalkynes DMacks (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
© for the "stickers" and graphics in this picture is owned by Pixiz. Josve05a (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Louis-Gustave Cambier is dead in 1949. -- Geagea (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Undeleted Now Public Domain in EU (since 2020), 1904 work so PD in US. Abzeronow (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dantes cry (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Henriquedoor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhaisalmankhan11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:It's me ganesh dahal.jpg
- File:FloatingCollage of me ganesh dahal.jpg
- File:My sister binisha.jpg
Ies (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator. ––Apalsola t • c 15:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the word "[Ticket#: 2015072810017149] but I see no licencing, nor true evidence of the OTRS process. Timtrent (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Same situation as File:English speaker.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a television screenshot. Besides that, this isn't used and doesn't appear to be useful (i.e. not in scope), partly because no explanation is given of what's going on. The categories don't help: it's only in Category:English, Indiana, for a small US community that has nothing to do with people speaking English in India. I don't know where else to look for information about this photo, either. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Virtually identical to File:English speaker.jpg; suffers from its major problems, but even if it's kept, we don't need two virtually identical copies of the same scene. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: too blur, low quality Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Not used, and not likely to be useful: it's seemingly a screenshot of an Indian governmental document (India copyrights its government works, by the way) with no real context. The categories don't help: it's only in Category:English, Indiana, a small US town with no relationship to "English documents from India" whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhonanderson30 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Selfie con karen ga.jpg
- File:Selfie con karol ortiz.jpg
- File:Family eating in mcdonals.jpg
- File:Selfies con tatiana garcia.jpg
- File:Selfie con karen garcia.jpg
- File:Selfie con camilo ortiz.jpg
- File:Selfies con karol ortiz.jpg
- File:Slefie.jpg
- File:Selfie con karen garcia y karol ortiz.jpg
- File:Jhonanderson.jpg
Ies (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
unfree, see http://bmas.se/joo25/index.php/om-bmas/19-karta-2015 Yger (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brunojoses (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering also User talk:Brunojoses (false claim of authorship/license/etc. of a file grabbed from Flickr, luckily in CC).
Gunnex (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MeRegistreParaSubir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal doodles unused since 2011, out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Please notice file descriptions and other indication of prank/hoaxing.
- File:BOTSVE.png
- File:GameCoNsoleMini logo.png
- File:Escudo De Villa De La Cruz.png
- File:Escudo De Grandes Portugales.png
- File:Bandera De Grandes Portugales.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Kathisma (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation of http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/germany/dw.htm MWAK (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Symptoms of low vitamin d.png
- File:Vitamin d deficiency symptoms.png
- File:Vitamin d and depression.png
- File:Vitamin d supplements 01.png
- File:Vitamin d3 supplements.png
Ies (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Candidato José Serra.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarah Menezes 2012.jpg (and other related DR's). This is not a work by Agência Brasil, considering the credit "Divulgação/Força Aérea Brasileira" (Divulgação = +/- grabbed from Internet, here somewhere from Brazilian Air Force). Usually, photos from photographers of Agência Brasil are tagged with [Name of photographer/Agência Brasil] (or "Abr") and photos from other sources are credited according to the source. Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- See also the same credit in a news entry by Agência Brasil from 2013. Gunnex (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thomasshaw9688 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Crest of the English football club Berkhamsted F.C., and therefore likely not the uploader's own work. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyvio, per COM:PCP Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adérito skilleer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adérito skilleer (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal pics, not within project scope
Daphne Lantier 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Low quality nonsense image (see category), not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a professional stock photo, grabbed from the web. Google image shows many usages, some in greater resolution than this. User's other photographs are quite different. Colin (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:Even Darker than darker plant.jpeg
- File:Shadow Plant.jpeg
- File:Storm Ahead.jpeg
- File:Deavmi Beach Walkway.jpeg
Ies (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope. Achim (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of person Adjutor101 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Yann Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright holder www.infoliga.com.ar according to metadata. January (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
unused, and it looks like self-promotion Jerome Potts (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Senior9324 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: namuwiki favicon is Non-free(cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-kr) PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't think so. {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}-kr file. — regards, Revi 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by revi Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Senior9324 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: namuwiki logo is non-free work.(cc by-nc-sa 2.0 KR) PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Revi Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. FDMS 4 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, unlikely own work, should be deleted. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Perlitas Tapatías (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:LAS PERLITAS TAPATÍAS EN 1995.jpg
- File:ACTUALES PERLITAS TAPATIAS.jpg
- File:LAS PERLITAS TAPATÍAS.gif
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheActorStar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Taggeados.jpg
- File:Lady La vendedora de rosas.jpg
- File:Maria Jose Vargas.jpg
- File:Michel Orozc0.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mario castro peña (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Allandabbagh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Pleasure Point Wharf Reserve2 Nsw Sydney Australia.jpg
- File:Pleasure Point Reserve1 Nsw Sydney Australia.jpg
- File:Pleasure Point Wharf1 Reserve Nsw Sydney Australia.jpg
- File:Pleasure Point Wharf Reserve Nsw Sydney Australia.jpg
- File:Pleasure Point Reserve Nsw Sydney Australia.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Humbertopop12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Las Muñequitas Elizabeth en Fiesta Infantil.jpg
- File:Princesita Ana Celia y sus Juguetes.jpg
- File:Ana Celia en el Mago de Oz 1.jpg
- File:Los vips.jpg
- File:Ana Celia 1.png
- File:Ana Celia 2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martanobregaps (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Colheita algodao santana.jpg
- File:Plantacao santana sousa.jpg
- File:Ubs santana.jpg
- File:Distribuicao sementes alagoas.jpg
- File:Colheiteira sementes grupo santana.jpg
- File:Sacos de sementes grupo santana.jpg
- File:Unidade produtiva santana sousapb.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Justin Pearson Artist (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:'The Cast' by Justin Pearson 2012,oil on canvas 125 x 155 cm.jpg
- File:'The Dress Rehearsal' by Justin Pearson 2012, oil on canvas 125 x 155 cm.jpg
- File:Just Dreaming By Justin Pearson 2010. 40 x 50 cm oil on canvas.jpg
- File:'Pay us!', by Justin Pearson 2013 oil on linen 210 x 710 cm.jpg
- File:'Moving Objects' 2014, by Justin Pearson, oil on linen 25 x 25 cm.JPG
- File:Pearson Justin (Justin Pearson a self portrait), 2014, oil on linen 105 x 95 cm.JPG
- File:'Twilight' 2014, by Justin Pearson, oil on linen 200 x 140 cm.jpg
- File:'Through the Forest - Running' 2015, by Justin Pearson, oil on linen 250 x 75 cm.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete either copyvio or autopromotion. Kathisma (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MexicoLacrosse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Conferencia de prensa.jpg
- File:México en calentamiento.jpg
- File:México recibiendo la Copa América de Lacrosse.jpg
- File:La Copa América de Lacrosse.jpg
- File:Argentina Lacrosse.jpg
- File:Chile lacrosse.jpg
- File:Colombia Lacrosse.jpg
- File:Lacrosse Femenil México.jpg
- File:Faceoff 2014.jpg
- File:Primer entrenamiento.jpg
- File:México en Mundial.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Israel triana (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Compania.jpg
- File:Sjd.jpg
- File:Caja-real-san-luis-potosi.jpg
- File:Palacio-mpal5.jpg
- File:Torrebarr.jpg
- File:Templjardin.jpg
- File:Altarma.jpg
- File:77d922e6 z.jpg
- File:Interfra.jpg
- File:Sancandil.jpg
- File:21089 d.jpg
- File:Altarpulpito.jpg
- File:Corobarroco.jpg
- File:Carmen SLP camarin retablo Jim.jpg
- File:7arcangeles.jpg
- File:Petrua.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Ededetkteh.jpg
- File:Ruoc kpan.gif
- File:Lamgomede.jpg
- File:Gomede.jpg
- File:Bihdetchieu.jpg
- File:Lamgomm.jpg
- File:Drahjan.jpg
- File:Daigiadinh.jpg
- File:Danonɡede.jpg
- File:Damcuoiedexccc.jpg
- File:Jhccc.jpg
- File:Congchien.jpg
- File:Tụhkong.JPG
- File:Hwam.jpg
- File:Yjuthwing.jpg
- File:Chmpaa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
http://longcancook.blogspot.com/2013/03/canh-ca-ang-ca-kho.html
2013 blog, for images uploaded as 'own work' in 2015. Repeat copyright violator.
Reventtalk 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Software screenshots, unlikely to be free.
- File:DualPowerRecognition.jpg
- File:VCPDownload.jpg
- File:LogviewSettingsPort.jpg
- File:LogviewSettingsInitial.jpg
- File:DownloadPage.jpg
- File:LogviewSettingsPath.jpg
- File:LogviewSettingsDevice.jpg
- File:LogviewSettingsAutofunction.jpg
Yann (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Strong delete All of these items have an slapdash claim of being the uploader's intellectual property entirely, plus a CC-BY-SA tag. However, they all contain non-free contents that do not fit the bill for de minis. Their assessment is as follows:
- File:DualPowerRecognition.jpg: With the exception of a small portion, which is Firefox, the rest is copyright-protected Microsoft property. This image is without doubt the most serious violation.
- File:VCPDownload.jpg: I can spot copyright-protected assets of at least six companies: Bottom portion is entirely Windows XP (Microsoft). Assets of Symantec, Google, Silicon Labs and Ashampoo are also visible plus the FlashGet icon.
- File:LogviewSettingsPort.jpg: Same as above but with LogView assets instead of Silicon Labs assets.
- File:LogviewSettingsInitial.jpg: Same as #3
- File:DownloadPage.jpg: Same as #3
- File:LogviewSettingsPath.jpg: Same as #3
- File:LogviewSettingsDevice.jpg: Same as #3
- File:LogviewSettingsAutofunction.jpg: Same as #3
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTA ACLARATORIA: "Se agregaron los créditos al autor de esta imagen"
- Delete most likely under copyright, unless the uploader can prove he got the authorisation to upload the file under the mentionned licence. Kathisma (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kavitaojha17 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of project scope and see COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Kavita.jpg
- File:Kavita1.jpg
- File:Kavita 2.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha 7.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha 6.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha 5.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha 3.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha2.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha 1.jpg
- File:Kavita ojha.jpg
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kavitaojha17 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private child image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal(?) flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 13:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete clearly out of scope. Kathisma (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal(?) flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 13:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's actually the perfectly historical flag File:US_20_Star_GreatStar_Flag.svg, but should be deleted anyway as an unneeded JPEG duplicate. AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with AnonMoos. Kathisma (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused flag without a description, most probably a mere product of uploader's imagination; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 13:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope as there is no background on what this image relates to F-14A Tomcat (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No conceivable scope for this image F-14A Tomcat (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo Pitke (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
not used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 19:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
not used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 19:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
not used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 19:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
not used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 19:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused parody flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete clearly out of scope. Kathisma (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
out of scope, misuse of commons and wikipedia for self promo, all the contributions of the user in all wikimedia project are for self promotion -- Christian Ferrer 19:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
scan of copyrighted content? certainly not an own work -- Christian Ferrer 19:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I just transferred this file from en:wp a minute ago. Over there, it was claimed as an own work by the uploader, and the metadata didn't display anything to the contrary. However, here files are displayed with a lot more metadata, and it looks like it's apparently a creation of a news photographer (the bottom entry at this page), which would mean a copyvio. Nominating here, rather than tagging as a speedy, because I want to get other input lest I be misunderstanding something. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This is just a photo of a kid that some person (User:Blackstratwhite) uploaded seven years ago as their only contribution. It has no encyclopedic value and merely takes up space. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I can imagine these images perhaps being used to illustrate thumbs-up (one image is in that category) and the playing of a miniature guitar, but they're so poor quality (tiny, blurry, tilted) that they'd never be preferred over our other images of far better quality. Aside from those situations, I can't imagine anyone using them in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Not own work, no sources.
- File:Te volveré a ver.PNG
- File:El sol sale mañana.PNG
- File:Nkhbl.PNG
- File:La corista.PNG
- File:Klio.PNG
- File:Bk.PNG
- File:FQWRD.PNG
- File:Película.PNG
- File:Sdf.PNG
- File:La gata sobre el tejado de zinc.PNG
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Kathisma (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted material, likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This is above COM:TOO, it's not simple text or geographical shapes 106.68.109.97 11:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
No FOP in Iceland for sculptures F-14A Tomcat (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in Iceland Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The United States does not have freedom of panorama for two-dimensional works, and therefore this photo is a copyright violation Diannaa (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Published 1971 without a copyright notice[2] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Originally tagged Diannaa as DW no source. However this file already nominated in 2012 by the same user and kept as Published 1971 without a copyright notice[3]. -- Geagea (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept Published 1971 without a copyright notice[4]. Please before renominate this picture, indicate that this reason for closure the DR is wrong --Ezarateesteban 21:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
slechte afbeelding Haagschebluf (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I hope my retouch helped. -- Maxxl² - talk 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I marked this photo as photo without permission, but it was reverted, so i am starting this delete nomination. Smooth_O (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: facebook is a non-free source Denniss (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate to superior quality File:ECC-Logo.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Wdwd (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
IMO the letters for this logo are probably PD-textlogo, but the texture in the background probably isn't. See COM:TOO#United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no fair use on commons, unused logo Wdwd (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
IMO the letters for this logo are probably PD-textlogo, but the texture in the background probably isn't. See COM:TOO#United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No simple textlogo, no fair use on commons Wdwd (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary 2D artwork, no FoP in Ukraine A.Savin 19:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Wdwd (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary 2D artwork, no FoP in Ukraine A.Savin 19:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Wdwd (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No permission on source, license or author TripWire (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Source added. It is in Public domain per source. - Arr4 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, missing info added. Wdwd (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Renomination of File:Ussdiablo.jpg
[edit]This file was initially tagged by HIAS as no permission (No permission since) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted Material, navsource.org does not allow the reuse of material per this disclaimer. According to the source "These images and text, in their original forms or in any modified forms, may not be copied, printed, transmitted, distributed, sold or published in any form for any purpose, without said written permission." This file does not deserve to be on the Commons. HIAS (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Grześ 5.174.16.141 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Wdwd (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Wojciech Lis http://www.parowozy.com.pl/lipiec2001/4.jpg 5.174.16.141 23:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, per nomination. Wdwd (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Wojciech Lis http://www.parowozy.com.pl/parade7.jpg 5.174.16.141 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, per nomination Wdwd (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Il est en double car j'ai importé l'identique de cette image mais de meilleure qualité Valentinois26 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tagged with
copyvio via Google Street ViewGunnex (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted https://elementlook.tmall.com/ -- Christian Ferrer 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Wdwd (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Windows screenshots
[edit]COM:DW? What's the limit of originality?
- File:EjecutableBlender.png
- File:Win98ins1.gif
- File:Win98ins10.gif
- File:Win98ins2.gif
- File:Win98ins3.gif
- File:Win98ins4.gif
- File:Win98ins5.gif
- File:Win98ins6.gif
- File:Win98ins7.gif
- File:Win98ins8.gif
- File:Win98ins9.gif
Yann (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete One or two words alone do not pass the threshold of originality but these images are far beyond that. In most cases, layout alone is copyright-protected. But there is even more:
- File:EjecutableBlender.png: Contains two computer icons that are by themselves copyright-protected.
- File:Win98ins1.gif: Contains one computer icon that is by itself copyright-protected.
- File:Win98ins2.gif: Contains one computer icon that is by itself copyright-protected.
- File:Win98ins6.gif: Contains four computer icons that are by themselves copyright-protected.
- File:Win98ins7.gif: Too many graphic assets; neither are de minimis.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, to complex for PD-text; Exempt #3,#8,#9 which are below COM:TOO.--Wdwd (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be some kind of a screen shot - We have better pictures of this person, so this file may be deleted. Ldorfman (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Hedwig in Washington. JuTa 21:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think its not own work Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Translate by google:--Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Striked unintelligible babbling. Autotranslators are evil. Do not use them. Write in English. --WTM (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Polski: Gdzie jest ten obraz? Pewno nie nawet nie to.- Where does the image come from. This is probably hardly even created by yourself.--Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've corrected the file informations, so there should be no problem with incorrect descriptions anymore. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per Jonny84 Ezarateesteban 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ColonialGrid as no permission. But i cant find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 05:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt own work as the editor's other uploads don't appear to be (all uploaded on the same day), and is low in resolution and size, making it seem (to me) more likely that the image wasn't created by the uploader. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader has another deleted pictures and not appears here, so COM:PRP applied Ezarateesteban 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Urquhartnite as no permission, but I cant find an external souce to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 06:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: assume good faith, unique photo of the uploader, no reason for doubt Ezarateesteban 22:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wintereu as no permission, but I cant find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 06:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Now the site (suceavainfo.ro) appear to be "under construction". Still, I managed to find this page, where you can see the logo certifying the copyright owner of all materials taken from there. --Wintereu 07:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:OTRS is needed here, then we can restore the picture Ezarateesteban 22:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No EXIF. Jhonny Lopera has given his permission for this media? Yo, Jacobo.: 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: source and author not clear, we don't know if the uploader is the author of the image Ezarateesteban 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Mistaken attribution ("own"). I don't believe we have 90 year old wikipedians. Altenmann (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: scanned photo without source and autho Ezarateesteban 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
wrong attribution ("own"). I don't believe we have 90 year old wikipedians Altenmann (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: scanned photo without source and possibly wrong author attribution Ezarateesteban 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by HombreDHojalata as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Commons:Derivative work Yann (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: another case of COM:FOP#Spain, it is only for artworks places in outside places Ezarateesteban 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I marked this photo as photo without permission, but it was reverted, so i am starting this delete nomination. Smooth_O (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep strong likelihood that permission was granted, even if not specifically stated. Please contact the original uploader en:user:Kidstylez to find out. --Kafuffle (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: the photo isn't in the Facebook's servers so the author can upload here and license it under free licenses. Ezarateesteban 22:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I marked this photo as photo without permission, but it was reverted, so i am starting this delete nomination. Smooth_O (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see the lack of permissions, before renominate it please specify the reasons Ezarateesteban 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Birendra700 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No verifiable source information to verify the validity of the PD claims. The uploader is a confirmed sockpuppet of Dblama. All the files are claimed (twice!) to be covered by one of the criteria listed in {{PD-Nepal}} and released under a {{cc-zero}} waiver by the copyright holder (which seems unlikely). Photos aren't court judgements or administrative decisions, so the shortest applicable term listed by {{PD-Nepal}} is 25 years after creation, but that of course requires evidence of the date of creation and place of first publication.
- File:King Mahendra (left) with UN Secretary-General U Thant at the Narayanhiti Royal Palace.jpg
- File:King Poet Mahendra.jpg
- File:King-mahendra-of-nepal.jpg
- File:Mahendra Gufa.jpg – grabbed from http://www.mahendracave.com/mahendracave-11.htm with the watermark deliberately cropped to conceal the copyright infringement. The metadata of the photo at the source site shows it was taken in 2006, so {{PD-Nepal}} is clearly not applicable.
- File:King Mahendra.jpg – since this is not a photo but a painting, the shortest possible term is 50 years after publication. The uploader claims it was created in 1971, which is less than 50 years ago.
- File:Nepal king gyanendra2.jpg – supposedly created in 2005, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
- File:Nepal-dipendra.jpg – supposedly created in 1997, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
- File:Dipendra Shah.jpg – supposedly created in 1998, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
- File:Mero Legacy birendra.jpg
- File:Late king birendra.jpg – supposedly created in 1999, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
- File:Late King Birendra.jpg – supposedly created in 2000, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
- File:Birendra dev.jpg – supposedly created in 1996, which is inconsistent with the {{PD-Nepal}} claim
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Herby talk thyme 11:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
There's an exact same image of the grizzly bear here: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-growling-grizzly-bear-image26609811 , which, in addition to the fact that it's two photos combined, makes it a probable copyright violation, Editor abcdef (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Herby talk thyme 11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Niet deze versie, maar de oude versie. Kan die verwijderd worden. Gvdvarst (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: You're not the uploader of the previous version, and this is not exactly the same picture. Please upload with a different name instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Gvdvarst is the subject of the picture, and is requesting the old picture to be removed because he had the flu on the day it was taken. --Vera (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: There seems to be no valid reason for deleting this image. Herby talk thyme 11:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Original source is gone, there is no license for the pubishing of this photo or previous versions Gvdvarst (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept the first version, which has a confirmed Flickr license - Jcb (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The USA has no COM:FOP for 3D sculptures unlike Canada or the UK.}} Leoboudv (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see, this photo must not be deleted because it meets the requirements of Wikipedia agree? is a photo taken by the author himself, and is not the first time that wax figures are used to Wikipedia, so please let it be. Moreover, the image I'm using in the Wikipedia in Spanish, I have nothing to do with Canada, UK or USA ...--SergiSmiler BCN (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
EXIF states copyright holder is Dianna Bonner www.WorldVisionPhotos.co.uk F-14A Tomcat (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: License laundering Ezarateesteban 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused fan art; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Not an appropriate reasoning. The fan base of Doctor Who is very notable. Fry1989 eh? 15:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I did not mention notability above, but I should note that this particular image does not automatically inherit notability from the fanbase from which it originates. Keφr (keep talk here) 20:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kephir -- How many times does it have to be explained to you that that it is NOT required that an individual image be "notable" for it to be kept on Commons?? Many things are different between Wikipedia and Commons -- for example, Commons simply lacks any "no original research" policy as such. Etc etc, and so on. Please keep your unsuitable Wikipedia-centric assumptions to yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I argue (mostly) not from "notability" but from COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST. Though I will note that if an image is a mere product of the uploader's imagination (say, some kind of symbol of a fantasy land, or of an organisation that does not have one), and would be for that reason misleading, unrepresentative, or in breach of some "due weight" policy if it appeared in an article, then its usefulness for an educational purpose is questionable. So not that rarely it boils down to the same thing. Keφr (keep talk here) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kephir -- How many times does it have to be explained to you that that it is NOT required that an individual image be "notable" for it to be kept on Commons?? Many things are different between Wikipedia and Commons -- for example, Commons simply lacks any "no original research" policy as such. Etc etc, and so on. Please keep your unsuitable Wikipedia-centric assumptions to yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep because: - 1) This is a harmless piece of fan art which fools nobody, and never had any intention of fooling anybody. Fan art is not banned from Commons (see COM:FANART). 2) Kephir discovered the existence of this file by scrolling down my uploaded files list, which makes it a revenge deletion nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- 1) The first point of Commons:Fan art#General rule requires that fan art be useful for an educational purpose, as required by project scope, and "self-created artwork without such educational purpose" is explicitly excluded. Please explain how this criterion is met here. 2) This is of little relevance and false. Keφr (keep talk here) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment If the flag is kept, two things should happen, in my opinion. First of all, I believe the term for the fans is "Whovians" rather than "Whoovians", so this ought to be renamed. Secondly, it should be clarified whether this flag is widely used by the "Whovian" community, which is currently unclear from the file description. Tom-L (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, no source other than "own work". I would keep it, if there was a source. I am not sure, that somebody ever other than uploaders have used the flag and this makes it out of project scope. (If you want to protest, give me proof, that the flag is used, and I will restore it.) Taivo (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Smilodon fatalis saber-toothed tigers recsontruction (La Brea Asphalt, Upper Pleistocene; Rancho La Brea tar pits, Los Angeles, southern California, USA) (15443383605).jpg
[edit]Artistic models, no freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, nice lynxes. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Smilodon fatalis saber-toothed tiger reconstruction (Upper Pleistocene; California, USA) 2 (15443231242).jpg
[edit]Artistic models, no freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Invalid PD reason (only applies to pre-1989 photos). January (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello January, Here is why I chose this reason: I contacted the copyright holder Lark Productions and this is what their rep said:
- "I looked through the Wikipedia templates and felt this applied to our scenario:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Publicity_still I don't believe we would need to provide written approval under these terms."
I've asked them to please pick a license but the business office is closed this week. I expect to hear back from them sometime in the next week or two. In the meantime, could you please NOT delete this image, because this is the URL the company will respond to if they decide on a license. At this point the image is not being used on any page, so please could you just leave it there a little while longer while I try to clear up this issue. Thank you so much! Bczogalla (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla
- Unfortunately that's a rather misleading template, it seems to be based on Film still#United States but unlike the article it fails to specify that the quotes refer to before 1989 when US copyright protection became automatic (see Copyright law of the United States#Copyright notices). You may like to add {{OTRS pending}} to the description page if the copyright holders have agreed to grant a free licence. January (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello January, Thanks for the info. Right now all I can do is wait for Lark Productions to send the email. If I add the "OTRS pending" note the whole thing will be deleted after a week, correct? What if the permission comes in the day after? With my luck that's what will happen, which is why I'm asking to leave the file up for now - it is not being used anywhere at this point and I really can't start throwing deadlines around... So, could you please leave the photo up a little longer? I would really appreciate it. I'm also on vacation next week and may not have internet access, so I can't help with anything. This is really bad timing, so that's why I'm asking for an extension. Could you please allow this? Thank you, I appreciate all the help. Also, can the Publicity Still Template be fixed so it contains the crucial 1989 date? Bczogalla (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Bczogalla
- ticket:2015082710019263 looks to me like appropriate licensing under CC-BY-SA-3.0 by the copyright holder of File:141110 Motive Vega 43831 R2.jpg. I only have read-only access to permissions queues though, so a volunteer from Commons will have to respond to and process the ticket. Hopefully the mention of it here will be sufficient to get this underway sooner rather than later. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- We received an email from Lark Productions; it seemed to be in order so I have processed the permission tag.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept, OTRS-permission is received. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
it's an independence movement flag, New caledonia flag is the same as France Titi.mto (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion (we have plenty of "independence movement flags"). At most, it could be cause for renaming the file... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep According to sources, this flag is the "nation's second official flag" alongside the flag of France. TDL (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of the very few flags of French overseas areas that are actually official, or at least one of two official national flags. SiBr4 (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reasoning for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Since a wish of the Congress of New Caledonia, Pro-Independence flag and French flag are jointly used to represent New Caledonia, together. The file "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg" must be renamed "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg", a think that couldn't be done while this page exists. Thank you ! Tharkun (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe this rename was correct. The French flag and this flag are two separate flags, so renaming File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg to "Flag of New Caledonia" would neither make sense or be appropriate. The rename of this file should be undone. Fry1989 eh? 15:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, please excuse my english who is not very fluent. It would make sens to respect the wish of the Congress of the New Caledonia, and the use that is made of this wish. The goal of this wish was to "recognize the double legitimacy" of Kanak people (represented by the Kanaky or Pro-Independence flag) and other communities (Europeans, Polynesians, Asiatics, represented by the French flag), a "double legitimacy" which is defined in the Nouméa Accord of 1998. In fact, the two flags are, jointly and for the moment, "the Flag of New Caledonia". Here are some sources, in French : "Deux drapeaux pour une île", JDD, 17/07/2010 ; "Le drapeau kanak flotte sur la Nouvelle-Calédonie", Libération, 19/07/2010, and one in english : "Joint hosting of the French and FLNKS flags in New Caledonia", Last modified: 2014-04-27 by ivan sache. Finally, the problem of having the name "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg" is a problem to edit the french template : Modèle:NCL-d who use the "File:Flag of [Name of the country].svg" --Tharkun (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- For those that see this discussion and are not aware, at the moment New Caledonia has two national flags. The flag of France and this flag are equal. This file has been named "Flag of New Caledonia", I believe dating back to it's original upload date, because it was considered the "regional flag" since New Caledonia is a overseas territory of France, while the French flag was considered the "national flag". That changed in the Noumea Accord, so calling it the "Flag of New Caledonia" is not entirely correct. Tharkun has mentioned there is a template problem on Wiki-Fr with File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg. Perhaps that can be fixed by renaming it to Flag of New Caledonia (dual flags) or something like that? Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you ! I don't think Flag of New Caledonia (dual flags) can resolve the problem, because the code of the Template Modèle:NCL-d uses another template, Modèle:CIO-d, that says : "[[:Fichier:Flag of {{{1}}}.svg]]|20px|border|Drapeau : {{{2}}}" So the name of the flag that represents the country must be : "Flag of [Name of the country].svg". --Tharkun (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Then edit the template to allow other file naming schemes. One template at one wiki not working well is not a good reason to move around files used on hundreds of wikis. SiBr4 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps that can be fixed by redirecting "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg" to "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg". --Tharkun (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you ! I don't think Flag of New Caledonia (dual flags) can resolve the problem, because the code of the Template Modèle:NCL-d uses another template, Modèle:CIO-d, that says : "[[:Fichier:Flag of {{{1}}}.svg]]|20px|border|Drapeau : {{{2}}}" So the name of the flag that represents the country must be : "Flag of [Name of the country].svg". --Tharkun (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- For those that see this discussion and are not aware, at the moment New Caledonia has two national flags. The flag of France and this flag are equal. This file has been named "Flag of New Caledonia", I believe dating back to it's original upload date, because it was considered the "regional flag" since New Caledonia is a overseas territory of France, while the French flag was considered the "national flag". That changed in the Noumea Accord, so calling it the "Flag of New Caledonia" is not entirely correct. Tharkun has mentioned there is a template problem on Wiki-Fr with File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg. Perhaps that can be fixed by renaming it to Flag of New Caledonia (dual flags) or something like that? Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, please excuse my english who is not very fluent. It would make sens to respect the wish of the Congress of the New Caledonia, and the use that is made of this wish. The goal of this wish was to "recognize the double legitimacy" of Kanak people (represented by the Kanaky or Pro-Independence flag) and other communities (Europeans, Polynesians, Asiatics, represented by the French flag), a "double legitimacy" which is defined in the Nouméa Accord of 1998. In fact, the two flags are, jointly and for the moment, "the Flag of New Caledonia". Here are some sources, in French : "Deux drapeaux pour une île", JDD, 17/07/2010 ; "Le drapeau kanak flotte sur la Nouvelle-Calédonie", Libération, 19/07/2010, and one in english : "Joint hosting of the French and FLNKS flags in New Caledonia", Last modified: 2014-04-27 by ivan sache. Finally, the problem of having the name "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg" is a problem to edit the french template : Modèle:NCL-d who use the "File:Flag of [Name of the country].svg" --Tharkun (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The problems that Tharkun has mentioned are not of such a nature as can be solved by file deletion, so nominating the image for deletion was pointless. Tharkun would have done much better to ask for help if he was having technical problems... AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a technical problem (and i'm open to all your help or advise to resolve it), but not only. By now, until a law changes that fact, the "flag of New Caledonia", the "regional flag" is the use jointly of the two flags, that represents the two legitimacy of being citizen of New Caledonia defined by the Noumea Accord. --Tharkun (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I specify that I don't ask the deletion of the file, but of the redirect page. Thank you --Tharkun (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- You put the deletion nomination directly on the image description page, yet deleting the image was not the solution to any problem, and would not resolve any issue... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I require the deletion on the redirect page, I don't want the delation of the image whose name is nom "File:Pro-Independence flag.svg". What is said on the image description page is : "A redirect to this media file, File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg, has been nominated for deletion since 1 August 2015." --Tharkun (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added that to the main file today, because the original deletion tag doesn't display on the redirect itself due to this four-year-old bug. SiBr4 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah ok, thank you ! And sorry if I made a mistake. --Tharkun (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I propose to keep the redirect page "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg", and redirect it to "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg". --Tharkun (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added that to the main file today, because the original deletion tag doesn't display on the redirect itself due to this four-year-old bug. SiBr4 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I require the deletion on the redirect page, I don't want the delation of the image whose name is nom "File:Pro-Independence flag.svg". What is said on the image description page is : "A redirect to this media file, File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg, has been nominated for deletion since 1 August 2015." --Tharkun (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- You put the deletion nomination directly on the image description page, yet deleting the image was not the solution to any problem, and would not resolve any issue... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I specify that I don't ask the deletion of the file, but of the redirect page. Thank you --Tharkun (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a technical problem (and i'm open to all your help or advise to resolve it), but not only. By now, until a law changes that fact, the "flag of New Caledonia", the "regional flag" is the use jointly of the two flags, that represents the two legitimacy of being citizen of New Caledonia defined by the Noumea Accord. --Tharkun (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Keep it, but redirect it to File:Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia.svg (new name of File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg which is now only a duplicated form of File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg since a sery of modifications by User:LuisAngel01). I have modified the name of File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg ot File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg in all versions of wikipedia. Thanks. --Tharkun (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose having the two-flag image at "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg", or having the title redirect to it. "Flag of ..." files should be single flags. "File:Flags of New Caledonia.svg" is a good name for the combined flags; I really don't understand the current name "File:Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia.svg" at all (not only because of the missing space).- While technically not the flag of New Caledonia, the Kanak flag is the only unique of its two official flags, so I think there is little wrong with that being at "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg". Simply "File:Kanak flag.svg" is an alternative I could support; the current "File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg" not, as it implies the flag is an unofficial independentist flag as opposed to an actually official one. SiBr4 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, there is, de jure, no official local flag of New Caledonia yet. A wish was voted to have the two flags, the french national flag and the flag of one political movement (the FLNKS), only as a symbolic recognition of those two legitimities, one being indissociable of the other. There is always official talks to chose one official local flag, who would represent all the population and country of New Caledonia. A lot of persons, but not only those opposed to independence (in the pro-independence, Palika or LKS, for example), are opposed to choose the "Kanaky flag" as this common flag. So, for the moment, this "Kanaky flag" is only the flag of the Kanak people. I replaced all the occurences in all versions of wikipedia that used the old "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg" to represent the Kanak people, or the Kanak nationalism, or the revendication for independence in New Caledonia by the new name File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg. If you want "File:Kanak flag.svg", that's ok, but a lot of Kanak, once again, don't recognise this as their flags. All the versions that are left are the templates that can't be changed. I disagree also with the new name "File:Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia.svg". I just ask for redirection, for technical reasons and a respect of the use and the representation of the two flags in New Caledonia. Those two flags are, for the moment, a "Flag" or "two flags in one". See for example : "Coup de force ou démocratie", Calédosphère, 09/08/2015. Thanks --Tharkun (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unless New Caledonia actually flies the two flags together like this the combined flag shouldn't be moved to or redirected from "Flag of New Caledonia.svg". At worst that could turn into a Pensacola-like issue: a combined-flags image confusingly being named and used as if it was a single flag. If you're saying the combination of two flags isn't actually "official", then there's even less reason to stick them together in a single file and use that globally; that would make New Caledonia like most other French overseas territories, with only the Tricolore having official status and one locally used unofficial flag existing. I'm fine with the Kanak flag being reasonably moved to a different name, provided the new name is factual, unmisleading and agreed upon, but let's have no file at "Flag of New Caledonia.svg" then. SiBr4 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, what you proposed is the better solution. Yes, the "Kanak flag" is official but only to represent the legitimity of the Kanak, in the wish voted by the Congress. You're right, a better name for it must be "File:Kanak flag.svg". And, yes, for the moment, and until the Congress voted by a law (not a wish) that these flag or another is the official flag for all New Caledonia, the better solution is to used the french flag. But there is always the technical problem of the Templates, some which edition is protected or semi-protected, that use the code :"Flag of [Name of the page / Name of the country].svg". Thanks. --Tharkun (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I noted above, it's better to edit the local templates to be compatible with Commons filenames, than the other way around. There are already many files that don't follow the "Flag of ….svg" format and couldn't be used by such templates. The redirect from "Flag of New Caledonia.svg" to the new name of the Kanak flag file can of course also be kept (and should, as long as it is actually used). SiBr4 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, what you proposed is the better solution. Yes, the "Kanak flag" is official but only to represent the legitimity of the Kanak, in the wish voted by the Congress. You're right, a better name for it must be "File:Kanak flag.svg". And, yes, for the moment, and until the Congress voted by a law (not a wish) that these flag or another is the official flag for all New Caledonia, the better solution is to used the french flag. But there is always the technical problem of the Templates, some which edition is protected or semi-protected, that use the code :"Flag of [Name of the page / Name of the country].svg". Thanks. --Tharkun (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unless New Caledonia actually flies the two flags together like this
- In fact, there is, de jure, no official local flag of New Caledonia yet. A wish was voted to have the two flags, the french national flag and the flag of one political movement (the FLNKS), only as a symbolic recognition of those two legitimities, one being indissociable of the other. There is always official talks to chose one official local flag, who would represent all the population and country of New Caledonia. A lot of persons, but not only those opposed to independence (in the pro-independence, Palika or LKS, for example), are opposed to choose the "Kanaky flag" as this common flag. So, for the moment, this "Kanaky flag" is only the flag of the Kanak people. I replaced all the occurences in all versions of wikipedia that used the old "File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg" to represent the Kanak people, or the Kanak nationalism, or the revendication for independence in New Caledonia by the new name File:Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia.svg. If you want "File:Kanak flag.svg", that's ok, but a lot of Kanak, once again, don't recognise this as their flags. All the versions that are left are the templates that can't be changed. I disagree also with the new name "File:Pre-IndependenceFlags of New Caledonia.svg". I just ask for redirection, for technical reasons and a respect of the use and the representation of the two flags in New Caledonia. Those two flags are, for the moment, a "Flag" or "two flags in one". See for example : "Coup de force ou démocratie", Calédosphère, 09/08/2015. Thanks --Tharkun (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![21 File:Custom Praetorian with "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" engraved on the Ti Handle.jpg](#File:Custom_Praetorian_with_"Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima"_engraved_on_the_Ti_Handle.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_2014,_oil_on_linen_105_x_95_cm.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TjEs0cPQIZs/TOug6l18IUI/AAAAAAAAFtE/rFAaiwfIv3Y/s1600/DSC_0332.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_UN_Secretary-General_U_Thant_at_the_Narayanhiti_Royal_Palace.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15443383605).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2_(15443231242).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Kept, New Caledonia actually exists and it has a flag(s). So it is logical, that Commons has a filename "Flag of New Caledonia". If this is only redirect – no problem. If it redirects on wrong file – change a redirect. Deletion is not a good solution. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Windows screenshot, not free. However we have some more: Category:Blue screen of death. Yann (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Vk}}Hmmm... It is sailing very close to the storm for sure. It is purely text but text may have originality too. Now, the §"bugcheck information" or §"Debug report [sic] information" are definitely not passing the threshold of originality; these info are different from computer to computer. The problematic area is the §"Recommended user action [sic]". Does it pass originality or is it utilitarian overgeneralized jibber-jabber? Well, I think it's the latter but even if this image is deleted, it won't be the worst thing in the world. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's a COPYVIO from a 2003 book. Windows Server 2003 Registry by Olga Kokoreva. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=T53VAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219#v=onepage&q&f=false Identical right down to the faulting address, the driver name, and the time/date stamp. Jeh (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems to have been plagiarised from Microsoft's TechNet: here it is there now; Wayback Machine did not catch the image, but apparently it has been there since September 2000 at least. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- True. But it is tagged for "PD-ineligible"; it no longer matters from where it has come. What matter is whether the assertion of PD-ineligible is correct. Please consider weighing in on that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- At the very least, the claim of the uploader, William Pina, of "Own work" is invalid. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where it's tagged that way. But that category is described as "These images are ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because they consist entirely of information that are common property a nd contain no original authorship." I assert that the annotations are "original authorship" by someone, and definitely not by William Pina. Jeh (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I could agree about PD-ineligible, but at least the date, the author and the source should be fixed. Yann (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I could agree about PD-ineligible, but at least the date, the author and the source should be fixed. Yann (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- True. But it is tagged for "PD-ineligible"; it no longer matters from where it has come. What matter is whether the assertion of PD-ineligible is correct. Please consider weighing in on that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems to have been plagiarised from Microsoft's TechNet: here it is there now; Wayback Machine did not catch the image, but apparently it has been there since September 2000 at least. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per precautionary principle. Following the discussion above, it appears that there are two area that might be protected by copyright: (1) A portion of the screenshot containing a recommendation text (even though it is slapdash and over-general); (2) An additional explanatory markup by a second author, for a Microsoft Press book. (See image description page.) Forgiving one criterion may be acceptable but not two, especially since the markup can recreated by the uploader and a less wordy shot (with less risk) can be chosen. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia. Gino74 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. Unsure if the first publishing happened in Italy Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence this photo was a part of any Russian governmental document. Even if we consider that Office of the President of Chechen Republic was following Russian laws in 1994, photos are not in public domain by default according to Russian laws NickK (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Chechenia is russian territory from ca. 1750 to this day. Ukrainian, do you have a problem to solve? References https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F. Zetpe0202 (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept, has probably correct license. Taivo (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Photographs are not covered by PD-RU-exempt, as {{Kremlin.ru}} and {{Mil.ru}} tell us. It can be used on projects with fair use, but it can't be hosted here on Commons. Ping Taivo BAW024 (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Note official seal of president of Chechen Republic. This makes the photo "other material of ... administrative ... character", which is free from copyright by PD-RU-exempt. Taivo (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Chechenia is russian territory from ca. 1750 to this day. Russian territory, russian law. Problem ? {{PD-RU-exempt}} Zetpe0202 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. 1) Per the nomination. 2) The page does not have a U.S. template and no explanation is provided for how the photograph might be free in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, This image is not covered by the exceptions in {{PD-RU-exempt}}. It is not per se an official documents (like laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions...). BrightRaven (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Non è certa la data di prima pubblicazione in Italia per tanto potrebbe non rientrare nel PD Italia Gino74 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. It is not sure, that the first publishing of the photo happened in Italy. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 27.10.2010 by 1-upload user Odelmo (talk · contributions · Statistics) (low res 800x533, but exif available), this aerial photo of the Brazilian stadium pt:Estádio Municipal João Havelange situated in the city Uberlândia is available in original high res 3888x2592 with identical exif, published later via (examples):
- http://fotospublicas.com/cidades-mineiras-mobilizam-sediar-treinamento-selecoes-copa-mundo/ (CC BY-NC 2.0) = http://fotospublicas.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2013/12/o-estadio-joao-havelange-em-uberlandia-e-o-segundo-maior-de-minas-gerais.jpg
- http://www.bwsp17.infis.ufu.br/?page_id=38 = http://www.bwsp17.infis.ufu.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Vista-A%C3%A9rea-Complexo-do-Sabi%C3%A1-Daniel-Nunes.jpg
The 1st link gives credits to "Foto: Daniel Nunes/GEMG (03/03/2010)". The 2nd link cites the photographer in the file name. The related LinkedIn-profile of "Daniel Nunes" is most likely https://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-nunes/22/668/343, indicating that he is currently working for "TV Globo Minas" [Gerais] and worked in 03.2010 (when photo was taken) for en:Globosat. "GEMG" (1st link) stands most likely for Globo Esporte Minas Gerais (part - as "Globosat" - of en:Grupo Globo, Minas Gerais is a state of Brazil) and indeed the photo also appears on http://globoesporte.globo.com/mg/triangulo-mineiro/noticia/2012/05/parque-do-sabia-palco-da-selecao-brasileira-e-de-grandes-times-nacionais.html, giving here also credits to "Foto: Daniel Nunes").
The photo is mostly attributed to "Daniel Nunes" also on other sites, like the official site of the city Uberlândia:
- http://www.uberlandia.mg.gov.br/?pagina=FutelNoticias&id=7482 (credit here: "Foto: Daniel Nunes/SECOM/PMU")
On same site (but without credit) we have a set of photos, most likely all taken on this occasion. The related images 1 + 2 are available in identical res 800x533 which might be an indication that the photo in question was taken originally from this site. The credit "SECOM/PMU" stands here for "Secretaria Municipal de Comunicação/Prefeitura Municipal de Uberlândia" (= +/- Municipal Bureau of Communications/Municipality of Uberlândia).
But despite some efforts I could not locate a source publishing the photo before upload date in Commons. All above cited sources published the photo only after 27.10.2010. Nevertheless, a COM:OTRS-connection between Odelmo and "David Nunes" should be established. Gunnex (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, this is the upkloader's only contribution, so I trust Gunnex more than Odelmo. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The satirist w:Nimrod Kamer (right) is a known spoofer and serial COI editor of his Wikipedia page. This picture appears to be photoshopped with Kamer inserted into it artificially. There is no record online of Lily Allen and Kamer ever working together and the odd arm artifact to Lily Allen's right gives it away. This is part of a series of spoof images by Kamer, see also File:Jeremy Corbyn, August 2015, London.jpg also under deletion review. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, no metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is on public display, a photograph of it with 'own work' license will be preferred. This image does not show that. Being on public display does not mean it can be uploaded here without giving any details of source/permissions TripWire (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This document is in public domain because it contains information that is common property of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan; not because it is kept in public place. This document has no original author. It is also in public domain per {{PD-text}}. - Arr4 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete
- There is no source to claim that it is 'common property of Bangladesh...' whatever that means.
- Second, this document is NOT a public document in Pakistan as claimed by Arr4. This document was never revealed by Government of Pakistan, and isnt on public display in Pakistan nor it is publicly available in Pakistan as being claimed.
- Third, the source as mentioned in the source section of the images says The copies of this document are on public display at the National Museums of Bangladesh and India, so again Arr4's claim that it is in PD not because it is kept in public place fails the test.
- Fourth, examples of {{PD-text}} can be seen here. All documents under PD-text like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc mentions a credible source to the documents, which in this case is not present.
- Fifth, FoP-Bangladesh says:
The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright, namely:— [...] (19) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;
- which this document is not.--TripWire (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - This document is not only a property of Bangladesh, but also property of India and Pakistan. You can see the signatures of the representatives of these countries there. As this document is a common property of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan; and has no single original author to whom the copyright may be vested, thus it is in the public domain per {{PD-ineligible}}. "This document was never revealed by Government of Pakistan" as it is a piece of shame for the Pakistan Government. It is unnecessary for a document that is in Public domain to abide by {{FoP-Bangladesh}}, although it still follows the law. As the law says:
According to the "2000 Copyright Act of Bangladesh", artistic recreations of public architecture and art work are exceptions to the rights of authors. Exceptions to infringement states: : Article 72. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright, namely:— : [...] : (19) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of architecture or the display of a work of architecture; : (20) the making or published (sic) of painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under section 36(c), if such work is permanently situated in public place or any premises to which the public has access; : (21) the inclusion in a cinematograph film of— :: (i) any artistic work permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; or :: (ii) any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film;
- Arr4 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment None of the above change the fact that the image is without source, attribution and license. Rather, being the common property of Pakistan, Indian and Bangladesh, it is covered by the copyright laws of all three countries thereby making it important to abide by the copyright laws of all these countries. Going by your definition of being in PD because it was signed by A, B and C, then all surrender, agreement or other documents that have been signed my more than one country should automatically be in PD?? It that be the case, people who have sourced ALL such documents as shown here in the Category:PD_text are doing it without a reason?
- BTW, this SPA IP 103.25.... adding the same disputed info to the image in a different form will only make the issue worse.--TripWire (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep First of all, Description of this file needed to fix. Doc clearly falls under {{PD-text}} in the first place therefore {{PD-ineligible}} NOT because it's for public display. What's that got to do anything with the FOP-Bangladesh anyway? I've fixed the attribution as someone scanned it from the original. In response to TripWire'S comment above - There is no source to claim that it is 'common property of Bangladesh...' whatever that means., According to {{PD-text}} common property means - The work
is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.
Moreover, Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo, on the grounds that such an image is not sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection. Such images should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}. ~ Nahid Talk 20:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Sir Nahid,first, being from Bangladesh, you clearly has a WP:COI on this issue. Second, it is not a scanned copy as you are telling us. Third, going by your definition of PD:Text, every document in the Category:PD_text should be without a source. What's the source to this document? I mean, it is not a logo which one can just get off the market, so we can only tell if it falls under PD:text if its source says so, which i this case is missing. Fourth, you have added to the image that this file was scanned. How do you know that if the original uploader didnt mention this when he uploaded it? --TripWire (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Dear TripWire, Are you telling me every editor who has come from USA can't put their opinion on US related issue? Based on your contribution on enwp & other incidents I'm afraid it's not me who has WP:COI, it's you. Btw, that's not what we're discussing here. As you're saying, is it really without source? Because, the image description & source clearly mention where it was come from. It's a common sense that it was scanned from the original otherwise how on earth someone just uploaded it out from nowhere because it's a unique document. Original uploader did added a license though on a older version. ~ Nahid Talk 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sir, you know what I am saying. You are an Admin here i.e. you have vote of confidence from other editors for being neutral. Being and Admin your opinion/vote carries more weightage than any other editor, so if you are going to comment here, it is clear COI. And Admin from Bangladesh commenting in favor of an image from Bangladesh? That sound like COI to me, I dont know why didt yo get it? Had you been a regular editor, I wouldnt have cared. But you already know that, dont you? As for the license; it's about the source. Did the uploader scanned it himself? If not, where's the source he got it from? A government website etc? And if yes, does that website allow this image to be used with the license being planted with the image here? Really, it is not that hard a question which you as an Admin are unable to comprehend. BTW, being in COI, you should refrain from participating in debate. And adding a 'wrong' license does not make the upload legit.--TripWire (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Dear TripWire, Are you telling me every editor who has come from USA can't put their opinion on US related issue? Based on your contribution on enwp & other incidents I'm afraid it's not me who has WP:COI, it's you. Btw, that's not what we're discussing here. As you're saying, is it really without source? Because, the image description & source clearly mention where it was come from. It's a common sense that it was scanned from the original otherwise how on earth someone just uploaded it out from nowhere because it's a unique document. Original uploader did added a license though on a older version. ~ Nahid Talk 14:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is obviously eligible for literary copyright. The file will be restored in 2032, when the Bangladesh copyright ends (Pakistani copyright ends 10 years sooner). Taivo (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChocolateCherryNight (talk · contribs)
[edit]IMHO: The calligraphy is above TOO (similar to engravings). The Modern Farmer Logo is borderline TOO.
- File:Masksbs.png
- File:제빵왕 김탁구.png
- File:Modern Farmer Logo.png
- File:내 이름은 김삼순.png
- File:가족끼리 왜 이래.png
- File:Misaeng.png
- File:The King's Doctor.png
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Not an appropriate reasoning. --Pinguictor (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- What's not appropriate about the reasoning? IMHO this is artwork and therefor the copyright belongs to the artist. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as per User:Hedwig. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChocolateCherryNight (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)