Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/11/22

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 22nd, 2015
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is actually previously deleted due to being out of scope. Poké95 04:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It seems the uploader took picture of this artwork printed somewhere, then thought this is their own work and uploaded it as CC-0. However I don't find any evidence that the original artwork is in CC-0, and it's not simple enough to be PD-ineligible. Liangent (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by User:Mys 721tx. JuTa 11:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like a screenshot from some video but I'm not sure. Liangent (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is a video but the video is not copyright.--张茗洋 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Файлы:Неиспользуемые свободные от unknown date‎ Leonid Kurevlyov (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Non-free poster. http://i32.fastpic.ru/big/2012/0114/b4/fd876218dee554622375a30c0e0049b4.png Sealle (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Файлы:Неиспользуемые свободные от unknown date‎ Leonid Kurevlyov (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC) {{subst:ofud}}[reply]


Deleted: http://i32.fastpic.ru/big/2012/0114/b4/fd876218dee554622375a30c0e0049b4.png Non-free poster. Sealle (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The OTRS ID is invalid and I did not find the filemame through search of OTRS, so this file needs a proof of permission Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS given at Serbian Wikipedia is ID: 3396357, number 2009072410055859. Maybe the template needs fixing?--Zoupan (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zoupan, You are right, I am sorry I should have figured it out. It is weird that OTRS can be accessed by either "TicketNumber" confusingly called by {{PermissionOTRS}} "id" or by "ticketID" which is not used on Commons. Permissions using "ticketID" always provide the full URL through parameter "ticket". To my knowledge Serbian wikipedia is the only one using "ticketID". Commons needs to deal with templates being copied from great many sources and allows several input styles, but we never had a need for ticketID since no wikipedia (that transfers to Commons) was using it. Any file using it would end up in Category:Items with incorrect OTRS ticket ID which is almost empty. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: My mistake the OTRS permission seems fine. Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Associated Press photo that had been posted to Flickr under a Creative Commons license Shinerunner (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: non-commercial license on flickr. JuTa 08:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I accidentally uploaded this screenshot. Already uploaded the correct version instead, and this version contains private meta-data (user name) and isn't being used anywhere. אנבה (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright infringement, not his own work, the original photo is here: http://5sing.kugou.com/yc/1088847.html 122.90.98.235 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio Mys_721tx (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright infringement, not his own work, the original photo is here: http://5sing.kugou.com/yc/1088847.html 122.90.98.235 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio Mys_721tx (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gattolio9998 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/06/Production/Outlook/Images/MichaelDukakis.jpg&w=1484.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Gattolio9998 (talk · contribs)

Small size, no EXIF data, user blocked for copyvios, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All these images can be found on the Internet. Clearly not own works. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per Banfield. Also Gattolio9998 was blocked from es.wikipedia because edtion conflicts, and sockpuppetring. Joacogatto2000, Joaco741236985 and Joacogatto20136 are the same user. --Taichi (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Tiny duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license).

59 files
* File:Ljubljana (19235650343).jpg

Josve05a (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Nothing in common with project scope, regardless of license. Especially interesting, what was the goal of uploading this. Stas (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Stas. No point in arguing over, or even worrying about, the license status of an image that's not going to be useful. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as out of scope images that clutter the flick review queue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (I uploaded this file). Josve05a (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (I uploaded this file). Josve05a (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (I uploaded this file). Josve05a (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (I uploaded this file). Josve05a (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (I uploaded this file). Josve05a (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This has to be deleted because of licensing reasons. Sevku (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no license since 16.11. JuTa 04:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Overwritten file: two in one. The new upload by Tiberioclaudio99 (talk · contribs) has unknown source and licence. We should delete the new upload but keep the old upload. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe we can ask Tiberioclaudio99 (talk · contribs) to upload correctly his own version (supposing it's his on work and he choose a correct licence)? But if I agree my own photograph isn't perfect, far from it, I see no reason to delete or overwrite it. Thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I've performed a history split on File:Cathedral sevilla interior 34.JPG. I kept the overwritten content, and it remains at File:Cathedral sevilla interior 34.JPG. The new content is now at File:El retablo de la capilla de la Virgen de la Antigua visto desde la entrada lateral (Catedral de Sevilla).jpg. I've marked the new content as lacking a license. —RP88 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

used for vandalism petrohs (gracias) 03:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright vio Dr-Taher (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nude model Mariana Ocho, Commons:NETCOPYRIGHT. Thuresson (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

فایل باید اصلاح شود. Ah6481ah (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploaders request on upload day. JuTa 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by 3C PRO (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Spam Mys_721tx (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's with sad emotions I'm forced to create this deletion request per the closing comments of Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images.

Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms. Therefore, we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Public Domain Mark 1.0 is not the same as Public Domain or {{PD-author}}. If someone could please email the author(s) and please ask them to either license under a free license or specify that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law, as per {{PD-author}} (which the images are claiming they have, but which they haven't according to Public Domain Mark 1.0 of which they are tagged on Flickr).

5 729 files
* File:01 A training about human rights has been concluded sucessfully today in Mogadishu.jpg (14350185672).jpg

Josve05a (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion)

[edit]
  • Undoubtedly, some people will see the size of this DR and want to yell at Josve05a for it. It is based on the results of a RFC that has been open since April, however, and the situation seems fairly clear... that the mere statement, on Flickr, that a work is PD does not meet our requirements for a 'justification' of why it is PD. These files, essentially, fail 'PD-review' as a group... some might, individually, be fine upon inspection, but we should not be hosting several thousand files upon the mere 'assertion', without any justification, that they are PD. If they are not 'inherently' PD (as in the case of something like PD-USGov), and it is actually a case of them being CC-0, then that license must be explicitly stated by the Flickr account... without that, as it stands I don't think the PRP will let us keep these. This is a different situation from something like PD-USGov, where the 'US origin' lets us ignore the copyright status in other countries (and it's a common misconception that US Govt works are PD worldwide.... they are not). These are non-US works. Revent (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if I find a clear copyvio on Commons, instead of tagging them as copyvio, I should contact the author and request a relicense before notifying parties here on Commons (via DRs)? We can't keep them when there are issues with them. They need to go, both per the legal text and per PRP. We need to act on the licens the images are under now, not what they might become if we are lucky (and work hard). Josve05a (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the African Union Mission to Somalia posting their own photos to Flickr is a case of «clear copyvio» for you? Not a case of Flickr allowing misleading wording in their dropdown form items and people failing to notice? Well, my work in Commons is about promoting free knowledge, not about gotcha moments on those unfortunate people who forgot to read the small print. This matter needs fixing and fixing needs time! In this case, of photos by the African Union Mission to Somalia (and not funny selfies for the lulz by Gabe H. Coud), COM:AGF trumps COM:PRP. -- Tuválkin 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me aress those points in order mentioned.
  1. No, not obvious copyvio, that was an exaple for which I reused your arguments to to its sillyness.
  2. I'm not about gotcha moments (what is that even in this context?). But there is a legal problem here. The author has tagged them with one legal text, we can not change that.
  3. If they read the fine print (~10 lines in total, all equal small) or not is not a matter of discussion, they have agreed to one legal tet, not some other, even though they may have similar names (compare PD with CC, similar names with different postfixes). Now they have chosen a tag "PD Mark 1.0" which is supposed to be used for things such as PD-arts, and not be used to release things to public domain, since that's not a thing, you can't. That's what the second row in {{PD-author}} is there for.
  4. No, in the time between noticing this problem, we can't wait for the authers all to notice (and care) and relisense them, we must still abide to our reusers, and we should not rely on that we ‘might’ be able to get them to relicense the images, in any case we should not be disseminating them in the meantime.
Josve05a (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: AMISOM has changed license to cc-0. A mass flickr rereview is pending. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no encyclopedian value Albinfo (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ISH Teachy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images. Commons is not Facebook. Uploader claims they are "own work", but appears in both images. They are not selfies, so he is not the copyright holder. Uploader has committed several acts of vandalism on WP:EN.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non-notable text-only pdf. -- Tuválkin 02:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non-notable text-only pdf. -- Tuválkin 02:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non-notable text-only pdf. -- Tuválkin 02:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Deepak.fun (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope

Alan (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photo out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope: unused, not educational image. KurodaSho (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope: unused, not educational graffiti. KurodaSho (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope MMFE (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Self-promotion, not educationally useful. AxeEffect (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

educational use? Amada44  talk to me 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

presumably Copyrightviolation, see [1] Dandelo (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The article on this person has been deleted from WP:EN. Is this in scope? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyvio of http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/one-dozen-eggs_medium.jpg from http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/one-dozen-eggs.html. Copyright owned by Florida Center for Instructional Technology. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unclear copyright status. Obviously not "own work" (grabbed from Internet) = logo of es:Club Atlético Aldosivi, an Argentine football club. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo aldosivi.svg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo del Club Aldosivi.svg + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nicolasp21 considered to be a copyrighted logo/no trivial text/shape logo. which seems to be above COM:TOO. Permission needed.

Per above, nominating also the derivate


Deleted: No permission --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by John12787 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:John12787 / logs. File:Nuevomonumental.jpg (uploaded 05.11.2009) appears to be previously published via http://football.hiblogger.net/img/userfiles/2008/08/31/54881/nuevomonumental-agdgj.jpg (per url path: uploaded 31.08.2008), but both versions seems to be cropped...

Gunnex (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, the other file come from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=749946&page=61 --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

hazelgwapa123xd 222.127.73.29 07:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this request vandalism? By the way, I could think of better reasons for deletion than "hazelgwapa123xd".Hansmuller (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: vandalic deletion nomination George Chernilevsky talk 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope: unused signature by not-notable person. This image was used for vandal on jawiki. KurodaSho (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Screenshot of probably copyrighted work, see COM:DW A.Savin 14:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: also copyvio http://netafull.net/ingress/051673.html --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Sequencestar. MER-C 14:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

some unknown un-notable person, see description Motopark (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

the image doesn't show what the description says, and anyway is too small and bad to be of any encyclopedic use WolfD59 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in France, obviously contemporary architecture A.Savin 15:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in France A.Savin 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: The architect Jean Balladur died in 2002, these work are still protected --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Built in 1989, no FoP in France A.Savin 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Built in 1989, no FoP in France A.Savin 15:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Banlieue-Banlieue (1982-1989) artwork, not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.3.71 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no permission --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation. http://mag.sendenkaigi.com/kouhou/201402/society-agreement/001495.php Aoioui (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Pablo Agesta Toledo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

book cover, out of scope, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused screenshot, out of scope, one of few uploads, no cat. Pibwl (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

banner out of scope (Catholic pilgrim travel bureau). Same for the other upload File:Pielgrzymki.jpg Pibwl (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

doubftul own work, sole upload, unused, no cat., unknown notability Pibwl (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused banner - out of scope, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no real educational value, unusable quality Pibwl (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dhruv dass (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope personal photos.

FredWalsh (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

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 France.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cargo-sur-la-Seine-devant-Caudebec-en-Caux-DSC 0375.jpg ==> De minimis. --Pline (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, and also more an image of an engineering work, not architecture. PaterMcFly (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This aspect of copyright law is clearly about works of art. If a bridge is primarily a work of art, why not a house, a car, or a tractor, which all have creative designers who care about their appearances? But with works of engineering, such as bridges, the design is driven almost entirely by the engineering options, and not by art. There is far less room for artistic creativity than with buildings and vehicles. So I would suggest that deletion requests like this ought to be driven only by copyright holders defending their copyrights, and not by a general approach which errs massively on the side of caution. Moonraker (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, French bridges are subject to their designers' copyright. Engineers can have copyrights over the works they designed courtesy of the very restrictive and suffocating French copyright law that does not suit to Wikimedia. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#Let's talk about bridges in France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per the April 2023 discussion. Yann's possible exception for "ordinary highway bridges" doesn't seem to apply here. Renerpho (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As I said in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pont de l'Iroise, I'm not convinced TOO has been met: this is a standard cable-stayed bridge design, so how does it have "imprint of the personality of the author"? holly {chat} 17:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per VPC discussion and Jwilz. I kept the first one since the bridge is de minimis there. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Tiene error en el nombre Ali vill 1 (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Utiliza la plantilla {{Rename}} Alan (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

do not need 76.219.201.78 05:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not need 76.219.201.78 05:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not need 76.219.201.78 05:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: not a valid reason Alan (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Dubious licensing. No clear evidence of the date of original publication. Sealle (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright status of the text is unclear DmitTrix (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lesser quality copy of older file File:Balkan League poster.png. Redirect there. Zoupan (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lesser quality copy of older file File:Balkan League poster.png. Redirect there. Zoupan (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused book cover - probably autopromo of author, unclear copyright for a cover Pibwl (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

magazine cover, unclear copyright status, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Possible copyright violation. Poké95 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images.

Josve05a (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Although the text renders correctly in my drawing application, it does not here. Please delete and I will try another method of creating this file. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images.

Josve05a (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, obviously. Revent and Josve05a, you keep harping that this was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images since April and now, so sorry, lets delete the lot. Were the authors contacted and asked to reconsider their tagging in Flickr, suggested they change it to something we can use? No?, in seven months time? Why not? Why now these toxic DRs badgering(pun!) us to try and fix in seven days what you didn’t want to fix in seven months? -- Tuválkin 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, obviously. Feel free to write up a letter to original photographers (not uploaders) asking if they wish for their pictures to be removed from Commons if you care, but it should be opt-in for deletion not opt-out. This business is absurd - going round mass-deleting images whose photographers have marked them as public domain is a totally unacceptable approach. I edit Wikipedia extensively and hadn't heard about this business until I logged in to upload some new photos today. Many of these photos may have been uploaded by people who have long departed the project - their contributions shouldn't be erased with a week's notice. Blythwood (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change the licenses the {{Cc0}} to clear up this legal issue at Commons. The license cc0 is OK but cc-pd is NOT. This is a simple solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Josve05a: If this is genuinely a problem, then we will need a form letter to write to individual authors asking them to relicence. Has such a letter been written yet to send out to each author? Blythwood (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, and neither is it done for FoP-cases or URAA-cases (unless someone activly does it individually) or in any case when we might have a possibilty to get a relicense. I just brought forth the problem. How we solve it is up to each and their own. Josve05a (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. (PD-author is NOT the same as PD Mark 1.0!) Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: as per Asclepias and Alan. Yann (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still hasn't a license. How can a file be kept without a license...? Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. -- Tuválkin 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope Moumou82 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope Moumou82 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

as the painter seems to be alive, we need an OTRS permission from the author --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Contains originality. Duplicate of a file that is deemed original: en:File:Minecraft_Story_Mode_Logo.png, Derivative of work that is deemed original: en:File:Minecraft_logo.svg. Finnusertop (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Hell, no. Flickr gives their users the choice to release their work as PD and by chosing it they believe they are making it the most free possible. Commons need to tap this obvious source of good-will: If more discussion and analysis is needed, then take you time; if that fails then it is necessary to caution Flickr users about legal issues and recomend them to change that faux PD to CC-by-SA or something. Deleting the photos obviously donated by users is premature and unnecessary, short-sighted, and counter-productive — it will alienate these photographers and send out the wrong message that Wikimedia Commons refuses PD works. -- Tuválkin 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This PD Mark is not a license, nor can someone release something under it. Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms.

Plus, we can not assume an authors intentions nor relicense files to our reusers, without expressly stated license agreements of such things, which there are none. I agree, it says public domain, but it is the actual legal texts that has precedence, not the letterhead. We can guess what an author wants all day, but in the end we will comit fraud and relicense images without explicit permission from the owners. Josve05a (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional arguments will get me nowhere?! What?! Is this me wanting something that you don’t? No, we all want this and thousands of other images to be kept. I, for one, am ready to work for it, and contacted this photo’s author in Flickr. What did you do, besides playing Devil’s advocate and lobbying for deletion of thousands of photos whose authors want shared to the world? (Yes, some might be iffy — but that’s applied to any license, and we do have mechanisms to deal with license misuse.) -- Tuválkin 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this was a license misuse, claiming to be under one legal text, while being under another. THis is a way to handle such a missuse. Of course I stand for free infomration and knowledge in all shapes and formes. But I'm also thinking legaly here. We need to err on PRP and delete the files until a file may have been relicensed on Flickr. Josve05a (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Waste of time, legalese speaking in a corner leads 7 months later to this? What was made meanwhile by sid persons? Nothing, but they want others to do the same thing in 7 days. Close this and similar DR, discuss the subject in an open and public forum (not in someones backyard) and reach a conclusion. Tm (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationaleis a violation of PRP. (Nobody has complained) And no, consensus has nothing to do with this, it is the legal aspects we need to look at. (scope discussions etc. need consensus, this does not.It is a violation) Josve05a (talk)
A RFC listed at COM:CENT for over six months is by far not 'someone's backyard'. It is, in fact, about as 'open and public' of a venue as you can have. Revent (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: as per Asclepias and Alan. Yann (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still hasn't a license. How can a file be kept without a license...? Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now has a license — thanks to people who enganged the photographer on Flickr, not to the fruitless squabbling here. -- Tuválkin 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

DW of the copyrightable vehicle design, and a work of art. (See e.g. COM:TOYS) Josve05a (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, obviously. Blythwood (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It seems pretty clear to me that if a government body, from a city government that is normally very willing to put its materials out there for reuse (see the tons of images we have from the Seattle City Archives), says these materials are PD, they either know exactly what they are talking about or intend the mark as a release. If there is really any doubt (as against someone just being systematic about dicscussing every instance of this license tag), I'd suggest contacting the relevant Flickr account, which is clearly that of the Council itself, and asking for clarification via COM:OTRS.

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep and speedy close. No new issues raised, similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem. Several on this topic have been reopened and reclosed. Blythwood (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted The Creative Commons web site is very clear that the PDM mark is only a label, intended to be used only with very old works, to say that it is the user's opinion that the work is free of copyright everywhere. It does not create a license and may be changed at any time. If the Flickr site intended to make this image CC-0, at the very best, they made a serious mistake by picking a label that should be used only for very old works. I am unwilling to guess what the user's intentions actually were. Seeing that mistake, can we trust that the copyright actually belongs to the Seattle City Council?

The best course of action here will be for someone interested in this image to ask the Seattle City Council Flickr user to use a proper CC license instead of PDM. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per Previous DR. Neither "own work" nor "textlogo" - above the TOO in my opinion. The emblem was designed by Adidas in 2011 and used in a limited-edition jersey to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the club. - sources: link 1, link 2, link 3. Fma12 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the author to Adidas, thanks for the sources. I vectorize this from my jersey (http://www.rivermillonarios.com.ar/media/reportero/132/4/0/1/7/o_20110901153354_el_local_de_adidas_se_convulsiono_con_la_nueva_camiseta.jpg) --FairWinds (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond you have modified the authorship, the logo is above the TOO and therefore is not suitable to be hosted on Commons. Fma12 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by EugeneZelenko Alan (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license).

Josve05a (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, unfortunately, unless the copyright owner can be persuaded to put them under a compatible license. Revent (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Advertising/promotional (out of scope). FredWalsh (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Themidget17 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Screenshots of probably copyrighted work, see COM:DW

A.Savin 14:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyrighted screen shots, not own work. Rehevkor 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

probably non-free media El Funcionario (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: deleted by Hedwig in W Alan (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Acamartinganj (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable

Motopark (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dolphizgler (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably not own work. It said in the source "google.com", so it is highly possible these files are copyright violation. Images from WWE are mostly not published under a free license. See Commons:Licensing.

Poké95 10:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by AZUMI1964 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private video album. Not used. Commons:Derivative works from music.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright Infringement Vikity33 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is out of scope, then delete it ! What else could I say ? AndWater (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Built in 1989, no FoP in France A.Savin 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

German stamps especially those which were printed since 1995 aren't automatically in the public domain. The pictures, montages or edited photos shown on these stamps are all works of Corinna Rogger who is still alive, look for example here. So all these files are copyrighted and can not be hosted here for longer.

Correlatio (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in Russia for sculptures A.Savin 16:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The page is no longer used because the image was replaced by a more suitable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk Florence (talk • contribs) 2015-11-14T22:01:39‎ (UTC)


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unknown author, unknown date - no evidence uploader has permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Este libro no tiene licencia libre, es propiedad de la editorial Santillana como se puede ver en la portada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortisa (talk • contribs) 2015-11-20T21:07:52‎ (UTC)


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pussy drive.jpg 99of9 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (self-created artwork without obvious educational use) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 22:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to do that, than I would prefer to use an image that is better done. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Naked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojahiid (talk • contribs) 2015-11-21T19:48:01‎ (UTC)


Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnail format and missing exif, Roland zh (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

doesn't seem to be own work - sole upload, no EXIF, low res (possibly 3d graphics with blurred cars?) Pibwl (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Tiny duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Taivo Alan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not in the public domain in UK. I copied the movie on enwiki. Yann (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unclear copyright status - no details, that the uploader is author, apart from username. Besides, unused and out of scope. Same for other user's uploads Pibwl (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

doubtful own work - quite proffessional, sole upload, anonymous uploader Pibwl (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

doubtful own work - anonymous uploader, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no realistic educational use, blurred Pibwl (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The poster in the middle belongs to Mughal-e-Azam, a 1960 film, for which copyright expires in India in 2020. Blanking it out would not be effective because it is in the center, so the photo should be deleted. FredWalsh (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

out of scope - used only on en-wiki user's page, which is his only contribution since 2013 Pibwl (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aqucorrea (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Flickwashing, considering (examples):

Related: recent Flickrwasher Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rodrigo768 with similar uploads of images related to Argentine football clubs.

Gunnex (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused logo of a school in Macedonia- unusable low quality Pibwl (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

EXIF says author is "D.Grandemange - 4vents.fr". COM:OTRS permission needed. Yann (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

1993 source Zoupan (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Although possibly may be PD-USGov, it's highly doubtful that {{Own}} applies. howcheng {chat} 04:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bad quality, see Category:Arača for substitutes. I think it should be redirected to File:Novi-becej-araca-6019.jpg. Zoupan (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Incorrect flag, see File:Flag of Serbia (1835-82).png. Zoupan (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

(1) Missing direct link to specific image, (2) Photo was likely not taken by the subject and authorship is otherwise unexplained, (3) No indication that the author licensed the photo under a free license czar 07:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Deletion request for File:India_Climate_Koppen_map.JPG by original uploader User:2know4power. Reason- redundant & same themed better map is now available.1) This map does not have map legend in the body of the map. 2) The other map File:India_and_South_Asia_Koppen_climate_map_with_legend.jpg also by same original uploader myself, has map legend in the body of the map. 3) Both of them are cropped from the same source & same file description is in both maps. 4) Global usage for the map requested for deletion shows none. So, the map with attached legend can stay & this can be deleted. Thanks, 2know4power (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bad quality cropped copy of File:AleksandarObrenovic.jpg. Should be redirected to the higher quality image. Zoupan (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

uncertain copyright, used also on website http://www.eltiempo.com/revista-motor/actualidad/industria/ventas-carros-nuevos-2015-i/23035 MMFE (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Rodrigo768 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Flickwashing, considering (examples)

Gunnex (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Denniss Alan (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope Moumou82 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Anthere Alan (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in Russia for sculptures. A.Savin 14:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @A.Savin: . I wonder if there's something like fair use that would allow it to keep the photo of the statue. Thanks. Themidget17 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fair use on Commons, but the file may be uploaded on English or Russian wiki. --A.Savin 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per com:FU Alan (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gabo tigre (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.

Gunnex (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photograph of a mural. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The original upload at el.wikipedia has a watermark at the exif, metioning as photograher PETRAKIS ALEXANDROS, website www.inbulb.com where there is no indication of free license, nor that the uploader is the photographer C messier (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by سامي الرحيلي (talk • contribs) 2015-11-14T16:50:29‎ (UTC)


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused autopromo logo. Same for File:Bureau.png, File:Bigreen.jpg, File:BIBourse.png, File:Territoires.png, File:Hôtellerie.png, File:Bi-commerce.jpg, File:Bicarrieres.jpg, File:Businessimmo-logo fondnoir.png. Other user's uploads are also spam, but are used on his autopromo user page. Pibwl (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted image from web, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588474/Goodbye-cardboard-egg-boxes-plastic-Change-stop-million-going-waste-year.html. Other "own works" by this user too, possibly. Teslaton (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted image from web, http://www.billigvvs.dk/ProductFiles/botton-pro-45-2-manuel-1372314381.jpg. Other "own works" by this user too, possibly. Teslaton (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image from web, http://www.billigvvs.dk/ProductFiles/botton-pro-45-2-manuel-1372314381.jpg. Other "own works" by this user too, possibly. MicroStories (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image contains drawings of three politicians doing "see no hear, hear no evil, speak no evil" thing held by protesters. Frankly, the drawings are beyond realistic enough to surpass threshold of originality. I added "FoP-Germany" but then reverted the addition; it does not apply to temporarily located artwork. I don't know why it's tagged as "some rights reserved" in Flickr, but the drawings do not belong in Commons. (The user should change settings to "all rights reserved") George Ho (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file is tagged as "some rights reserved" in Flickr, because it was uploaded with appropriate CC-BY-SA licence, see file page. Frankly, George Ho hasn't given any intelligible reason for deletion here. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (103).jpg, Atlasowa. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say? That is some unrelated deletion discussion without context. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are on some crazy protest deletion mission, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (142).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (107).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (209).jpg. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (108).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (103).jpg? --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While the photograph may be properly licensed on Flickr, I doubt very much that the photographer has free licenses for each of the three images of the politicians which appear in the photo. The photo is a derivative work of all three and keepingit here would require license from the creators of the three images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The "Freiheit statt Angst" poster is copyrightable. It has a man's frowning eyes with dark shadows on top half. The bottom half has lots of info, including 30 August 2014 as date of Berlin event. Amount of copies of the poster is five on the wall or hanging. Again, the poster is copyrightable. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Shandy89 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Shandy89 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm the author of this image. Even though this is a photographic reproduction of original two-dimensional work of art i think it is unfair publishing it in full resolution. It took me a lot of work and consistent efforts to get to photograph that painting: research about the painting, research about the people to contact, ask for permissions that were not easy to obtain, staying in Rome for a few days to carry out the job, postproduction, etc. For that reason i think that the fact that now the file is available for everyone to be downloaded in full resolution is an issue of unfair competition and i ask for the removal. Furthermore i haven't given anybody the file in full resolution so it must have been somehow "captured" from my website (http://www.pixeloose.it/famiglia-parisi.html) as it is displayed as a stitched image made of many small partial pictures (the full image is not even on my web server). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixeloose (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is a beautiful capture of a PD painter, so this file falls under {{PD-Art}} as many others on here. The file is available for everyone to be downloaded in full resolution from pixeloose.it aswell, just with some extra effort. --Sporti (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It is a beautiful photo of an interesting painting -- thank you for photographing it. However, it is well settled here that a photograph of a PD work is PD, so your photograph, while well executed, did not exhibit the creativity required for copyright and Commons is under no obligation to remove it. If you did not want it used widely, you should not have published it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by MuyDaniel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The images most likely aren't own work of the uploader and likely aren't in the public domain in the United States per URAA.

Jespinos (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are press releases of an argentinean sports club available online whitout copyright restrictions in http://www.argentinosjuniors.com.ar so they shouldn't be deleted--MuyDaniel (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MuyDaniel continues uploading images of uncertain copyright status without having clarified the copyright issues of the images listed here. Jespinos (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, if the photos are publicly in web, then this does not mean, that you can upload these photos into Commons. At first is possible, that Argentinosjuniors has special permission for publishing the photos in its site. Commons needs also OTRS-permission. At second is possible, that Argentinosjuniors violates photographer's copyright, Commons must not repeat that mistake. I'll look MuyDaniel's other uploads and delete them, if needed. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by MuyDaniel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:MuyDaniel / previous DR / logs. All files uploaded 02.2014 mostly (if not all) for es:Asociación Atlética Argentinos Juniors, an Argentina footbal club.

Gunnex (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Reddogsix as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.doppelgangster.com/ Alan (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PD-textlogo but in or out of scope? Alan (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope for unused logos, easily reuploaded if in scope. Basvb (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

ya existe logo del frepaso en wikimedia commons --Fbs1980 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Superior to duplicate, please use the duplicate tag if nominating the other one. Basvb (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Logo einer privaten Praxis in Berlin, kein eigener Artikel denkbar, daher auch keine Verwendung dieses Bildes Schnabeltassentier (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Basvb (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photo by Grant Robertson Ytoyoda (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: own work unlikely Basvb (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Precautionary principle. Uploader has uploaded other files which are clear copyvios. This one is available elsewhere on internet, see reverse search. EXIF data does not match information template. BethNaught (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: own work unlikely for recent upload widely available online Basvb (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bollywood Hungama does not own the rights to the poster next to Alia. This image cannot be hosted here unless the copyright parts are removed. FredWalsh (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now as I've cropped the image to remove the excess non-free component. The closing admin can just delete the older version from the history. —SpacemanSpiff 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: done Basvb (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright Infringement Vikity33 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: own work unlikely, next time if you have links to source files please link them Basvb (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Logo of Microsoft product. Possible copyright violation. Takeaway (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: might be below TOO, but unused logo Basvb (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Auth copyright given by the painter/creator of this artwork? Probably copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 2015-11-17T10:13:05‎ (UTC)


Deleted: derivative work of unfree painting Basvb (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Auth copyright given by the painter/creator of this artwork? Probably copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 2015-11-17T10:11:58‎ (UTC)


Deleted: derivative work of unfree painting Basvb (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in France, the sculpture was created in 2011 A.Savin 17:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Basvb (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Auth copyright given by the painter/creator of this artwork? Probably copyright violation/http://www.lukasweb.be/en/faq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolus (talk • contribs) 2015-11-17T10:16:20‎ (UTC)


Kept: 15th century painting, PD Basvb (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope (COM:NOTHOST); check another uploads by India's U:ASD_ETHICAL_HACKING_ACADEMY - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ASD_ETHICAL_HACKING_ACADEMY e.g. File:Admission1.jpg just spam-like picture (there is URL and phone number); some uploads, File:Why_us.png and File:Asdtarget.jpg looks like stock photos A5b (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: pn Basvb (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Error. I have tried to create an (useless) REDIRECTION. Sorry. Pikinez (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: next time you can use a speedy delete for this. Basvb (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

there is already File:Hans Deutschmann, November 1932.jpeg with the same photo Pibwl (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: duplicate Basvb (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' and imho rather commercial advertisements as file not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Basvb (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's a cropped version of a non-free file that has already been deleted. Irn (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file looked legitimate to me. RichardWeiss (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: pn Basvb (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The background is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer for Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The background image is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer for Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The background image is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer for Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The background image is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. Pelotudo. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The pictures in the background are not free per COM:DW. Leyo 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unfree material Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image in the screen is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image on the screen is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image on the screen is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image on the screen is not free per COM:DW. At least, it needs to be cropped. Leyo 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. Pelotudo. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: cropped Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The picture in the background is not free per COM:DW. Leyo 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo Can you cropped?? I only transferrer from Flick. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unfree material Basvb (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Giaco~commonswiki (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Giaco~commonswiki / logs (last remaining photo uploads, lastest copyvio detected today via User talk:Giaco~commonswiki#File:Indep.jpg)

Gunnex (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Tiny duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"own work" more than dubious. User with 1 edit only, image exists in larger versions with copyright (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1721276416/nm0001684?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_24) 88.77.4.181 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Alan (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: still no license at all JuTa 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Загружен не автором, а со слов автора. RasabJacek (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: photomontage : lack of free source --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Загружено не автором, а со слов автора. RasabJacek (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: photomontage : lack of free sources --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: PDM is not acceptable .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem. It might be nice if someone put a message on the photograph as a comment stating that it's being used here though. Blythwood (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: User:Blythwood, your cites are off point, because they have been relicensed on Flickr as CC-0. The PDM is not a license and can't be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: User:Blythwood, your cites are off point, because they have been relicensed on Flickr as CC-0. The PDM is not a license and images carrying it without a license can't be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license).

Josve05a (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Josve05a: The images have been released into public domain by the flickr user who uploaded them and whom I also assume to be the author. Of course we cannot be 100% sure, but we can never be when using flickr images, can we? The photos look rather amateurish and—as far as I can see—have not been published elsewhere, so I have no reason to doubt that the flickr uploader is identic with the author. It is also tagged by the uploader (i.e. presumably the author) as "cc0", "no rights reserved", "copyme", "free to use" and so on. I fail to understand the problem. --RJFF (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: The PDM is not a license and can be changed by the user at any time. We cannot assume that the user thought he was licensing the images CC-0 . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unclear copyright status. Transferred from eswiki via local logs (might be "Archivo:NOBhinchada.jpg", uploaded by es:User:Fede5 on 21.02.2005, as indicated also here) the photo is a cropped version (watermarks removed) from http://www.fotolog.com/fun_art/9556548/ (here in a version from 04.2005). Note that the local user removed the watermark "www.pasionrojinegra.com" but from the watermark "Click para ingresar..." [Click here to enter] remained some pixel rest. For http://www.pasionrojinegra.com/ a wayback to 1999 is available from where the file was most likely grabbed & screenshotted. Permission needed.

All other local uploads by this user were deleted. The user itself was blocked indef in 2006 per "sockpuppet vandálico". Gunnex (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, nominating also:

which may present similar unsolved copyright issues. Gunnex (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

zdjęcie źle się wyświatlało na stronie Moczulna. Załadowałem nową wersję, o nazwie Moczulna dwor.png Happa (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Moczulna dwor.png. Delete. --ThePolish 20:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Already deleted Herby talk thyme 14:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Hedwig in E Alan (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Hedwig in E Alan (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nordela (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The selected photos were copied from various Flickr accounts, and have no statement about the models' consent to have photos taken in an apparently private context broadly published. See COM:IDENT. Please note many of the Flickr versions have been deleted, and/or the Flickr user accounts closed. -

Pete F (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nordela (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

Extended content

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: No consensus to delete them as out of scope. Deleted the files mentioned by Josve. And please don't make statements like "Especially for a bureaucrat". Not helpfull. Natuur12 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"FoP-Japan", which I added replaced, says that the freedom of panorama does not apply to artistic works. This image shows a wrestler's handprint with Japanese writing at the left of the hand and the bottom. The left says "Kitanoumi" (北の湖). The bottom says "Yokozuna ruler" (横綱在位) and "Shōwa 49~60" (1975~86). An anonymous work goes to public domain after fifty years of first public display, but right now it's still copyrighted in Japan and the US. FOP would not apply to the copyrightable handprint. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photograph. This handprint (or more accurately handmold) is displayed on a public monument outdoors not far from the Rygoku Kokugikan where most sumo tournaments are held. I believe that photographs of public works are acceptable to upload to wikicommons for use. There are thousands of monument / public works photographs on wikipedia so I don't see why this one should be any different. FourTildes (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FoP-Japan applies to only architecture, not artworks. Also, the engraved hand is realistic and well carved. --George Ho (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may look like a "carving" but it is simply a very well done hand print, a very common practice in sumo, it is not a work of art. It is a handprint produced for public exposure, just as the handprints outside the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood are displayed.

Just in case, can you save the picture into a hard drive? --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I can't link to other wiki articles here, but the article I tagged "handprints" above links to the "List of TCL Chinese Theatre handprint ceremonies" article which shows handprints of movie stars through the years, and these photographs are still up on wikicommons. Though I agree it is a handprint of high quality, I have seen others that were not as well done as this that look even more similar to the handprints outside the Chinese theatre. Yes, it is saved on my hard drive.FourTildes (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article that FourTildes mentioned. The image is not in the article as an artwork, it is there as an illustration of the subject. It is really no more than an autograph.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Certainly it is creative enough to have a copyright and we could argue if it is just an autograph or an artwork or something else but that doesn't change the fact that there is only FOP for buildings (architecture). Not for artworks and neither for autographs. Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It is a photo of the User:Perohanych by himself. No permission from the real photographer BaseSat (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the real photographer — used a self-timer button --Perohanych (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no such info in exif. --BaseSat (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: kept Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

http://apitu.org.ua/system/files/perohanych.jpg (2009). Yann (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per Yann and honestly, doesn't look like a selfie either. Natuur12 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Загружены не автором, а другим человеком. RasabJacek (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wird auf keiner Seite verwendet, redundante Datei Petrus3743 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

probably copyrighted, same for rest of uploads: File:Ten Doctor.jpg and File:HOME -Wikispace.jpg (both also out of scope) Pibwl (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work for both versions: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, considering:

Buenas, propongo que en vez de eliminarse, se recupere la imagen de 2011, que fue realizada a partir de esta petición [7] y cuya autora sería Andreateletrabajo. --Robot8A (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the feedback but which mobile phone takes images in 176 × 220 pixels resolution? But okay, I'll ping Andreateletrabajo who is now @Ganímedes: (renamed account) to get some further details. Gunnex (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The picture I've taken with my cellphone (yes, very low resolution I know, but I was walking when I saw him and had no time for much more) is the first one. The other picture I've got no idea where it comes from. Now if you have doubts about I've taken it with my cellphone... I can´t help you. I assume it should be metadata or something to prove it (remember, it was 2011, this is Third World and we are always late with tecnology... ) More than that... I can´t help you. If you don´t believe me... I'm sorry. Only thing I have is my reputation and my list of uploaded files to show I'm reliable. Nothing else. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The guy in the first picture isn't Ruben Paz, it's another person. So the file should be deleted. Best regards.-- MauriManya (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh God... Good point. Any idea who is MauriManya? --Ganímedes (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MauriManya is the copyright violator of the actual version. The info already was stored by him via File talk:Ruben Paz2011.jpg. @Ganímedes: : Is your version showing a notorious guy for which no similar images are available? If not, we should delete the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, there is no doubt in my mind. There was people running around him, asking for pictures or autographs, even if I'm not sure the name. It was an special event that day, and I've taken several pictures of many people. Some of them are in Commons and already in use (actually, those of Morena, Gregorio Pérez or De los Santos are only pictures of these footballers), but there are lots that I couldn't upload because I'm not sure about the names. A football fan told me he was R. Paz; but I'm 100% sure he is a former player of C.A. Peñarol. Perhaps create a category as "Unkown people linked to C.A. Peñarol?--Ganímedes (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thx for your comment. Well, I leave it to the admin to decide about the future of this file. What we have is (from my point of view):  Delete actual version (copyvio) and  Abstain for the first version by Andreateletrabajo. In all cases (if kept the version of Andreateletrabajo) we need to remove the file from all global usage articles related to "Rubén Paz" as this photo does not show him. Gunnex (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If name is wrong, of course should be renamed. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept and Deleted: I've deleted the two overwritting revisions, kept the two revisions based on the original cellphone photo, renamed the file, and updated the summary. —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

These translations are stale (expected to fall back to zh) and contain extra link markups breaking zh-hans interface (see Special:Permalink/179667949). Liangent (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of other similar pages is given below, plus Template:Community_tabs/zh-hans itself. Liangent (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> select page_title from page where page_namespace=1198 and page_title like 'Template:Community_tabs/%/zh-hans';
+----------------------------------------------------+
| page_title                                         |
+----------------------------------------------------+
| Template:Community_tabs/1/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/10/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/11/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/12/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/13/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/14/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/15/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/16/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/17/zh-hans                 |
| Template:Community_tabs/2/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/3/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/4/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/5/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/6/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/7/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/8/zh-hans                  |
| Template:Community_tabs/Page_display_title/zh-hans |
+----------------------------------------------------+
17 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Deleted: I've deleted the stale zh-hans with broken markup and the relevant template components. —RP88 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Readme file from source tell:

These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case).

However, I can't find evidence that Sigge Kotliar is the original author of non authomatic vectorized version (source of this file) of this Coat of arms and because this would contradict the original license The Photographer (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that our version has since bèn changed to include other bits (the horse) traced from another copyrighted source. So the defacto license/source being claimed is National Coats of Arms cannot be copyrighted, see art. 6er Paris Convention at www.wipo.int not xrmap. I'm not going to get into the validity of that claim just wanted to clarify the situation. /Lokal_Profil 15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Paris. A blazon does not define a coat of arms in the very last detail. The shape of the shield, for instance, is left completely undefined. Non-geometric elements are only broadly described ("a rearing horse, facing left", but how exactly that horse is drawn is left undefined). Coats of arms including non-geometric elements leave the author of an emblazon considerable freedom to express his creativity to produce an original work. Examples of such non-geometric elements include animals and plants, but also crowns, banners, pinnacles, and so on. An emblazon of a coat of arms that contains such non-geometric elements is thus always copyrightable in itself as an original work. By extension, any drawing of a flag that shows a coat of arms is basically copyrightable. A Blasón could be free, however, Coat of arms design is copyrighted --The Photographer (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree which is why I instead found the xrmap version I believed was free. If, as the statement above indicates, that version isn't free then there are no objections from my part to deleting it.
But since the current version doesn't rely on xrmap to be free, but instead Paris, that is the criteria under which it must be argued. For this reason I've pinged in the users involved in the later (Paris motivated) uploads. /Lokal_Profil 09:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a derived (trace) version from copyrighted activeweb website, where publish date is 2001 --The Photographer (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically impossible to optain a traced version of the recent quality from this poor 300px x 360px source. -- MaxxL - talk 17:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MaxxL, It is obviously impossible, however, is exactly the same version of the coat of arms. I have not managed to see the author and original design that clearly exists somewhere. I believe that there is little evidence that this shield is really free for the same arguments above. The idea of placing the link is to show that this version has been circulating on the internet long before being uploaded here. We do not have a source that can verify the original work from this version was made is actually a free.--The Photographer (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Licensing OK . This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.--EEIM (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Licencing is not ok, blazon is free, however design could not be. Force the source not solve the problem --The Photographer (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted In the source flags file says clearly "These additional SVG flags have either been compiled from public domain sources, or obtained by various other tools (noticeably 'potrace', used to convert bitmap flags into vector format, see e.g. usa_florida.svg which was obtained in this way). We release them in the public domain (unless this would contradict the original license, but we are unaware of any such case)." So not all flags are in PD and we don't know exactly wich of them yes and wich no --Ezarateesteban 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

God, what have you done, you idiots. You deleted the coat of arms of a country, that is in the lead infobox of Venezuela's article in many wikipedias, such as in the Portuguese wikipedia article, which now has a redlink where the coat of arms was supposed to be. I hope you are satisfied Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Are you proud? Are you freaking proud? By the way, many coats of arms don't even have a source. They were marked as Own work, such as the coats of arms of colombia, when it obviously is not. Go ahead and request the deletion of all coats of arms of every contry. Go ahead. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely is the drawing their own work, the original arms is mosst likely PD, so the drawing is their own.
  • Not read the DR or the README file, but if it is the source code that's the problem, we could just scrub it and recode it, and it would be fine...If it is a artistic different they have made that is above TOO however, I understand this deletion Josve05a (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: The hell are you talking about. The colombia coat of arms is the real coat of arms of Colombia. It is no artwork. I will just re-upload the coat of arms of Venezuela and upload it as Own work. Either that or we delete all coats of arms of every country. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coat of arms of Venezuela, which is in the PD

There you go, I've reuploaded the coat of arms as Own work, just like all other coats of arms. If you delete this one, you have to delete all others as well. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Incendiary Iconoclasm: This deletion may be an error, but it would be better than you request undeletion rather than reuploading the file. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already closed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Venezuela.svg, user User:Incendiary Iconoclasm ( blocked (3 days) in commons and wikipedia spanish) evading copyright, "fixing" the problem uploding the file like own The Photographer (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I get a TL;DR? What is the source claiming might be copyrighted? Their design (the image) of the arms, which may be below TOO in terms of artistic expression, or the source code (of the svg) which can be solved by either redrawing it in incscape which will result in another source code which someone can claim as own, or simply scrub the code using svg optimizes and claim it as an own work. There are 2 copyright to consider in normal svg-cases, here there are 3.
    1. The original images copyright status. In this case PD, I assume, as it is a coat of arms of a country.
    2. The artistic change the 'drawer' has made, which may warrant copyright.
    3. Copyright of the code it self, which svg's are made of.
Josve05a (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have in 2. It is a coat of a country, in this case Venezuela, therefore, the blazon is free because PD, however, design is the artistic interpretation of someone and here is where is the copyvio. On the other hand, the svg generated with automated conversion process to svg ('potrace') was published under public domain, however, Sigge Kotliar ran the script to automatically generate this svg, he is not the original author and this would contradict the original license (Readme file from source), at this point the license is applied to a source, however, it is not only a source, It is a art work, svg is only the free format. Thus, the source code license is irrelevant because it is an automated conversion from somewhere. Btw, I've been looking for a replacement of this file, however, the official site of the government of Venezuela shows a bizarre low quality version. --The Photographer (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About the official source
:::Can we use the image and the description (for vectorization) from this site http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Venezuela.htm ? --Shadowxfox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No because this site is copyrighted ©Hubert de Vries, you can use only the Blazon from an official Venezuela government source accredited or find a free alternative. By definition, a Coat of arms must be done from the Blazon. We could continue this discussion in my talk, then this place is not adequate space --The Photographer (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe this site http://www.alcaldiadematurin.gob.ve/portalc2014/index.php/component/content/article/16-modulos/69-ddddfsimbolos ? --Shadowxfox (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, look in the bottom Copyright © 2013. Todos los derechos reservados --The Photographer (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Last chance, this http://docs.venezuela.justia.com/federales/leyes/ley-de-bandera-nacional-himno-nacional-y-escudo-de-armas-de-la-republica-bolivariana-de-venezuela.pdf ? it's the law itself, and contains images of the symbols. --Shadowxfox (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official Blazon is this. I already asked to Heraldry and vexillology Wikiproject on spanish wiki. --The Photographer (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Close this nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: Thank you. Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per Fry. It would be better if discussions could be limited to the points, not personalities. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wrong Author information. File already deleted and uploaded without a undeletion request. [8] The Photographer (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not this again. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: If a image is deleted, the user need open a Undeletion Request, and how you can see the image has a Author, source and license wrong. --The Photographer (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer Please respect the rules and policies of Commons, this discussion is over, I kept the file. There is no reason to take a file to COM:UNDEL which has not been deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This file was Already deleted and you can see a comment about it by the admin Yann --The Photographer (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Venezuela.svg The Photographer (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitie 10g: When you apply a automatic rasterisation over a bitmap image, the result is a "SVG", however, so complex as a bitmap and impossible to edit. --The Photographer (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Okay, I'm confused.
    1. As near as I can tell from reading this page, it was deleted once, then reuploaded by Incendiary Iconoclasm (talk · contribs) (who may or may not have been accused of falsely claiming it as own work?) who was angry that this left a redlink in many articles.
    2. What was the rationale for keeping the second time around? Ellin Beltz said "Kept: Per Fry." But the only thing the record shows Fry1989 saying was "Keep Close this nonsense."
    3. And while I'm trying to puzzle this out, I notice that Incendiary Iconoclasm's comments (beginning with "God, what have you done, you idiots.") were tacked directly onto a "do not edit this archive" message. Don't we normally have a renomination rather than an editing of the original?
-- Perey (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get to keep nominating until you have your way. Fry1989 eh? 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, again. If you have a problem with this close, renominating it over again is not going to solve it. Discussing it at the closed nomination is also not the way to go. Please reconsider the badgering tactics, find your COM:MELLOW and let's get some other work done. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: per Blythwood Ezarateesteban 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license).

Josve05a (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was in a Flickr gallery of StarCard organisation. Originally it has a full copyrigth. When Horner died, I asked the organisation to change license in order to use it on WP. The answer I received said: Hi, the attribute - "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" is not an option in the flickr drop down menu. I have selected Public Domain so there are no restrictions. Hope this works for you now?. many thanks. StarCards (see in https://www.flickr.com/mail/72157654582745710). It is, for one unknown reason they couldn't change to CC-BY-SA as I demanded, and chosed some wider license. Image must be keep as it's the only one free image from a dead person. It's obvious that the image belongs to StarCard; it is their core business. Even they show a hardcopy of the WP article in their flickr gallery. Thanks,--amador (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Seems like an open and shut speedy keep. Tabercil (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. See below. Josve05a (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on the StarCards Flickr feed - all other images present there are licensed as "All Rights Reserved". The fact that only this one image has had its license changed to be "Public Domain" seems sufficient to me as it was a willful act by them to make that change. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tabercil: We can not act on willful acts. We need explicit permissions. (Hence why systems such as OTRS was created and is so rigorous.) An no permission has been given as to release the image per the legal meaning. Josve05a (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josve05a/PDM Given that it isn't that "open and shut" and that it is being discussed at VP and AN as well as other DRs (Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/pending) I'm reopening a prematurly closure, in order to get the full 7 days. Josve05a (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per consensus Ezarateesteban 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Consensus can't overrule copyright issues. It might be a valuable photo, but fact still stands, it is under {{Flickr-public domain mark}}} and not {{PD-author}}.

Josve05a (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, a third deletion request? Really? What new point are you making? What's different now? Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the only DRs that has been kept amongs ALL other Public Domain Mark images, whi is this DR different from all the rest? Uniformity. What has changed is that all other has been deleted, but this remains. {{Flickr-public domain mark}}} is pretty clear cut. Josve05a (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If "uniformity" is your option, why don't we change the license of the other DR to give them the same as this one ?. It's really amazing your obsession to delete this picture. What do you pourpose to fix the problem, but delete ?. Probable we can explore it. Thanks to be (pro)positive. --amador (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like StarCards have indeed attempted to release the image to the public domain, so perhaps it should be accepted on Commons. However {{PD-author}} shouldn't be used, because they haven't agreed to the "fall-back" license of that template. The statement "this applies worldwide" on the template is also optimistic. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is perfectly clear that the PDM is not acceptable on Commons. Among other things, it can be changed at any time. We require that licenses be irrevocable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]