Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/01/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
(R)Blue_Allah.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Niki_de_Saint_Phalle.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
umm, how can we host this image when the sign is clearly posted, no photography? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Interior rules don't apply - the photographer might have broke rules, but it's still OK to upload. Nesnad (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)- Keep per Nesnad. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Denniss (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
File:Συνάντηση ΥΠΕΞ κ. Δ. Δρούτσα με Γ.Γ. Η.Ε. κ. Ban Ki-Moon. Greek FM D. Droutsas meets with UN SG Mr. Ban Ki-moon (5458313336).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
EXIF data states the copyright holder is UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe. The Greek MFA can't release these under a free licence, and permission from UN Photo will be required 106.68.123.120 12:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Free license + ticket. Yann (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author is UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe, so Aussie DFAT can't CC-BY this. 106.68.123.120 11:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Banned user. Yann (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Photos by Eskinder Debebe
[edit]Eskinder Debebe is a United Nations photographer. All of these photos have been take by Eskinder, but have been uploaded to Commons because a variety of organisations, such as British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the CTBTO have erroneously made them available on Flickr under a Creative Commons licence -- which they are not able to do because they are NOT the copyright holder. As noted here, OTRS permission from Eskinder or the UN Multimedia department will be required, or these photos simply need to be deleted.
- File:"Putting an End to Nuclear Explosions" by CTBTO.jpg
- File:Asha-Rose Migiro 2012 (cropped).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (1).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (2).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (3).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (4).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (5).jpg
- File:Do the right thing, ratify the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream.jpg
- File:Estonian Ambassador to UN Sven Jürgenson Presented His Credentials to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (19940120713).jpg
- File:Estonian Ambassador to UN Sven Jürgenson Presented His Credentials to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (20552064522).jpg
- File:Estonian Ambassador to UN Sven Jürgenson Presented His Credentials to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (20567487871).jpg
- File:Foreign Secretary chairs UN Security Council debate on Sudan (5182331774).jpg
- File:Foreign Secretary with UN Secretary General (6168483841).jpg
- File:Foreign Secretary with UN Secretary-General (6976448291).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (6962763036).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (6962763920).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (6963357836).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (6963358266).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108835273).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108835427).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108836187).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108836581).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108837221).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108837855).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108838153).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7108838635).jpg
- File:HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC ROUND TABLE 3 (7109430809).jpg
- File:His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar speaking at the UNCTAD XIII Opening Ceremony (7099074201).jpg
- File:Ikililou Dhoinine 2012.png
- File:Last daily Press Conference of the Spokesperson of UNCTAD XIII (6969199782).jpg
- File:Last daily Press Conference of the Spokesperson of UNCTAD XIII (6969200148).jpg
- File:Last daily Press Conference of the Spokesperson of UNCTAD XIII (6969200440).jpg
- File:Last daily Press Conference of the Spokesperson of UNCTAD XIII (7115280859).jpg
- File:Last daily Press Conference of the Spokesperson of UNCTAD XIII (7115282001).jpg
- File:Moderator Mr. Teymor Nabilia, Al Jayeera in the World Investment Summit (7098513741).jpg
- File:Mr. Bambang Susantono, Vice-Minister for Transportation, Indonesia (7112225069).jpg
- File:RTE (cropped).jpg
- File:Session IV - Equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome How to translate womens educational gains into equal access to full employment and decent work (7106481013).jpg
- File:SG Trip (10720945186).jpg
- File:Sheikh Hassina Cropped UNCTAD.JPG
- File:UN Security Council debate on Sudan (5184284218).jpg
- File:UNCTAD XIII Opening Ceremony (7099102751).jpg
- File:UNCTAD XIII Opening Ceremony (7099105103).jpg
- File:World Investment Summit (6952442446).jpg
- File:World Investment Summit (7098513375).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952437330).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952437466).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952437606).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952438386).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952438568).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952439472).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952440038).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952441526).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952441910).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952442572).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952442932).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (6952443414).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098508335).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098508563).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098508725).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098509351).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098509525).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098509729).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098509905).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098510955).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098512773).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098513949).jpg
- File:World Leaders Investment Summit (7098514233).jpg
- File:Συνάντηση ΥΠΕΞ κ. Δ. Δρούτσα με Γ.Γ. Η.Ε. κ. Ban Ki-Moon. Greek FM D. Droutsas meets with UN SG Mr. Ban Ki-moon (5458313336).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
209.58.128.137 16:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Banned user, this includes creating DRs. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just as a note, all these files appear to have been deleted by @Denniss earlier today. odder (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
EXIF data states the copyright holder is UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe. The British FCO can't release these under a free licence, and permission from UN Photo will be required. 106.68.123.120 12:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Free license + ticket. Yann (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not the copyright holder, as the EXIF data clearly states: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe is the copyright holder. The FCO can't make this photo available under either OGL or a CC licence Checkingquarry (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: OTRS ticket. Please ask to the OTRS Noticeboard in any doubt about its validity. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Nominator has been locked globally. --De728631 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Poster, posted by producers. Copyvio? part of adv. activity Bilderling (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Movie poster
Files uploaded by Give Your Heart a Break (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images without exif, better resolutions can be found in internet like here and here. Probably COM:Flickrwashing
- File:Demi Lovato Citibank Hall.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato People's Choice Awards 2010.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato People's Choice Awards.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato Z Festival.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato blackout.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato blonde.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato Walmart Soundcheck 2.jpg
- File:Demi Lovato Walmart Soundcheck.jpg
- File:MaiPhuongThuyfixed.PNG
Rodrigolopes (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
DOUBLE EMPLOI JF Thuret (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://arquidiocesepoa.org.br/paf.asp?catego=3&exibir=48&site=novo Py4nf (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relatively low quality image. Also heavily cropped. Perhaps not suited for general use. Better version available at File:Geertgen tot Sint Jans 001.jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jarekt (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
wrong picture that does not meet the specified ID Bence Simon (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete: I think here «request by recent uploader» applies. A bit more clarity would be useful, though. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
rename Bence Simon (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It seems Bence Simon wanted to rename the file, not to delete it, so I corrected his edits. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Facebookery. Qwertyus (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Natuur12: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange.
Parody image uploaded to vandalise pt:Resident Evil 4 (diff 44520587). The uploader is already banned from portuguese Wikipedia. Luk3M (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader is really indefinitely blocked in pt.wiki and really a vandal. Taivo (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
File:CNN Tonight logo.png deleted. 14.42.188.169 13:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- IP doesn't give a valid reason as to why it should be deleted. It is being used in en:CNN Tonight. Corkythehornetfan 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Bellow the Threshold of originality in the US. PNG version should be prefferred instead of the JPEG one. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Low quality: not scharp Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested deletion of own unused file. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rahulsxy87 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images were uploaded as "own work" but seem to have been copied from the internet. Possible copyright violations.
- File:Thaipusam-84-composite.jpg
- File:Silver chariot Thaipusam.jpg
- File:Chetty kavadi.jpg
- File:Main deity murugan.jpg
- File:Thaipusam celebration among penang street.JPG
- File:Inside of temple.jpg
- File:Penang-waterfall-temple.jpg
- File:Lord Murugan Shrine Hilltop Temple Penang.jpg
- File:Thaipusam penang.jpg
- File:Hilltop temple waterfall.jpg
- File:Thaipusam-decorations.jpg
- File:Arulmigu Balathandayuthapani Temple.jpg
Takeaway (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rahulsxy87 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copied from the internet but uploaded as "own work".
Takeaway (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Hystrix: Out of scope: unused file, private image
Image was uploaded to test the android app. It can now be deleted.
Deleted: uploaders request of a recently uploaded, unused file. --JuTa 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Please delete this image. This was just a test by me - to review the Android App. HaBer21 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe too unclear. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: test, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
too bad quality, a lot of similar files we have /St1995 19:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Pashasaywayrajiv
[edit]- File:Tunanganku Gadis Bakul Gedang.jpg
- File:Papa Rock n Roll Cover.jpg
- File:Prnr1.jpg
- File:Prnr2.jpg
- File:Prnr3.jpg
- File:Prnr4.jpg
- File:Prnr5.jpg
- File:BNTH.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella bumper.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella part1.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella part2.jpg
- File:Bnth.jpg
- File:Bnth1.jpg
- File:Bnth2.jpg
- File:Distrolovers.jpg
- File:Distrolovers1.jpg
- File:Distrolover2.jpg
- File:Ketemujodohdiinboxposter.jpg
- File:Bumberketemujodohdiinbox.jpg
- File:Part1kjdi.jpg
All is movies posters and screeshots. Not own work Cap1000 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Idem previous DR. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Mim.cis (with similar uploads already deleted, see also en:User:Mim.cis/sandbox). All files uploaded since 26.12.2015 and are related to computational anatomy (animated gif's etc.). Considering also:
- File:Amygdala-hippo-erc-sections.png --> previously published via (example) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24363990 (2013)
- File:Subcortical-MRI-caudate-putamen.png --> grabbed from Internet.
- etc.
Further details and/or permission(s) needed.
- File:Subcortical-MRI-caudate-putamen.png
- File:Template-estimation-from-hippocampi.png
- File:MRI Brain 4 Landmarks.gif
- File:LandmarkBrain.gif
- File:Waltz landmarks3.gif
- File:FigBrain.png
- File:Waltz landmarks bis.gif
- File:Slice v03 OLD TEMPLATE withArrows 22 (1).gif
- File:Caudate-putamen-MRI.png
- File:Amygdala-hippo-erc-sections.png
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work => not free. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 02:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 02:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stixdragonnegro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works, derived from en:Minecraft (video game) = Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft + multiple DR's.
- File:841F13B0B.jpg
- File:67C22D430.jpg
- File:C35BB3E3A.jpg
- File:D1DEF9F39.jpg
- File:DEC93E369.jpg
- File:C4A9BBC4E.jpg
- File:05594CF25.jpg
- File:74972B26D.jpg
- File:D9FA3BC2F.jpg
- File:82E9A63EF.jpg
- File:FDFB1FE1F.jpg
- File:4339E5D50.jpg
- File:69BFDCBD1.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheHomero10000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works, derived from en:Minecraft (video game) = Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft + multiple DR's.
Gunnex (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akileshrox (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works considering derived from a Microsoft certificate grabbed from Google. May be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided.
May be also out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Uploader blocked at enwiki and related enwiki entry 2x speedy deleted.
Gunnex (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
no permission 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 05:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
no permission 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 05:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
artistic logo 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 07:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, if in scope it need a permission. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation (Picasso died in 1973) 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 07:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork,out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a blurry photo, and File:VR-Gniew-kosciol.JPG is a good alternative. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the blurred one is taken from near the same point of view and don't add more relevant infos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Team Creper (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused vanity photo of non-notable person Richard Avery (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of stock photograph of unknown origin and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
(R)Blue_Allah.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(R)Blue_Allah.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of artwork of unknown origin and copyright status. Additional scope issues. Storkk (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(R)Blue_Allah.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
(R)Blue_Allah.gif){kind=link}
Small size, no metadata, probable product shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Film poster - unlikely to be released under license claimed. Copyright holder should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused non-notable artwork/logo. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore likely out of scope. Will withdraw if notability is reasonably asserted. Storkk (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable news photo/TV still: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published on the WEB. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
EXIF credits www.venturavila.com ... confirmation of license should be archived via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed", this is unused and therefore likely out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While "the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed", this is unused and therefore likely out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused logo of questionable notability. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published with google search. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation 46.218.9.198 11:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Copy of http://www.eras.fr/fr/historique-et-chiffres-cles. -- Habertix (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination, no permission. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
out of scope; not useful Ijon (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm actually in two minds about this. Looking at Category:Upskirt (on purpose), this is the best frontal picture where the subject is actually wearing underwear. The only others I can see are File:Sheila Marie Forbidden City party 2007-03-31 14.jpg, where the panties are a bit transparent, and File:Too short dress.jpg. Make of that what you will. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's always funny to see that people's behaviours, espacially when it comes to sexuality or sex-related themes, is considered "out of scope" by some people ! There's no problem with any other behaviour, strangely ! Anyway, when I see the many topics concerned by this picture (see the cats), there's no reason to say this picture is out of scope. Its quality is OK and it's quite a good illustration of provocative seduction. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no problem with sexual content, this is just an out of scope unused personal image / no quite notable people. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unambiguous advertising, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Teddyfainal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own work highly doubtful, other own-work-(c)vios already deleted.
- File:T3R 9868.jpg
- File:F4ST en la alfombra de los premios juventud 2015.png
- File:F4ST Studio Fainal + SaraTunes en el studio.jpg
- File:F4ST - Fainal + Sara Tunes 1.jpg
- File:F4ST Live - Fainal + SaraTunes en Concierto.jpg
- File:Fainal Press.jpeg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
want to move it to another file Tormena (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. See Commons:File renaming for details of how to move/rename files. --DAJF (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pashasaywayrajiv 1
[edit]Not own work, but screengrabs and posters. All copyright violations.
- File:Part2kjdi.jpg
- File:Part1kjdi.jpg
- File:Ketemujodohdiinboxposter.jpg
- File:Distrolover2.jpg
- File:Distrolovers1.jpg
- File:Distrolovers.jpg
- File:Bnth2.jpg
- File:Bnth1.jpg
- File:Bnth.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella part2.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella part1.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella bumper.jpg
- File:Bukancinderella.jpg
- File:BNTH.jpg
- File:Prnr5.jpg
- File:Prnr4.jpg
- File:Prnr3.jpg
- File:Prnr2.jpg
- File:Prnr1.jpg
- File:Papa Rock n Roll Cover.jpg
- File:Tunanganku Gadis Bakul Gedang.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pashasaywayrajiv 2
[edit]Not own work but screengrabs, copyvio.
- File:Tpls4.jpg
- File:Tpls3.jpg
- File:Tpls2.jpg
- File:Tpls1.jpg
- File:Tplsposter.jpg
- File:Ggg4.jpg
- File:Ggg3.jpg
- File:Ggg1.jpg
- File:Posterggg.jpg
- File:Cmth2.jpg
- File:Cmth1.jpg
- File:Bumpercmth.jpg
- File:Poster Calon Mantu Tukang Tahu.jpg
- File:Mcms.jpg
- File:Mengejarcintamasslamet.jpg
- File:Ckmnal3.jpg
- File:Ckmnal2.jpg
- File:Ckmna2.jpg
- File:Ckmnal1.jpg
- File:Posterckmnal.jpg
- File:Part4cdks.jpg
- File:Part3cdks.jpg
- File:Part2cdks.jpg
- File:Part1cdks.jpg
- File:Bumpercdks.jpg
- File:Cdks poster.jpg
- File:Bumpermtdg.jpg
- File:Part3mtdg.jpg
- File:Part2mtdg.jpg
- File:Part1mtdg.jpg
- File:Postermakhluktermanisdigarut.jpg
- File:Part3kjdi.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot from TV/movies. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Very obviously Photoshopped Vauxhall Astra with fake snow added. Large number of Vauxhall Astra images already on Commons, no real need for this one whose fake snow makes questionable whether it's still within Commons' scope. Not currently used (if ever) for personal use. Ubcule (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note; Derived from File:Vauxhall Astra Mk3 (The Unisouth Wagon).jpg, so we have the original anyway. Ubcule (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possibly out of scope - I uploaded this in a large Flickr set, but I'm not sure the poor quality meets COM:EDUSE INeverCry 00:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Originally uploaded "for use especially on my user pages" (i.e. personal use only), but not currently in use. Ubcule (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possibly out of scope - I uploaded this with a large Flickr set, but I think this is too blurred and tilted to meet COM:EDUSE INeverCry 00:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
non-encyclopaedic advertising Finavon (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-free text. Also out of scope, I presume. Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Ths refers to the Bombay High Court, so I assume that India is the source country, and Indian government works are unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep {{EdictGov-India}} -- Liliana-60 (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- That law provision only permits reproduction and publication but not modification, so we can't depend on that law provision. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- We consider the non-derivative rule of German freedom of panorama acceptable for Commons purposes. How is this any different? If you think the template violates Commons rules, you should nominate the template for deletion, rather than picking individual files. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- That law provision only permits reproduction and publication but not modification, so we can't depend on that law provision. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm not sure it is a government work -- but, in any case, it is out of scope -- with no meaningful description, there is no way to use it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Page 3 of a biography of a non-notable individual. It's useless without the other pages which weren't uploaded. Outside of COM:SCOPE. If this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a JPG on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, some lines of raw text, OOS. --Achim55 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Detective Kamenakis (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are obviously not own work by the uploader. Some are possibly in the public domain because of age, but sources are needed to verify this.
- File:Sherlock holmes.jpg
- File:Miss marple.gif
- File:Nancy drew.jpg
- File:Hercule poirot.jpg
- File:Auguste dupin.jpg
Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
On Flickr I don't find any CC licence, but a notice "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" (all rights reserved) which means that the photo is copyrighted. The file name contains fotographix.ca which is a professional Canadian website of freelance photographers that links to the Flickr account of Jesse Yardley who is the photographer of this photo and who has no public images on Flickr at all. So I suppose that there are no images of that person which are free to use. Bjarlin (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the Category:Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, there are some other files of that camera type, f.ex. File:EOS1D 4.jpg, which can be used instead of this file, so it's not absolutely needed. And it is better for re-use not to use such a copyrighted file, but free files instead. Also in the case that there maybe could have been a free licence on Flickr at any time in the past, perhaps only by mistake of the uploader who then might have changed their mind. This file has been uploaded to Commons per bot only 10 days after the original upload on Flickr. It might be used on English WP and similar wikis under the conditions of fair use instead. It's misleading users, if such files are provided on Commons. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It is not unusual for Flickr users to change licenses, which is why we have our License Review process, which provides an independant, verifiable paper trail, admissible in court, that shows that the file was freely licensed when it was uploaded to Commons. We do not take down images because the Flickr user changed his mind. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Watermarked and heavily filtered, unlikely to be original work Ytoyoda (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Distortion and image quality suggests this is a photograph of a copyrighted broadcast Ytoyoda (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, sorry, it’s not. It was taken with the camera of a cell phone, read the description before nominate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijoDeBarrioObrero (talk • contribs) improved by The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence you are referring to was added to the wrong place, therefore it did not show up in the description but in the licensing section of the page. I moved it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_HijoDeBarrioObrero The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, and now would you please stop nominating my pictures for deletion? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijoDeBarrioObrero (talk • contribs) 00:11, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- The new description doesn't explain the distortion and the flatness that makes it look like a photograph of a video. If it's cropped, would you mind uploading the uncropped original with the EXIF data intact? Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Impossible, I don’t have the original picture anymore; this image was from 2014 almost. I just have this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijoDeBarrioObrero (talk • contribs) 02:22, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused. The date of creation says "17 January 2016". And you obviously had a copy to upload two days ago, so age shouldn't be an issue. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it WAS UPLOADED on that date, but the picture was already cropped at the time. For example, many of the images that I've uploaded are from certain date but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were "created" on the day that were uploaded to Commons. That's why.
Deleted: Bad dates, small size, so distorted as to be unrecognizable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This inferior quality image, with no associated provenance other than the unsupported claims of a pseudonymous user, does not appear in the online collection that the uploader claims to be employed by, but yet has produced no proof to authenticate it. A search of the website and its collection for "John Tunstall" or "Tunstall" yields no results. Carlstak (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see that the uploader claims "The credibility of the collection is growing rapidly." It appears that the only "credibility" this image and others uploaded by that person have is the usage of those files by credulous editors on Wikipedia.
- Note that the so-called Phillips Collection of Texas Escapes Online is not authenticated, and this fact is even alluded to on that site in the essay, "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" by Cathleen Briley. She says, "Of course, questions immediately began to rise about the authenticity of the photos in the collection. What are the chances of someone finding a massive collection of extremely rare photos of incredibly famous people all at once? We grappled with that question ourselves. It seems so unbelievable.[Indeed!] So, how can we have proof without provenance? Even though we have no record of previous ownership, the proof is in the pictures." Now, that's self-published original research, as well as patent nonsense, if I ever saw it. Carlstak (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- There also may be a conflict of interest issue here as well, since, to bolster her case, Briley actually refers to photos used in Wikipedia articles that were uploaded to the Commons by the user "OSMOND PHILLIPS", who purportedly represents the "Phillips Collection" at Texas Escapes Online, and she even cites the respective Wikipedia articles. Carlstak (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep There's no evidence by the filer that this photo is NOT of the individual the owner of the photo (who uploaded it originally) says it is. Winkelvi (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural keep. This image's situation is obviously identical to the one being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg, and ending up with different results for the two images would be downright silly. Let's end this DR, and when the other one is closed, we'll apply its result to this one too. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. Now what? Carlstak (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep Susan Stevenson is a researcher for the top Billy the Kid author, Frederick Nolan. Susan agrees that it is a photograph of John Tunstall. Other people including professionals who have experience in identifying photographs also agree. An email from Susan Stevenson can be arranged. Susan is also a descendant of the Dolan and Fritz families from The Lincoln County War. She agrees we have photographs of her ancestors in the Phillips collection. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg: The uploader has used a copyright tag which says that the picture was published before 1923, but no evidence of any such publication has been provided. Until and unless such evidence is provided, the file has to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, I guess you missed the Procedural keep above from Nyttend and the reasons why? As well, I suggest you look at this discussion and consider adjusting your Delete !votes accordingly. Winkelvi (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Both deletion requests should obviously be closed in the same way. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, I guess you missed the Procedural keep above from Nyttend and the reasons why? As well, I suggest you look at this discussion and consider adjusting your Delete !votes accordingly. Winkelvi (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
US copyright law at the time of this film's release allowed the copyright notice to be put on the rear of the poster, so unless there is proof that there is no notice there, this is assumed to NOT be PD. PD must always be proven, and never assumed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Show me a single poster of this type that had copyright printed on the back. None. They don't exist. Your paranoia is not helping the project. This is clearly PD. Nesnad (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Further, this is clearly a vendetta because I just noticed you just want to use the copyrighted poster on the article so you are trying to delete this one. I think this is not in good faith and you should stand down. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Also, I double checked because you had me doubting myself, but you are **wrong** about the back even though they were never printed that way. Clearly stated at this link "The notice should be permanently legible to an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use and should not be concealed from view upon reasonable examination" a back of a movie poster could not be seen under normal conditions on a movie theater wall, so that is not a location for a notice. Gosh, Beyond My Ken, be reasonable and withdraw this deletion request. Failing that, can a passing admin close this pointless request? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that copyrights were allowed to be placed on the back of artwork (or bottom, if three dimensional) is exactly why we have to assume (unless we have an image of the back of the poster top show otherwise) that all movie poster are copyrighted. This is also why when you see a movie poster on an en.wiki film article, 99.99% of the time it has been uploaded under a "fair use" license on en.wiki itself -- because Commons does not host fair-use images. Now, if you have proof that this image is not copyrighted, you should forward that proof to OTRS, and the image will be labelled as such, but without proof, Commons goes under the assumption that material which is normally copyrighted is, indeed, copyrighted.
- As for your comments on a "vendetta" -- I make thousands of edits on en.wiki and Commons every month, on hundreds of articles and images. This nomination is just another edit and reflects nothing whatsoever on my personal feelings -- in fact, if I had my druthers, Commons wouldn't have the proscription against copyrighted material, or at least have a much less strict standard, but the fact is that it does, and that's the way of the world. Them's the rules of this particular game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, as for the link you provided, please be aware that Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source. You're going to have to provide a link to an actual copyright law, which I believe is going to be difficult to do, since the law was other then you seem to believe it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see page 250 of Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets for the Paralegal (2008) by Deborah Bouchoux, which describes where copyright notices should be placed:
I don't see how it can be any clearer than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. For works embodied in two-dimensional copies (such as paintings and posters), the notice may be affixed to the front or the back of the copies, or any backing or mounting material.
- Please see page 250 of Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets for the Paralegal (2008) by Deborah Bouchoux, which describes where copyright notices should be placed:
- As for your comments on a "vendetta" -- I make thousands of edits on en.wiki and Commons every month, on hundreds of articles and images. This nomination is just another edit and reflects nothing whatsoever on my personal feelings -- in fact, if I had my druthers, Commons wouldn't have the proscription against copyrighted material, or at least have a much less strict standard, but the fact is that it does, and that's the way of the world. Them's the rules of this particular game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's absurd you are still arguing this. I could make up a book and claim it as fact too. And even if that book says that, you still haven't addressed the fact that NO posters had copyright printed on the back. It just didn't exist. You are inventing ghosts to play a scare game. The reason most new posters are "fair use" is because most new posters have copyright printed on them. In the case of pre 1978 with no copyright printed they are in the public domain. This is clearly a Keep and its frustrating you are trying to spook people into deleting it. Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Copyright Catalog The poster does not seem to be copyright registered I checked the 1962 arts catalogs for "Boccaccio 70" http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1962r.html
Also, it seems like it would not make sense to put the copyright on a back of a poster. Copyright is there to protect the images on the poster from being copied. A poster is usually only seen from the front. A copyright on the back would not serve its purpose. So I think it would be safe to assume that there is no copyright on the back. Because it is not registered and is unlikely to have a copyright on it, I think it would be safe to keep it. Rybkovich (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I have a much simpler reason for assuming that the poster does not have notice on the back -- two sided printing is considerably more expensive than single sided. The poster has "Printed in the U.S.A." at the bottom, so if the studio had intended to put a copyright notice on it, they would have added it there rather than adding 60% to the printing cost. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it is not the latest version of the logo. CyberPractices (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We routinely keep old logos for future reference as part of our educational purpose. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sofie Lambrecht (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status. Uploaded on 28.12.2015 in high res with exif, File:Administratief gebouw BelOrta.jpg was previously published via http://www.managermagazines.be/magazines/antwerpen-manager/sint-katelijne-waver-belorta-noteert-positief-ondanks-russische-importban (05.2015, © 2015. Alle rechten voorbehouden) = http://www.managermagazines.be/wp-content/uploads/Administratief-gebouw-BelOrta.jpg (identical exif & size) and also File:Verkoopzaal BelOrta.JPG was circulating around the web before upload. Further details and/or permission(s) needed.
Gunnex (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, artworks without obvious educational use
BrightRaven (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all, especially File:Ssdv645.jpeg = Minecraft screenshot = Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft. Gunnex (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subodhkerkar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. Uploaded in a row since 28.12.2015 for en:User:Subodhkerkar (Subodh Kerkar, 1959— , an Indian Installation Artist based in Goa, India) and en:Museum of Goa, including artworks and content grabbed from other sites and photographers, like File:Subodh Kerkar.jpeg, per exif a copyrighted work by "Vinod Karimatt ", File:3E6A0390.jpg, copyrighted by "Midhun Mohan", File:Unfolding of a Dream Dalai Lama.jpeg = content taken from official site http://www.subodhkerkar.com/subodhkerkar_publicart.html (Copyright © 2013 By Subodh Kerkar Artist, Goa, India) = http://www.subodhkerkar.com/public_art/subodhkerkarbig9.jpg (last modified: 2013, identical exif) but which was already published in 2011 via (example) http://johnyml.blogspot.de/2011/03/unfolding-of-dream-when-art-meets.html, same procedure for File:Tenth Planet.jpeg + File:The Moon and the Tides.jpeg + etc. — and File:Logo mog.png is, considering en:File:Museum of Goa logo.png, obviously also not "own work" (may be in PD by other reasons but relevant info must be provided). Multiple copyright issues to solve, further details and permissions needed.
- File:Subodh Kerkar.jpeg
- File:Logo mog.png
- File:Museum of Goa.jpeg
- File:3E6A0390.jpg
- File:Mussel Shells Ocean.jpeg
- File:Tenth Planet.jpeg
- File:The Moon and the Tides.jpeg
- File:Fisherman and the Boat.jpeg
- File:The pepper cross.jpeg
- File:Unfolding of a Dream Dalai Lama.jpeg
- File:Chilli on Beach.jpeg
- File:Oysters on a Plate.jpeg
Gunnex (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vijaya college (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Uploaded since 28.12.2015 for a school in Sri Lanka. Appears to be all taken from official https://www.facebook.com/VijayaCollege/photos_stream?tab=photos_stream, like File:Vijaya College (2).png (+2x derivates) versus https://www.facebook.com/VijayaCollege/photos/pb.187944601255201.-2207520000.1453127415./928578237191830/?type=3&theater (11.2015) or File:Vijaya college.jpg versus https://www.facebook.com/VijayaCollege/photos/pb.187944601255201.-2207520000.1453127415./923776464338674/?type=3&theater (11.2015), needing further details and/or permission(s) from the original photographers.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Despite of having a similar username, the Facebook user is not necessarily the same person as the Commons user. A verifiable connection via COM:OTRS (or by other means) must be established.
- File:Vijaya college Principal.jpg
- File:Vijaya college.jpg
- File:Vijaya college office.jpg
- File:Vijaya college gunasena hall.jpg
- File:Vijaya college front.jpg
- File:Vijaya College Flag.png
- File:Vijaya College Logo.png
- File:Vijaya college Front view.jpg
- File:Vijaya College Front.jpg
- File:Vijaya College (2).png
Gunnex (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Everything is doubtful here. See the final two sections of en:Talk:Billy the Kid (permalink) for detailed discussion: basically, this image claims to come from a collection of photos from a no-name web source, and the subject appears significantly differently from his appearance in well-attested images. Moreover, the source website admits that there's no provenance for these images: they bought them at an antique shop and don't have any solid knowledge of their origin. How can we trust that these people know that their identifications are correct? Per COM:SCOPE, we delete stuff that's not likely to be useful; knowledgeable people won't use dubious images, and we don't want less-knowledgeable people using dubious images without realising that they're dubious.
Two final notes: (1) This image isn't currently used at any project. (2) As noted at en:Talk:BtK, this image doesn't even appear at the alleged source website. It's bad enough to take an image from a dubious website, but even worse when you claim that you took something from a place that doesn't have it. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's incorrect that the photo isn't used. It is being used at the John Tunstall article on the en.wikipedia. Winkelvi (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The John Tunstall photograph is from the Phillips Collection. It was originally uploaded to Wiki with the correct license of Public Domain.
It is a circa 1875 albumen print photograph. The credibility of the collection is growing rapidly. See the Phillips Collection resume on my user page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is obviously of that era and is Public Domain.
- Wow. Lots of non-agf going on here, Nyttend. Could you tone down the insults, please? I didn't claim anything about this photo other than it came from a photo already uploaded by someone else who said it was a photo of John Tunstall that was part of an authenticated and private old-west photo collection. Until someone can prove this photo IS NOT of John Tunstall, I can't see any valid reason why it should be deleted - whether it's being used at the moment or not. Winkelvi (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- PS, Winkelvi, I'm sorry that I offended you. I wasn't trying to claim that you'd done anything wrong; I was talking about the original image, which obviously is in the same situation as your derivative work. Obviously there's nothing uniquely wrong with this image and nothing wrong with the idea of you making a DW of the other one. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The website tells that the picture comes from an unknown source. Without information about the publication history of the image, we can't determine the copyright status of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Copyright status? It's obviously a public domain photo at this point because of its age, isn't it? Winkelvi (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- That assumes it to be a work of the 19th century. Because the website mentions that they have no provenance whatsoever, we have no way to establish the accuracy of this claim, and anyway, where did this digital file come from? We accept statements such as "I scanned this image myself from a printed original" and "copied from http://www.example.com/tunstall.jpg", but if you claim that it came from a web source, you need to provide the file's URL and/or the URL of the page displaying the file. No such statement (of either sort) is given at this image's source, File:Tunstall wiki.JPG; we don't have reason to believe that this was taken from Phillips Collection's website, despite claims presented here and at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Copyright status? It's obviously a public domain photo at this point because of its age, isn't it? Winkelvi (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no evidence by the filer that this photo is NOT of the individual the owner of the photo (who uploaded it originally) says it is. Winkelvi (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the so-called Phillips Collection of Texas Escapes Online is not authenticated, and this fact is even alluded to on that site in the essay, "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" by Cathleen Briley, already linked to above. She says, "Of course, questions immediately began to rise about the authenticity of the photos in the collection. What are the chances of someone finding a massive collection of extremely rare photos of incredibly famous people all at once? We grappled with that question ourselves. It seems so unbelievable. So, how can we have proof without provenance? Even though we have no record of previous ownership, the proof is in the pictures." Now, that's self-published original research, as well as patent nonsense if I ever saw it. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Susan Stevenson is a researcher for the top Billy the Kid author, Frederick Nolan. Susan agrees that it is a photograph of John Tunstall. Other people including professionals who have experience in identifying photographs also agree. An email from Susan Stevenson can be arranged. Susan is also a descendant of the Dolan and Fritz families from The Lincoln County War. She agrees we have photographs of her ancestors in the Phillips collection. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It is true that the Phillips Collection currently has no provenance. We have submitted the idea to finding out who the original collector was to PBS's History Detectives. We hope they accept the task. The collection is gaining its own credibility just from the photographs. See the collections impressive resume on my user page OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- DeleteThere also may be a conflict of interest issue here as well, since, to bolster her case in her essay, Cathleen Briley actually refers to photos used in Wikipedia articles that were uploaded to the Commons by the user OSMOND PHILLIPS, who purportedly represents the "Phillips Collection" at Texas Escapes Online, and she even cites the respective Wikipedia articles. The uploader claims "The credibility of the collection is growing rapidly." It appears that the only "credibility" this image and others uploaded by that person have is the usage of those files by credulous editors on Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep The Phillips Collection resume with support from professionals can be seen here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OSMOND_PHILLIPS
- You don't have to say "keep" every time you comment, that's three times now. This "support" is very weak:
- 1. The Discovery Channel is not a reliable source, nor is someone "interested in doing a Billy The Kid film"
- 2. "Researcher" is a meaningless title, anyone off the street can call themselves a researcher.
- 3. The president of a historical society is not necessarily an authority, and film or TV producer is not an accreditation of expertise in historical photos.
- 4. Texas Escapes.com editor/owner John Troesser has an obvious conflict of intertest.
- 5. Arcadia Publishing and the History Press are not reliable sources. They are part of the same publishing house, and both solicit submissions by self-publishers of original research.
- 6. Wild West magazine is not a reliable source, neither is True West magazine, which is "interested in doing a future article on Billy the Kid after seeing our photo". (Well, there's a pecuniary incentive to upload these photos).
- 7. "User contributor BtPhelps said Phillips Collection may warrant its own page pending more credibility." (This is really grasping for straws).
- 8. American Cowboy magazine, Historynet.com, and New Mexico Magazine are not reliable sources.
- 9. "Descendants that agree we have their family photos." (Claimant descendants are notoriously unreliable.) Carlstak (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since when are historynet.com and The Discovery Channel not reliable sources, Carlstak? Wild West Magazine and True West Magazine, also not reliable sources according to... whom? Winkelvi (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Whether they are reliable sources or not is not the point. If you want the file to be kept, then you need to provide information about the publication history of the image which proves that the image is in the public domain, for example evidence of publication before 1923. Such information hasn't been provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since when are historynet.com and The Discovery Channel not reliable sources, Carlstak? Wild West Magazine and True West Magazine, also not reliable sources according to... whom? Winkelvi (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, one only need to look at the photo for the clothing and hairstyle to see it is not from the 20th century. One only need to look at the quality, coloring, and type of photo it is (which is mentioned in the description) and realize that kind of photo processing (albumen) was used in the 19th, not the 20th, century. It's most certainly a pre-1923 photo. Winkelvi (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- When was the image published? Remember that publication and creation are different, and the 1923 date is relevant only for something published before 1923. If it were taken in 1877 but not published until 1924, it's potentially still under copyright. If it weren't published at all until now, it's in the public domain, but the lack of provenance means that you can't prove that it wasn't published until now. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since it's been in a private collection until recently, it hasn't been published at all, it would seem. Apparently, OSMOND PHILLIPS is the one to ask. Winkelvi (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Where did the private collector get the photo? No proof of publication is given, to be sure, but perhaps it was published in a book post-1923. If it were published pre-1923, of course it's PD-US (e.g. the photographer distributed a sufficient number of copies), but it's entirely plausible that the collector's copy is developed from negatives that were later used for a book published in compliance with requirements for copyright. And still, this ignores the COM:SCOPE issue, being the issue of whether we can trust that this is really who the uploader says it is? The differences between this and authenticated images (the uploader having failed to provide proof of any of the claimed authentication), between this and provenance-known images, means that a knowledgeable person won't risk using it. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since it's been in a private collection until recently, it hasn't been published at all, it would seem. Apparently, OSMOND PHILLIPS is the one to ask. Winkelvi (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- When was the image published? Remember that publication and creation are different, and the 1923 date is relevant only for something published before 1923. If it were taken in 1877 but not published until 1924, it's potentially still under copyright. If it weren't published at all until now, it's in the public domain, but the lack of provenance means that you can't prove that it wasn't published until now. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Stefan2, one only need to look at the photo for the clothing and hairstyle to see it is not from the 20th century. One only need to look at the quality, coloring, and type of photo it is (which is mentioned in the description) and realize that kind of photo processing (albumen) was used in the 19th, not the 20th, century. It's most certainly a pre-1923 photo. Winkelvi (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The image is obviously Public Domain. As to the issue of provenance, this debate is about whether the image is actually of Tunstall. That same debate is already going on over here and should be addressed there. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- If it is not a picture of Tunstall, then it was possibly not created at the time when Tunstall was alive. It could have been created a lot later. If it is a picture of Tunstall, then it is probably in the public domain, but the stupid copyright law of the United States makes it very difficult to prove that something is in the public domain. There was a discussion at COM:VP last year about Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci. Everyone assumed that Mona Lisa is in the public domain in the United States, but no one could prove it. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The image is obviously Public Domain. As to the issue of provenance, this debate is about whether the image is actually of Tunstall. That same debate is already going on over here and should be addressed there. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: We need to know provenance -- there are too many questions here and too many supports with COI problems. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maurice1365 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Historical photos (including magazine covers, illustrations, etc.) may be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided. All files uploaded since 12.2015 for a camping club in Canada.
- File:Pierre andre viau.jpg
- File:Guide officiel.jpg
- File:Feux de camp.jpg
- File:GERARD POUPART.jpg
- File:Salon camping.jpg
- File:EnteteWigwam.jpg
- File:Rabaska.jpg
- File:Max Bauchet.jpg
- File:EcussonF.jpg
- File:JEAN-PAUL DENIS.jpg
- File:Gérard Poupart.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused, undescribed image of unknown person Richard Avery (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused, undescribed, personal image of an unknown person. Richard Avery (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Work of art by Friedrich Press (died 1990) within a building, no FOP given ---> copyright violation. Paulae (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Pleasant photo but unused and of non-notable people. Commons is not a family album. Richard Avery (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ANNA HARUTYUNYAN (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ANNA HARUTYUNYAN (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is mordern work - copy of Theophanes the Cretan painting. On the website from which the image is taken is specified - "After an icon by Theophanes the Cretan" Testus (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is mordern work - copy of Theophanes the Cretan painting. On the website from which the image is taken is specified - "After an icon by Theophanes the Cretan" Testus (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is mordern work - copy of Theophanes the Cretan painting. On the website from which the image is taken is specified - "After an icon by Theophanes the Cretan" Testus (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is mordern work - copy of Emmanuel Lambardos painting. On the website from which the image is taken is specified - "After an icon by Emmanuel Lambardos" Testus (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It is mordern work - copy of Theophanes the Cretan painting. On the website from which the image is taken is specified - "After an icon by Theophanes the Cretan" Testus (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
FOP in the US only covers architecture. This text is too long for {{PD-text}}, so this picture is a copyvio. BrightRaven (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Westringia longiflora
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jacopocioni (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. Uploaded since 12.2015 for it:Compagnia di Santa Maria della Croce al Tempio, most likely by an "all-he-can-get-uploader", considering:
- File:Oratorio facciata 2.jpg --> taken from http://tabernacoli.blogspot.de/2014/04/firenze-croce-templare.html (2014) = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_-KyO26FwNQ/U0PnjCqakrI/AAAAAAAAMAI/Fm1Mp982vIY/s1600/San+Giuseppe+%28Via%29+%281%29.jpg
- Artworks like File:Ponte al Rubaconte.jpg + File:Firenze patibolo e tempio fuori Porta della Giustizia.jpg + etc. with unknown copyright status
- File:Oratorio facciata 1.jpg --> grabbed from https://curiositasufirenze.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/michelangelo-faceva-parte-dei-fratelli-neri/ (2012) = https://curiositasufirenze.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/santamaria_della_croce_al-_tempio.jpg (identical exif)
- File:Oratorio portone.jpg --> grabbed again from http://tabernacoli.blogspot.de/2014/04/firenze-croce-templare.html (2014) = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HjXFn8Egx9A/U0PnjaXNFBI/AAAAAAAAMAU/AZMS_-AaWo4/s1600/San+Giuseppe+%28Via%29+%282%29.jpg
- Historical photos like File:Neri 1912 2.jpg may be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Percorso condannati a morte 2.JPG --> [Google] Maps
- File:Lunetta mosaico Cristo.jpg --> grabbed from http://www.mesemediceo.org/oratorio_santa_maria_della_croce_al_tempio.htm = http://www.mesemediceo.org/images/Luoghi/Lunetta.jpg (last modified: 2013)
- etc.
Multiple copyright issues to solve and permissions needed.
- File:Ponte al Rubaconte.jpg
- File:Oratorio di Santa Maria vergine della Croce al Tempio 1910.jpg
- File:Stemma primo piano.JPG
- File:Neri 1912 2.jpg
- File:Luigi D'Indico 2.jpg
- File:Oratorio interno 1.JPG
- File:Oratorio affresco disegno.jpg
- File:Oratorio affresco 1.jpg
- File:Oratorio facciata 2.jpg
- File:Targa commemorativa spedale.jpg
- File:Tavoluccia dei neri 2.jpg
- File:Oratorio portone.jpg
- File:Percorso condannati a morte 2.JPG
- File:Carcere delle Stinche.jpg
- File:Firenze patibolo e tempio fuori Porta della Giustizia.jpg
- File:Oratorio facciata 1.jpg
- File:Lunetta mosaico Cristo.jpg
- File:Stemma su architrave.JPG
- File:Stemma CSMdCaT.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
No description (artist, creation date, name) of these detailled artworks, no permission, may be recent artworks. Cjp24 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Uploaded in a row on 26.12.2015 for a school in India.
Gunnex (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be copyvio; this picture was published on internet before on commons (e.g. http://www.walltor.com/wallpaper/merry-christmas-tied-with-a-bow-170042) Krochoman (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
For copyright information or permission to use Peanuts characters and comic strip reproductions, please contact Peanuts Worldwide at service@peanuts.com, the licensing agent for Peanuts properties. Please be aware that it is illegal to use any Peanuts characters without permission from Peanuts Worldwide. http://schulzmuseum.org/explore/about-the-museum/contact/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per COM:FANART: This is just a capuccino cup, not an official artwork, Come on! --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like a Derivative Work of copyrighted cartoon character to me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per Amitie 10g. Bougainvillea16 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: It is recognizably Charlie Brown, therefore it is a DW. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious copyright status. One of the pictures is available in higher resolution here.
Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Shown person died 1952, wrong date. Authorship and permission for license doubtful Wdwd (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Antwort
Dieses Foto wurde in den 1930er Jahren gemacht. Der Fotograf ist unbekannt. Es gibt ein Gruppenfoto aus jener Zeit, wahrscheinlich am gleichen Tag aufgenommen, dass Peter Loris inmitten seiner Musikanten zeigt. --Neigios (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: The 1930s are far too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Thomasosho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images, out of project scope.
Wiki13 talk 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Melanostomias (talk · contribs)
[edit]It says that these are from "R.A. Singer and Page, 2015". This probably means that OTRS is needed.
- File:Fig. 24.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 22.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 14.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 9.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 23.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 20.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 12.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 11.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 16.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 17.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 21.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 18.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 10.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 15.Singer & Page.jpg
- File:Fig. 3.Singer & Page.jpg
Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope? Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (228x353 px) resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded on 25.12.2015 by 1-upload user Withyhaysrabbitry (talk · contributions · Statistics). Gunnex (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted toys. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Domantik vead (talk · contribs)
[edit]The watermarks suggest that these come from some website. Additionally, the pictures are derivative works.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GermanDarma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Uploader blocked at dewiki. Related dewiki entries speedy deleted.
Gunnex (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Antoshurel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, considering also (uploader related) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas Kolkata.jpg
- File:Durga Puja pandal.jpg
- File:Rabdentse.jpg
- File:Khecheodpalri Lake.jpg
- File:Kangchendzonga from Pelling.jpg
- File:Pemayangtse.jpg
- File:Darj BP.jpg
- File:Sunrise on Kangchendzonga.jpg
- File:Yiga Choeling Monastery.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr Lo 2015 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, can be found earlier on web. Uploaded since 25.12.2015.
- File:STEAMER7.jpg
- File:STEAMER6.jpg
- File:Steamer 3aa.JPG
- File:Steamer 3a.JPG
- File:Steamer 3.JPG
- File:STEAMER3.JPG
- File:STEAMER2.jpg
- File:STEAMER1.jpg
- File:STEAMER.jpg
- File:Umami2.jpg
- File:Umami1.jpg
- File:Umami.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcafache (talk · contribs)
[edit]fr:Robert Combas is a living artist. His permission via OTRS is necessary.
BrightRaven (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 12:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal file 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 13:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal file 2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 13:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mariama ibrahim fofanah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also need a permission IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y_6WIBwz6mw/VYvmcz1cgaI/AAAAAAAAAG0/U6aD-TQURv4/s1600/taller.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also maybe out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images, www.bts.io/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ricardo-Olloqui.png. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mh3GfvdnPw8/UZ6K80qdS_I/AAAAAAAAICA/TnmzoAZlg1Y/s1600/Alain+Delaye.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour
Concernant la photo d'Alain Delay, il n'y a aucun problème de copyright. Il s'agit d'une photo prise dans son jardin, par l'un de ses enfants.
C'est une photo qu'il utilise habituellement pour des manifestations publiques, d'où le fait qu'on la retrouve sur internet.
Si cela pose problème, je peux sans difficulté en mettre une autre.
--MMD49 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentation of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused user photo. See COM:SCOPE. Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Irfanmotiwala (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal files
- File:Irfan Motiwala getups 2014-07-01 17-44.jpeg
- File:Irfan Motiwala 2014-06-13 02-31.jpg
- File:Profile pic 2014-06-13 02-09.jpg
2003:45:5C21:3401:317E:3B71:9F9B:F10F 07:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like an unused {{Userpage image}}. Out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused user page image, out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpage image}}, out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 21:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo of unclear notability. See COM:SCOPE. Also incorrectly tagged as own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused userpage image, out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Could be a personal image. EXIF shows copyright 2011, possibly all right resered unless the uploader can clarify this Wiki13 talk 22:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo of unclear notability. See COM:SCOPE. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Self-promotion. Out of project scope. Wiki13 talk 22:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope? Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete Pibwl (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
These are all said to be recent works of Robert Avakian. He may or may not be related to the uploader, Avakyan62. There is no evidence here that the uploader has permission to freely license them, so that at a minimum, a license via OTRS would be required. A second issue is that Google turns up no hits for a sculptor or painter by that name, so it is very likely that they are out of scope because they are personal works of art from a non-notable artist.
- File:Shir-Dor 1000.jpg
- File:Brichmula 1000.jpg
- File:Bukhara Ark-Fortress 1000.jpg
- File:Samarkand Shakhi-Zinda 1000.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Sukok 800.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Earth.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Yangibozor 02.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Yangibozor 01.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Bukhara 1000.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Fish 1000.jpg
- File:Robert Avakyan Einstein 1000.jpg
- File:Photo Robert 03 Wiki.jpg
- File:Ikar 1983 800.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Unidentified person. Out of project scope. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Not CC-BY-SA: http://cnbb.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17751:papa-francisco-nomeia-bispos-para-passo-fundo-e-santo-amaro&catid=114&Itemid=106 Py4nf (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Hystrix: No source since 18 January 2016
Image claimed as "own work" by uploader but seems copied from http://pakashastra.blogspot.com/2013/11/patrode-patra.html?m=1 Takeaway (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raghvein. Gunnex (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IqoE5b25C5Y/Uo4qidO3A8I/AAAAAAAACog/yYwrpAilLRE/s1600/pat6.jpg. --Yann (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Image uploaded as "own work" seems copied from http://cbivishy.blogspot.nl/2011_10_01_archive.html?m=1. Takeaway (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Raghvein. Gunnex (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I4myQDI9Re8/T28GeFCR8NI/AAAAAAAAMvM/8tqqFFC5IfU/s1600/VIS_3735.jpg. --Yann (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
DR Hoax flags
[edit]- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Espaillat.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Valverde.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Bahoruco.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia Bahoruco.PNG
- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Barahona.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Independencia.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia de Monseñor Nouel.svg
- File:Bandera de la Provincia Espaillat.PNG
- File:Bandera de Las Terrenas.PNG
This flags are hoax, not existant, completely made up. Just like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/DR_Provincial_flags --Osplace (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. DW of uploads by blocked hoaxer User:BANRD. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded by a sock, I highly doubt Italy and Albania have the same highway code. Fry1989 eh? 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be the wrong sign. I think it should be deleted. --Mailtosap (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Bad version, already existing file, and already deleted in 2012 Gigillo83 (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is however a problem. The other file has "old" in it's name. If it is old, what has been to replaced with? If not, then the "old" part should be removed from it's file name. Fry1989 eh? 02:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't a problem: the file has the name old because it was in the old Road Code of Italy. The Road Code from 1992 hasn't this sign...that's the reason...--Gigillo83 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- So does Italy not use the "No U-turn" sign anymore? Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, since 1992 Italy doesn't use any more this sign, as well the "Do not turn on left" or "do not turn on right"...some foreigns user perhaps do not know this, and they continue to put those signs ad if they are still in use...but it isn't so!--Gigillo83 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- So does Italy not use the "No U-turn" sign anymore? Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't a problem: the file has the name old because it was in the old Road Code of Italy. The Road Code from 1992 hasn't this sign...that's the reason...--Gigillo83 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Road sign NOT existing in Italian Road Code Gigillo83 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Shut up please! Barneyuj7 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please, be quiet! If you tell that this road sign exist in Italy write here your source. This sign doesn't exist in Italy since 1992...--Gigillo83 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
no file Sgsg (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat. --Achim (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Uploader acknowledges the image is taken from subject's Vimeo account, and therefore is no better than an unauthorized derivative work The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Same as File:Bete de Cinglais 1632.jpg but lower resolution Ancalagon (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted and redirect created as the file was old. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
no educatins useful Максим Підліснюк (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --Sealle (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This is my own picture and it was an interim solution since it is blurred. Now I got a better shot and this one is obsolete. Please delete it. GeoTrinity (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Image is superseded, see description. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pashasaywayrajiv. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by PierreSelim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Taken from here: http://beverlymacca.blogspot.com/ Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate (render copy) of source file:Jumping Wikipe-tan.svg, same author/uploader. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- This conversation is now closed!!! --YellowAngelFish (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept Commons talk:Superseded images policy to quote "This image has been superseded" is not a sufficient reason for deletion!".--KTo288 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:10-й БТрО ЗСУ.png. Kwasura (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JeremySzal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copright status. Uploaded on 29.12.2015 and grabbed from Internet for illustrate en:Tales to Terrify (a horror fiction podcast founded by Tony C. Smith), these two cover artworks may be in public domain by other reasons (above or below COM:TOO?) but relevant info must be provided.
Gunnex (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Small filesize, no metadata, possible official band shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No proof source allows re-distribution. // Gikü said done Monday, 18 January 2016 10:56 (UTC) 10:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Cover of various albums of the group, it's just cropped version. I can use this image, i will not go very deep, i think is a public image(1968), but if not, , Law 8/1996 of Romania, article 33, points c and d permits the usage of any image who have rights registered in Romania on this purpose.
- Viuser (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Image has to be published before 1991 (if it is an isolated photography) or before 1986 (if it is part of a series of photographies) for {{PD-RO-photo}} to be applicable. // Gikü said done Tuesday, 19 January 2016 20:13 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Image lacks an academic source which would confirm that Ardeal actually ever had such COA. // Gikü said done Monday, 18 January 2016 10:59 (UTC) 10:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arms, House of Basarab.png for some related comments. // Gikü said done Tuesday, 19 January 2016 20:15 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Image lacks an academic source which would confirm that Transilvania actually ever had such COA. // Gikü said done Monday, 18 January 2016 10:59 (UTC) 10:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arms, House of Basarab.png for some related comments. // Gikü said done Tuesday, 19 January 2016 20:15 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Small filesize, no metadata, possible professional portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Image lacks an academic source which would confirm the authenticity of the COA. // Gikü said done Monday, 18 January 2016 11:03 (UTC) 11:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- What rule i broke?You need to give a rule! You don't have codes? How i can defend without knowing the rule i broke?
- I don't have time to respond on each nomination, i chose this, for now, because is more important, so it seems the other 3 images will be erased !?.
- First, the image is not finished, i have small time, but was just a base for future, i am not responsible because others just copied her.
- Second, the house of Basarab, i can give you images, had this shield Dan Cernovodeanu, Ştiinţa şi Arta Heraldică în România, Editura Ştiiţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1977,pp.66,67, with a small variation, 8 or 4 green lines.
- The crest appears in all coins, it will be the future coa of the country Dan Cernovodeanu, Ştiinţa şi Arta Heraldică în România, Editura Ştiiţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1977,pp. 243-245. The color of the crest is still disputed, sable or gold.There are no sources from that age, but in other representations it vary between the two colors. I prefer sable, but i have little time to improve it, for now. I think that's all, on this image.
- Viuser (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. @Viuser, you didn't break any rules. Don't worry. The nom probably forgot about com:INUSE. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded as File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 988645 322662471199920 964296499 n.jpg. Path indicates the photo was downloaded from the web before being uploaded here, and there is no EXIF data. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Likely extract of presentation of unknown origin and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I recently uploaded this file, but I now see the quality is too low, and we have several higher quality images of Frans Grijzenhout anyway. Andre Engels (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Ok. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Fusionmedicare/sandbox). MER-C 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No evidence the toy is inthe public domain per Commons:TOYS — Racconish ☎ 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
_-_Niki_de_Saint_Phalle.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Niki_de_Saint_Phalle.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Niki de Saint Phalle died in 2002. This artwork will enter the public domain in 2073. FOP in Venezuela does not cover the inside of museums. BrightRaven (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
_-_Niki_de_Saint_Phalle.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
_-_Niki_de_Saint_Phalle.jpg){kind=link}
may be copyrighted as derivated work Queryzo (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:FOP (There is FOP in the UK for works like this). --Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no permission (No permission since) Natuur12 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Concerted to a DR for tracking purposes. Delete as per here. Previous closure is an error on my part. 2D graphic works aren't covered by FOP-UK. Natuur12 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I came across this file being used in en:Rik Mayall and actually had tagged it with {{Dw-nsd}} before noticing that it actually had been discussed and kept per the above DR. Murals seems to be one of the things specifically referred to as a "2D graphic work of art" in COM:FOP United Kingdom which means Commons most likely can't keep it without the COM:CONSENT of the artist or artists who painted it. There's no reason to believe the the photo of the mural isn't the uploader's "own work", but more formal COM:VRT verification is going to be needed if the "own work" is going to be extended to the mural itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not covered by UK FoP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muhammedkhawaldeh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyvios (see other uploads by same user)
- File:التكبير يظهر صورة مجهرية في مظهر نسيجي للأنسجة العظمية الكثيفة ووجود ثغرات وخلية عظمية.png
- File:النتوء الحنكي.png
— Racconish ☎ 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a copyright logo. See https://www.facebook.com/teisseireUK and http://www.teisseire.com/en-gb/uk/. No evidence whatsoever that this has been released by the company under CC-BY-SA. let alone that it is the "own work" of the uploader. Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In my view this design exceeds the threshold of originality. The company, Teisseire is based in France but owned by the UK company Britvic The image under discussion is the form of the logo used on their UK websites and packaging. See Commons:Threshold of originality#United Kingdom. It is a modified version of the logo used on the French website and packaging which is uploaded on English Wikipedia under fair use. See en:File:Teisseire logo.png. Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There is an image on Wikipedia, so this will not be needed. DatGuy (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.inafed.gob.mx/work/enciclopedia/EMM27tabasco/municipios/27000/27h000-40.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like 1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ef9jkqMEe5M/VQ7Akl4nB4I/AAAAAAAAHBI/udXzjjYPt1Y/s1600/215529_199618510074780_3824163_n.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The two full sentences on this plaque clearly qualify it for a copyright (the requirement is for one sentence) and, since it was placed after 1989, no copyright notice is required. We cannot keep the image on Commons without a free license from the writer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://lepatriote-congobrazza.com/pdf/Journal_363_20160111.pdf NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
File:You bring the music, and I'll bring the cannons - Charles River Esplanade - Boston, MA - DSC02568.JPG
[edit]
The text on this plaque clearly qualifies for a copyright under US law. Therefore this image is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright. Since it was placed in 1998, no copyright notice was required. We cannot keep the image without a free license from the writer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope — Racconish ☎ 16:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Inferior unused duplicate of file: Mangalogo2 zh-hans.png (same uploader). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 16:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- No comment from the uploader. Bluedeck 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
unlike own work of the uploader as cliamed. JuTa 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploader describes the image on en-wiki as taken from the subject's Twitter profile The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
No credible license. Uploader's two other contributions are clear copyvios, and there's no reason to believe this one isn't as well The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyviol: gmaps screenshot Ciaurlec (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyviol: gmaps screenshot Ciaurlec (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously text-edited, appears to be a scan. Gunnex (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Claimed 'own work', but uploader's nick is female, and the name in metadata is male. Please provide licensing from the person who actually made this photograph. MBq (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Useless/out of scope. Non-notable person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fake flag / bandera falsa Jcb (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax flag deleted before for the same reason, don't exist sources to evidence that it's true.--Inefable001 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There still has been zero proof this is fake, and uplaoders are not required to prove their images are true, only that they are PD. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry1989, I understand your reaction, but this has a history. Although this seems to be a good faith SVG conversion, the original was spam. These flags have been uploaded massively and repeatedly, from more than a handful of sockpuppets. They have been deleted several times by several administrators. I often visit the Dominican Republic and I have never seen those flags, at least not in the part of the country where I come. If such a flag would exist, it would at least be expected to be present in front of the gobernación, but none of the governer's offices I have visited showed any flag apart from the national one. People in Dominican Republic strongly identify with the national flag as far as I have seen in the past ten years. Jcb (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- People in alot of countries feel strongly about their national flag, and regional flags may be rare or even unheard of in general knowledge, but can still exist. When Inefable001 did his previous mass DR, the only argument he was able to make was that he had "never seen them". You know as much as I know that that is insufficient. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know the role of a gobernación in a Dominican province? Jcb (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- People in alot of countries feel strongly about their national flag, and regional flags may be rare or even unheard of in general knowledge, but can still exist. When Inefable001 did his previous mass DR, the only argument he was able to make was that he had "never seen them". You know as much as I know that that is insufficient. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Fry1989, I understand your reaction, but this has a history. Although this seems to be a good faith SVG conversion, the original was spam. These flags have been uploaded massively and repeatedly, from more than a handful of sockpuppets. They have been deleted several times by several administrators. I often visit the Dominican Republic and I have never seen those flags, at least not in the part of the country where I come. If such a flag would exist, it would at least be expected to be present in front of the gobernación, but none of the governer's offices I have visited showed any flag apart from the national one. People in Dominican Republic strongly identify with the national flag as far as I have seen in the past ten years. Jcb (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 07:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This file is based on a file which has now been deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is one of those hoax fake flags, but for now we cannot delete it, because it's in use in several Wikipedia articles, so 'out of scope' cannot be a deletion reason. And obviously copyright issues don't play a role here. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Well, we have deleted this file plenty of times before as a hoax. I see no reasont to not delete it since being pushed by sockuppets and vandals isn't legit use of the flag. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio. If not, this certainly contains derivative copyright violations from the TV show that this seems to be about. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
My own work, screwed up VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient source information to verify publication without notice. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. rather small format and missing exif, as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnail format and missing exif, as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, see also File:Ellakal church.jpg, Roland zh (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Hastings, Nebraska on Flight from Las Vegas, Nevada to Detroit, Michigan (6120499794).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possibly out of scope - I uploaded this in a Flickr transfer, but I don't think the quality meets COM:EDUSE INeverCry 21:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is in the US. There is good case law in the US that even taxidermy has a copyright, as of course, do sculptures of humans and animals, whether current or extinct -- we can't keep this without a license from the creator. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
a very crative but invalid {{PD-because}} reason is used. Looks not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or similar. JuTa 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGA_Sirani_Esther_ante_Asuero_1630_MFA_Budapest.jpg&type=revision&diff=184988560&oldid=121194730 instead of duplicate, the DR has to be discussed Oursana (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC) The file cannot be deleted because it is linked to the Spanish WP-Version. Further more the duplicate was invalid, because this file was uploaded first--Oursana (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Both files seems visually equal and have the same resolution, but checksum does not match. Instead of deleting this file, delete the newer one and make a redirection to here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Limbalee1974 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely false authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, and the uploader's history.
- File:5-WTC.jpg – "Own work" / "old photo i found in my loft" – that's what's commonly known as a lie. The file has the exact same resolution as the photo on page 19 of https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-042907-214619/unrestricted/LaMalva.pdf. I believe the same image has previously been uploaded as File:5WTC.jpg and deleted.
- File:6-8 bishopsgate.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Limbalee1974 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work. Low resolution, often no EXIF, and File:First2016.jpg has EXIF crediting Reuters. Additionally, many of the pictures seem to show modern buildings in Paris without evidence permission from the architects. Some buildings seem to be in London, though.
- File:Opus-1212.jpg
- File:Winterthur1.jpg
- File:Neptune5.jpg
- File:Michelet1.jpg
- File:Manhattan5.jpg
- File:Logica1.jpg
- File:Blanche1.jpg
- File:Europe5.jpg
- File:Cedre1.jpg
- File:First2016.jpg
- File:Opus.jpg
- File:Technip.jpg
- File:Initiale5.jpg
- File:Franklin5.jpg
- File:Euroeuroplaza.JPG
- File:Esplanade1.jpg
- File:Eqho.jpg
- File:Dexia.jpg
- File:Atlantique.jpg
- File:Auroreladefense.JPG
- File:Fitch ratings 30 north colonnade.jpg
- File:50 bank street.jpg
- File:20 churchill place.jpg
- File:25 north colonnade.jpg
- File:5 churchill 01.jpg
Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and please block the uploader again. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The picture of wolves is available here, given as "copyright Boreales". I think it might be a screenshot of the discussed film. The photo of the actor is suspicious as it's a pdf, and how many regular people get that close to the celebs at Cannes?
BethNaught (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Violation de droit d'auteur : 3 fois la même photo de http://la-famille-ackermann.over-blog.com/archive/2014-04/ -- Copyvio : 3 times the same photo from http://la-famille-ackermann.over-blog.com/archive/2014-04/
Habertix (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status considering "photo of a photo" of a statue, stamped with "NOT FOR ISSUE". Further details needed. Historical photos may be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided. Statue = work by en:Henry Moore (1898 – 1986), an English sculptor and artist (FOP?). Gunnex (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: For now com:PCP. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possibly out of scope - I uploaded this with a large Flickr set - it's a very low quality 51kb aerial shot - I don't think the quality is good enough to meet COM:EDUSE INeverCry 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Hart Miller Island, Chesapeake Bay (7235289762).jpg (1.6mb) is a much better aerial photo of the Island from the same photoset. INeverCry 08:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unclear copyright status. Even uploaded (on 28.12.2015) in high res with exif by 1-upload user 44sunflower1988 (talk · contributions · Statistics) the photo was previously published by several media, giving credits (via example) http://www.cascademagazin.de/grey-blog/redaktionsblog/beton-klingt-jetzt-vi-nyl, 17.12.2015, or http://www.scinexx.de/wissen-aktuell-19654-2015-12-17.html, 17.12.2015) to "Foto: Ricardo Kocadag" (see also https://www.facebook.com/BeuthHochschule/posts/1022020167821011), needing further details and/or permission. Gunnex (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Foreign Secretary with US Secretary of State and French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs (6800590839).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not the copyright holder, as the EXIF data clearly states: UN Photo/Mark Garten is the copyright holder. The FCO can't make this photo available under either OGL or a CC licence Checkingquarry (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
violazione di copyright Bart ryker (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
None of these files are licensed properly. The copyright belongs with the original photographer unless it has expired or they have released it.
- File:MakNII.return2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-испыт-станция2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-кремнезем.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-радиолаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-электроизм.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-газконтроль.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-химанализ.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-мехмаст.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-рентген.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-химлаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-ВВлаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штрекВВ3.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штрекВВ2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-физгаз2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-аэро2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штольня2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-северо-запад.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-север2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-разр2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-Вышка2.jpg
- File:MakNII.resque4.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-физгаз.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штрекВВ.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штольняВВ.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штольня.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-разр.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-север.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-Вышка.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-испыт-станция-1927.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-эмблема.jpg
- File:МакНИИ.jpg
- File:Н.Н.Черницын2.jpg
- File:Н.Н.Черницын.jpg
- File:MakNII.resque3.jpg
- File:MakNII.return.jpg
- File:MakNIIresque2.jpg
- File:MakNII.resque1.jpeg
- File:A.I.Bobrov 2.jpeg
- File:A.I.Bobrov.jpeg
- File:I.V.Bobrov 1.jpg
- File:IVBobrov 3.jpeg
- File:IVBobrov 2.jpeg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear guys,
Many thanks for your feedback. I suppose some troubles happend with the licensing of the images, I've posted in Wikipedia. I still can not understand, what's wrong with that.
Could you please kindly advise:
1) what license I should indicate, if an image has been scaned from a book?
2) what licence should be indicated, if an image has been taken from an outside web-site and an original author is unknown?
3) what license should be indicated, if the image has been taken from a family archive (provided by heirs) and I am a heir too?
I have placed my explanation in Summary section for each photo.
Please take a look and help with the licensing. I'm going to post some new pics shortly.
Thank you for your help in advance.
Regards,
- Unfortunately ownership of a photo does not confer the copyright on you, which is owned by the photographer. The photo will be copyrighted for the author's life plus 70 years. The images from books, if they were first published before 1951 and their photographers died before that date, are in public domain (use {{PD-Ukraine}}). Otherwise they are again protected by copyright. Ruslik (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's not clear again.
1. A number of book photos have been published in USSR in 1957. So, should they be licensed as PD-Russia?
2. What license should be indicated for the book pics published in Ukraine in 2007? PD-Ukraine?
3. Is it possible to get a certain advaice on pints 2 and 3 mentioned above?
As it was asked, I have provided all detailes for each specific photo on their own pages. Your help will be very appreciated.
Regards,
- @Kabota 13:
- 1. Which country were they published from? Look for the publisher, it should give a clue. Also, if you have any information about the person who took the photographs, that would be helpful. Also, please note that {{PD-Russia}} now honors 70 years after death, not 50, a law that has existed since 2008 and exists retroactively.
- 2. It depends on who took the photograph. If we don't know who took the photograph, it depends on when the photograph was first published. These links should be helpful: w:List of countries' copyright lengths, w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights.
- 3. Can you ascertain who took the photographs?
- Thanks for your help in everything. I realize copyright is a minefield especially for users who are new to it.
- PS. You can sign your post with ~~~~ Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I must correct you: the Ukrainian law applies here, not Russian. Ruslik (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre:
- Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'd like to make the discussion simpler to understand clear, what should be done with each specific photo to make all of them corresponding with the Wiki licensing requirements. The photos I've posted can be split on four cases:
- 1. Photos scanned by me from a book published in USSR, 1957. There are no any copyright requirement mentioned by the book authors. Example:File:МакНИИ-Вышка2.jpg.
- 2. Photos scanned by me from a book published in Ukraine, 2007. Similar: no any copyright requirement mentioned by the book authors. Example: File:MakNIIresque2.jpg.
- 3. Photos taken form outside Russian web-sites. Authors are unkown. Example: File:MakNII.return2.jpg.
- 4. Photos of two persons, who died in 1966 and 2014. These images were provided by me as a heir from the family archive. Authors of the photos are unkown. Example: File:A.I.Bobrov.jpeg.
- Could you please correct these example photos' license detailes in a right manner or provide here your advice, how to do that right? This could let me make the corresponding corrections for all my photos myself. Please just show me right examples of the right licenses.
- And yes. You're right this is a real minefield...
- Many thanks for your help in advance.
- Kabota_13 (talk) (contribs)
- I actually think that all these images should be deleted as you do not have appropriate permissions from the copyright holders, unless you can demonstrate (as I mentioned above) that they have already fallen in the public domain in Ukraine. And then there is also the issue of the USA copyright. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ruslik:
- Dear Ruslik, your comment is unclear. The approach you suggested can lead to deletion at least for 80% of photos posted in Wiki. What permissions and how should be obtained, if these are images officilly published in the printed books in 1957 and 2007 or taken from a couple of public web-sites or provided by heirs? I would appreciate your certain advice on what specific license should be indicated for the four cases I mentioned above. Thank you for your help in advance.
- I actually think that all these images should be deleted as you do not have appropriate permissions from the copyright holders, unless you can demonstrate (as I mentioned above) that they have already fallen in the public domain in Ukraine. And then there is also the issue of the USA copyright. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Kabota_13 (talk) (contribs)
- @Magog the Ogre:
- I have corrected the license and the summary sections for each photo. Could you please check, if everything is Ok now?
- Thank you once again.
- Kabota_13 (talk) (contribs)
- P.S. I did not understand yet how to use the ~~~~ signature here. Need an example...
Deleted: Again, for images taken from a book, you will probably need a license from the publisher of the book, but may require a license from the actual photographer -- this depends on what terms the publisher acquired the image on. For family archives, you are probably out of luck, as Commons requires a license from the actual photographer or his heirs. None of these are old enough to be PD. For images taken off the web, again, you need alicense from the actual photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works. Dubious licensing, no author's permission.
- File:Диплом премии Скочинского-2002.jpg
- This one is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because this work and award is not created/founded by state agency by oneself. Alex Spade (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not right. This is exactly an official award founded by the Russian Ministery of Energy. Please read the correspondent article in Wiki or at least take a look at the upper left coner of the image. Kabota 13 (talk)
- I see 7 others organization (as founders) also, which are not state agencies. I see also, that award status is published on free hosting (narod.ru), not on any official ru-goverment site. I see, that word Скочинского (concerning award) is not mentioned in legal reference databases consultant.ru or garant.ru, or on official site of ministry. Word Скочинского is mentioned on these sites concerning research institute after him. Alex Spade (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is partially right. Howevere, if the the word Скочинского is not mentioned in legal reference databases, that can not be a big issue. The Russian data bases are not exactly full of all documents issued. If you concern about this word, please just try to find references in Internet as "премия Скочинского" or, at least, refer to the correspondent article in Wiki Премия имени академика А. А. Скочинского. The official document in regards to the award named «Положение о премии им. академика А. А. Скочинского» has been officially published here: журнал «Безопасность труда в промышленности» № 3, 2002 — С. 60. That is available in any labrary and was a common practice in Russia since 1990th.Kabota 13 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Mentioned journal is not in the list of journals, newspapers, collections and sites for official publication of the Russian official docs. Alex Spade (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong. Here is their web-site: Безопасность труда в промышленности. Kabota 13 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- For what? For example list of journals, newspapers, collections and sites for official publication of the Russian official docs (with commentaries) you can find here. Alex Spade (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:Знак премии Скочинского-1974.jpg
fixed & withdrawn Sealle (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:Знак премии Скочинского.jpg
- This one is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because this work and award is not created/founded by state agency by oneself. Alex Spade (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The same. You are not right. This is exactly an official award founded by the Russian Ministery of Energy. Please refer to the correspondent article in Wiki. Kabota 13 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The medal may be PD, but the image has a copyright and may not be kept on Commons. The only exceptions to the rule that all photographs must be either PD or freely licensed are photographs or scans of paintings, drawings, and other flat works. Photographs of works of art that are not flat, which includes coins and medals, must be PD or properly license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong. That is an image of the award, established by the state body (see above). Does it matter, who made a photo of it before? Kabota 13 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:Заслуженный деятель науки и техники УССР. Нагрудный знак.jpg
- This award is {{PD-UA-exempt}}, but this file is not - this is der.work (photo of 3D object). Alex Spade (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- 3D object? A flat medal? Are you joking?
- And again. You are not right. This is exactly a state award given since 1934 in Soviet Union. PD-RU-exempt|type=orders, decorations and medals should be applicable here, no any US licenses. Please refer to the correspondent article in Wiki. It would be the right practice before marking any file in Commins for deletion. Kabota 13 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yup. 3D. PD-coins, medals, and other relief works do not fall under PD-art requirements. Sad but true.
- The section fo the article yiu mentioned is named "Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet". Howevere we are discussing the medal of the state award, which was giving in USSR. This is not an old coin. At the same time, there is an appropriate reference to the source in the image descripton. So, what problem do you see here? Most of similar images of Soviet medals uploaded to the Commons were created that way. Kabota 13 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Where are you see US tag? UA is Ukraine. PD-RU-exempt is used for the RSFSR and union level of the USSR (see comment in the template). The other tags are used for other 14 republics. Alex Spade (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. It's my mistake. You mentioned UA, not US. Howevere, the medal we are talking about belongs to Soviet Union and has been established in 1934. The modern Ukraine does not have any relation to this award. As you know, Russia is USSR's legal successor. That's it. The {{PD-RU-exempt}} defenetely works here. Kabota 13 (talk)
- The copyright legislation in USSR was part of republic legislation, not union legislation. Russia is legal successor of the RSFSR and union level of the USSR, Russia is not legal successor for all part of the USSR. Alex Spade (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Alex is exactly correct. This is a copyrighted photograph which may not be kept on Commons without a license from the photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Both wrong. That is an image of the state award. Does it matter, who make a photo of it? Kabota 13 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is matter who make the photo of award (as non-2D work) for US-law. It is not matter who make a mechanical scan of relief work or it is not matter who make a photo (or a scan) of 2D visual work. Alex Spade (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Both wrong. That is an image of the state award. Does it matter, who make a photo of it? Kabota 13 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Old coin in mentioned paragraph is just example of relief work. 2D visual works for US-law are paintings, drawings, photoworks, and etc. so {{PD-art}} is only applicable to such works. Alex Spade (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:МакНИИ-эмблема-1982.jpg
- This one is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because this is not logo of state agency, this is logo of organization, which was in state property. Alex Spade (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:МакНИИ-радио.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-электроизм-лаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-металл-штольня.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-кремн-лаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-химан.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-рег-взрыва.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-хим-лаб.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-точмех.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-рентг.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-аэродинам.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штрек-ВВ1.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-штрек-ВВ2.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-газприбор.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-фгаз.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-north-west.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-north.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-Вышка.jpg
- File:МакНИИ-1.jpg
- File:А.И.Бобров2.jpeg
- File:И.В.Бобров.jpg
- File:Памятник первым горноспасателям.jpg
- File:МакНИИ.Разр2.jpg
- File:Макнии-коллектив-ВВ.jpg
- File:Макнии-коллектив-выброс.jpg
Sealle (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted most of these files because they are identical to files deleted in the first DR above. User:Kabota 13, please understand that uploading a file a second time is a serious violation of Commons rules and if you do it again you will be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- You were to fast. I've given all explanations needed and, as agreed with Sealle today, crottected some files, and was expecting Sealle's opinion. The discussion is not not finished yet. And what we should do about that now? Kabota 13 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Jameslwoodward), WHY have you deleted the File:Н. Н. Черницын.jpg file?!! It was absoletely Ok. That person has died March 1, 1917. No any problem with the image licensing. And, after correction, this file have not been nominated for deletion this time. Please restore it in Commons. Kabota 13 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- No answer yet. Bad job. Will start to count each day here util Jameslwoodward's reaction. Will see how this discussion goes against previous and the same mute ones. Tic-tac. Kabota 13 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- С момента номинации файлов до их удаления дано 7 дней. Пока обсуждение никуда не продвинулось. Администраторы или отмалчиваются, или дают невразумительные комментарии. С сегодняшнего дня буду отмечать здесь каждый день, прошедший без обсуждения и без поиска решения. Каждый из таких дней, - как минимум, плохая работа номинатора. Итак, заканчивается день два.
- Having discussions in three places -- here, on Kabota's talk page, and by e-mail is very rude -- the only discussion of this should take place here.
- You criticize me above for not responding more rapidly -- that is also rude -- we are all volunteers here with obligations in the real world, and are in different time zones. I responded to your e-mail within an hour after I first saw it. Also, please remember that Commons gets 10,000 new images every day. We must delete about 2,000 of those for various reasons. Half of that work is done by 12 Adins and 90+% of it by 25. We have other things to do besides responding to a user who breaks the rules and uploads files that are almost certainly copyright violations.
- In response to the question you asked in all three places, as I said at your talk page:
- File:Н. Н. Черницын.jpg had been deleted according to Commons rules. Reloading it was a serious violation of Commons rules and I deleted it the second time for that reason. Also note that the subject having died in 1917 says nothing about the copyright status of the image -- we generally use 1886 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm restoring my previous comment below. Please, do not delete, as far it appeared to be, a deletion of anything here is a serious violation of the rule and you can be blocked.
- Jameslwoodward: Ones again. Did you have some time to take a look at the description or license inside before the deletion. I guess, no. That image was needed to illustrare the article about a famous saintist. The description and license information were corrected and Ok. That person died in 1917. In Russia we use 1941 cutoff date - please refer to the Russian license information. There were no any problem with licensing there. And once again, if a file, deleted once because of any mistake in its description, is prohibited for a second upload? Is there a rule? If so, you'll never get that image back. And what will you get in Wiki? Just text articles with no images? So far, please go ahead without me. And the final point: I'm not rude, just specific. You and other guys just have no answers on my questions. No help, no advise, just speedly deletion and deletion with no appropriate discussion. Did you expect any other reaction from an uploader? Kabota 13 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- File:Н. Н. Черницын.jpg had been deleted according to Commons rules. Reloading it was a serious violation of Commons rules and I deleted it the second time for that reason. Also note that the subject having died in 1917 says nothing about the copyright status of the image -- we generally use 1886 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- First, it is unfortunate, but true, that we must delete images that might be very useful on WP. Therefore the fact that an image might be needed is irrelevant to a discussion of its copyright status.
- Second, as I said above, 1917 is thirty years too recent to assume that the photographer died before 1946 -- 70 years ago. Although there is a 70-year-from-publication rule in Russia for anonymous or pseudonymous works, using that rule on Commons is very difficult -- you must prove both the date of first publication and that the work was, in fact, anonymous. The fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it "anonymous" -- it must be shown that no one ever knew who the photographer was. You have not shown that or that the image was published before the book you took it from, which is dated 2007. So, the best we can say at the moment is that in 2047 we might assume that the author had been dead for 70 years and allow its use on Commons.
- Third, yes -- once an image has been deleted, whether for good reason or bad, the rules require that the only way to have it restored is to make a request at Commons: Undeletion requests. Uploading it again without permission is a serious violation of the rules and wastes both computer space and our colleague's time.
- Last, yes, we "expect any other reaction from an uploader". We expect you to be polite, to have discussions in one place, and to read the rules and obey them. We recognize that copyright is a very difficult subject, that some copyright rules seem silly, and that Commons is a complex place, but when an experienced editor cites a reason for something, we expect you to accept it and not scoff. ("3D object? A flat medal? Are you joking?"). If you don't understand, we expect you to say that and ask for help. As I said below, I think our colleagues showed remarkable patience with your repeated refusal to accept what you were told.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the
strikethroughabove from - The medal itself may or may not be free of copyright, but the image comes from a source that has a clear and explicit copyright notice. Therefore we cannot keep it -- in fact, it is eligible for {{Speedy}} treatment. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nice. One image only? So, non of my agrumets taken. Just emosions and bad knowladge of material and sources. Very good dicussion with professionals. Please be consistent and delete all images of similar medals starting from this one: File:Honored Cultural Worker of the RSFSR.jpg - I guess that is a derevative and should be a 3D image, as advised above. There are hundreds of them in Commons. You'll have fun, guys. Good luck with your hard work. Kabota 13 (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Special thanks to Sealle and Alex Spade, who did not provide any advise nor help for uploaders, but nominate files for deletion very fast and with a great peasure. Keep moving ahead, guys. ДЪ.
- The dicussion is closed. Kabota 13 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Kabota 13, it is never valid to cite other problems as a reason to keep a file. My best estimate is that at least 1% of Commons files -- more than a quarter million files -- should be deleted for one reason or another. In the case of the file you name, I think the photograph was taken by the uploader, so it is not, in fact, a problem. As for the work of our colleagues, Sealle and Alex, I do sincerely thank them for helping to keep Commons files free and correct and for treating your misunderstanding and rule-breaking with patience and tolerance -- perhaps more so than you deserved.
- No doubts. Kabota 13 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you decide to upload more images on Commons, please obey the rules and do not upload any more copyvios. We do not need uploaders who repeatedly break the rules and refuse to read and accept our policies. You have been blocked once, and the next violation will result in a much longer block. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Again. The person died in 1917. How can I make my own photo of him? And the cutoff date is 1941. Where is a logic?
- Other descussed images present state awards and The other tags or PD-RU-exempt should be applicable there. It does not matter who and how posted an image in Web before. Kabota 13 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
1) So what. Let's say the photo was taken in 1916. If the photographer was 40 years old, he could easily have lived past 1946. In order to keep the image, you must prove that either the photographer died before 1946, or, that he intended that his photograph be anonymous and that it was published before 1946. None of that has been proven, so we cannot keep it. The fact that there may be no copyright free photo of the subject is not good, but there may be nothing we can do about it. 2) "It does not matter who and how posted an image in Web before." -- of course it matters. Taking someone else's copyrighted work and posting it here is a violation of the law. That is an absolutely fundamental rule here at Commons (and elsewhere as well) and if you don't understand it or aren't willing to obey it, then please go away and don't come back. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jameslwoodward, I have already agreed with deletion for all files. Thank you for the comments. The end of story. Kabota 13 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Remarkable patience is all mine. Thanks for watching my files. Please delete all images. The end of discussion. Kabota 13 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additionally:
- A short continuation of the discussion is available on Kabota 13's (talk) page. Russian administrators, including Sealle and Alex, are kindly requested to go through and leave there their comments on some points newlly discussed. Thanks in advance. Kabota 13 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can not say thanks. Those files were corrected before. The additional information has been placed on my talking page. And now they have been deleted anyway, just mechanically, with no further additional review. In spite of the license information was right at least for some of them. It's a shame. Russian Commons' section gonna be brightly clean and empty. End of the story. Kabota 13 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Clara Chou and Lin Li-chan
[edit]- File:周玉蔻.png
- File:周玉蔻在馬習會上.png
- File:張志軍召開記者會.ogv
- File:LinLC2016.webm
- File:Screen Shot of LinLC2016.png
Reasons for deletion request The top three files (in Category:Clara Chou) were uploaded by User:KOKUYO. The last two were uploaded and placed into Category:Lin Li-chan, by me, User:Vycl1994. Both of us used the same tag, Template:PD-USGov-VOA, which only allows for the uploading of public domain materials from 1998 to June 2013. Because both the 2015 Ma–Xi meeting and 2016 Rpublic of China elections took place after June 2013, the materials we uploaded do not seem suitable for Commons. This may also mean that everything tagged as a VOA creation in Category:2015 Ma–Xi Meeting must also be deleted. Vycl1994 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- VOA Chinese still says "美国之音制作的所有文字、声音或图像资料都是公共财产。", so it could be used.--KOKUYO (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I read that, yet the language that is included on the Commons template itself has an answer for the supposed granting of permission. "Note also that there are conflicting statements on several of the language web sites, but that the Terms of Use on the parent site, www.voanews.com, very clearly state that the NC policy extends to all of the VOA sites." Vycl1994 (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMaster_of_Flémalle_-_Portrait_of_a_Fat_Man_-_Google_Art_Project_%28331318%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=185026147&oldid=185002292 instead of duplicate Oursana (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The deletion needs discussion.
1. The links are not corrected
2. Both files have same quality. Therefore better keep the other file which is smaller (14,46 MB versus 6,18 MB)--Oursana (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Both images are in use in several places, so it is apparent that some WP editors think this one is the better of the two. We do not delete in-use images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
повтор Герб ЛГПУ.png ElectroNick AVS (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Повтор LSPU(2015).png ElectroNick AVS (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No proof of permissions, if uploader is the owner, they need to send permissions to OTRS Mlpearc (open channel) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
