Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/03/11
 |
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}
._2008.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._2014.jpg){kind=link}
_Fulham_Palace,_London,_UK._2015.jpg){kind=link}
_at_Brighton_Station_(1)_(8332863249).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![198 File:La Resurrezione ("The Resurrection") by Pericle Fazzini in Vatican Museum.jpg](#File:La_Resurrezione_("The_Resurrection")_by_Pericle_Fazzini_in_Vatican_Museum.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_COA.svg){kind=link}
_COA_new.svg){kind=link}
_COA.jpg){kind=link}
._2015.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: DR was created by my mis-click. File speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Plus cher qu'un Happy Meal mais j'avais trop faim pour attendre l'habituel McDo post-billard... (7068502929).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep There's only text... Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm...After looking more closely, I see. I thought that the bottom part of the plastic wa an image (since they were directed in a different way than the top part. Josve05a (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per Thibaut120094. — Racconish ☎ 15:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn due to clear mistake. Josve05a (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Microsoft Commons:Deletion requests/Microsoft
Personal photo, out of scoop — 0x010C ~talk~ 20:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, not Out of scoop. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scoop — 0x010C ~talk~ 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, not Out of scoop. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scoop — 0x010C ~talk~ 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, not Out of scoop. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
personal photo, shouldn't have been on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred here Mjrmtg (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
._2008.jpg){kind=link}
._2008.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Expo Zaragoza was a 3 month long event which does not satisfy the requirement of Spanish FOP that a copyrighted object be on display permanently. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I hope this is the correct way to respond to you. I am new to this and am still finding my way. Please direct me to the correct way to reply to you if it is not.
You have listed several images that may need removing. I can see why this one could be misunderstood, but I do say "it is a study for the Expo" and "Data from a White Willow". At no point do I say that it is at or sited at the Expo. What can I add to make this clearer. It is not a public work. It is in a Private collection. The places refereed too in all the "titles" are the titles of the work not where they are situated unless I have specified so. For example File:41º40’00’’N.00º54’30’’W. (White Willow Tree, Salix alba).jpg I state where it is sited because it is a public sculpture.
Please advice on how I can amend the information to satisfy the criteria. Omi4D (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- An OTRS documentation has been submitted via email Omi4D (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by Nom, see OTRS Ticket:2016031610008285. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a copyrighted work. We are not told where it is, so it may or may not qualify for FOP. The image cannot be kept on Commons without more information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is not a public work. It is in a Private collection. The places refereed too in all the "titles" are the titles of the work not where they are situated unless I have specified so. For example File:41º40’00’’N.00º54’30’’W. (White Willow Tree, Salix alba).jpg I state where it is sited because it is a public sculpture. Please advice on how I can amend the information to satisfy the criteria. Omi4D (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- An OTRS documentation has been submitted via email Omi4D (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC) {{OTRS pending}}
Kept: Withdrawn by Nom, OTRS Ticket:2016031610008285. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
._2014.jpg){kind=link}
._2014.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a copyrighted work. We are not told where it is, so it may or may not qualify for FOP. The image cannot be kept on Commons without more information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC) . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Omi4D
It is not a public work. It is not a public work. It is in a Private collection. The places refereed too in all the "titles" are the titles of the work not where they are situated unless I have specified so. For example File:41º40’00’’N.00º54’30’’W. (White Willow Tree, Salix alba).jpg I state where it is sited because it is a public sculpture. Please advice on how I can amend the information to satisfy the criteria. Omi4D (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- An OTRS documentation has been submitted via email Omi4D (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC) {{OTRS pending}}
Kept: Withdrawn by Nom, OTRS Ticket:2016031610008285. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
_Fulham_Palace,_London,_UK._2015.jpg){kind=link}
_Fulham_Palace,_London,_UK._2015.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a copyrighted work. We are not told where it is, so it may or may not qualify for FOP. The image cannot be kept on Commons without more information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a public work. It is in a Private collection. The places refereed too in all the "titles" are the titles of the work not where they are situated unless I have specified so. For example File:41º40’00’’N.00º54’30’’W. (White Willow Tree, Salix alba).jpg I state where it is sited because it is a public sculpture. Please advice on how I can amend the information to satisfy the criteria. Omi4D (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- They are all copyrighted works of art and your images may or may not infringe on the copyrights. In some countries there is a special exception to the copyright law which we call Freedom of Panorama, which allows our use of such images. We cannot know if FOP is applicable unless you tell us specifically where they are located and whether they are on permanent public display. If they are not on permanent public display in a place that qualifies for FOP treatment, then in order to keep the images on Commons the sculptor must provide a free license via OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- An OTRS documentation has been submitted via email Omi4D (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC) {{OTRS pending}}
Kept: Withdrawn by Nom, OTRS Ticket:2016031610008285. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Heartee
[edit]
Uploader claims these are their own work, but I'm not sure that they are. The first one looks like it could be a screen capture from the TV show M! Countdown. The second one also looks like a screen capture. The last two pictures are from a professional photo shoot. --Random86 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of a full orchestra. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded as author's own work but unclear that the uploader is the copyright holder. The image has previously been published in media reports. A higher resolution version of the image exists at the BBC's website [1]. Cmeiqnj (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1728x972/p038mpp1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of a full orchestra. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Ensemble recording of Edgard Varèse music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Ensemble recording of Edgard Varèse music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded as author's own work but not clear that the uploader is the copyright holder. The image or parts of it has previously been published in media reports (e.g., [2]) and appears in promotional material (e.g., [3]). Cmeiqnj (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Ensemble recording of Saint-Saens music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of Albeniz music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Full orchestra recording of Janacek music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of pop group singing pop song... Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Ensemble recording of Ravel music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Full orchestra recording of Berlioz music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of solo piano music by Debussy. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert piano recording of Debussy music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert piano recording of Debussy music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert piano recording of Debussy music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert piano recording of Debussy music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert soloist harp music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of full orchestra. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Full orchestra recording of Wagner music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
TV Theme music. Certain copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of instrumental ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert piano recording of Bartok music . Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert recording of piano music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert recording of piano music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert recording of piano music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concert recording of piano quintet. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of full orchestra playing Berlioz music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of full orchestra playing Berlioz music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of full orchestra. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of vocal ensemble music. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Modern recording of full orchestra. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probable copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A recording of Edgard Varèse who died in 1965. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of Charles Koechlin who died in 1950. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of Charles Koechlin who died in 1950. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of Charles Koechlin who died in 1950. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historic recording of pianist Dinu Lipatti who died in 1950. Certainly not the uploader's "own work". Probably copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
_at_Brighton_Station_(1)_(8332863249).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Brighton_Station_(1)_(8332863249).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
extremely poor quality image and we have tons 2 images of this exact same bus abeit a different location –Davey2010Talk 03:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
_at_Brighton_Station_(1)_(8332863249).jpg){kind=link}
- Other images? Which? Cannot assess if this image is redundant without seeing those.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Well there's over 100 images of the buses I've categorized so you'd need to go to the categories...... –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Well it didn't even take 2 seconds butwe do have this which could easily be used and probably would over the other image, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)- Thank you I'm happy to say
Delete per nom now. - Note: If your nomination is basically "this image is redundant to better image(s)", don't just say they exist, show them - its your job not mine to find the better image ;) If we had no other images of this exact bus, personally I'd still would be fine with deletion - but others may reasonably object that then we wouldn't have any images of this bus.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nilfanion - I apologize for the rather "joyful" reply, I didn't really think about it - I just wrote it and just assumed people would go & do some digging lol, I'll put the other images on future nominations :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you I'm happy to say
_at_Surrey_Street,_Brighton_(8643323703).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
_at_Brighton_Station_(1)_(8332863249).jpg){kind=link}
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
File:OBESITY AND WEIGHT LOSS SURGERY, HOW MUCH BENEFICIAL AND SAFE? by Prof Dr Bashir Ahmed Dar Sopore Kashmir.pdf
[edit]See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cesar luis basualdo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionably own work.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Not useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Useless background noise Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright doesn't belong to the original uploader. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No valid license provided. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from copyright holder Joe DaEskimo is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moacir Ximenes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Brazil. --> which may not be covered by COM:FOP#Brazil, considering shots derived from temporary outdoor advertising on a billboard.
Additionally nominating File:Pomada minancora.JPG per COM:PACKAGING
- File:Pomada minancora.JPG
- File:1 FEAF do Território dos Carnaubais piauienses.JPG
- File:Outdoor do SALICAM (detalhe).JPG
- File:Outdoor do primeiro SALICAM 2016.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moacir Ximenes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from posters and art on vehicles.
- File:Tratado de Assunão escolar (2).jpg
- File:Tratado de Assución (Mercosur) (3).jpg
- File:Caminhão da M Dias Branco.jpg
- File:Eisenbahn no Piauí.jpg
- File:Vendedores de gás.jpg
- File:MAN da alemoa.jpg
- File:Carreta da alemoa.jpg
- File:Carro da alemoa.jpg
- File:Caminhão da Granero mudanças na BR-343.jpg
- File:Cadeira vitage no Piauí.jpg
- File:Cultura Piauí (o palácio).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question - Are the original en:Treaty of Asunción's documents copyrighted? SirEdimon (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 08:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moacir Ximenes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivative works of copyrighted pictures
- File:CE do Paraná de 1989.jpg
- File:Constituição do Estado (Paraná) 1989.jpg
- File:State constitutions in Brazil (Santa Catarina, Brasil).jpg
- File:Constituição estadual de Santa Cataria de 1989.jpg
- File:Carta estadual de Santa Cataria de 1989.jpg
- File:Direitos e deveres ( CE do RS).jpg
- File:Constituição do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.jpg
_1989.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
轻语者 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
For collages source and license of every used image must be given. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Ahmed Shahzad (see EXIF) is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Struder Mag (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF + out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted.
Gunnex (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jbdasilva89 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, can be found earlier on web, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Jbdasilva89 (serial copyright violator)
Gunnex (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The person represented in the picture (the artist Malala Andrialavidrazana) has asked to remove this picture to the author of the picture. Marta.pucciarelli (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: We rarely remove images at the request of the subject and never at the request of third parties, but this image also has a copyrighted work of art in it, so it cannot be kept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shashidhara ph (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:PicsArt 3809388ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:11070255 869020989850248 8ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ619212485133646581 n.jpg
- File:1619211 557390947722281 331845502ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ3747670645 n.jpg
- File:Full size 20150703094950ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:PicsArt 1434685623494ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:PicsArt 1435896057119ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:PicsArt 1435900774674ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:20150705093821ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:20150705093856ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:20150705093909ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
- File:201507050939ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ32.jpg
- File:ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆkannada.jpg
- File:ನಿಲ್ಲದ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ.jpg
XXN, 12:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
"Created by his fans" is not the same thing as own work. Unlikely this is own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this diagram, notice the artifacts of multiple copying around the edges. Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Шутов Ілля (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that user created any of these text documents, awards, identity cards, posters, flyers and so on. Most likely all are COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Посв канд в деп 09.01.1990.jpg
- File:Форум інтел.jpg
- File:Ющенко.jpg
- File:Товар мови уст конф.jpg
- File:Родн яз.jpg
- File:Тов мови.jpg
- File:Відп рег.jpg
- File:Посв канд 1990.jpg
- File:Посв заст наш укр.jpg
- File:Посв предст рег.jpg
- File:За відм навч.jpg
- File:Учасник помаранч рев.jpg
- File:Бойова листівка.jpg
- File:Medal , проект нагороди.jpg
- File:Виклик в суд за орг. мас.завор.1990, Донецьк.jpg
- File:Виклик в суд за орг. мас.завор.1990.jpg
- File:Постанова.jpg
- File:Листівка 90.jpg
- File:Посв ВРУ. Референдум 1990 року.jpg
- File:РУХ Проект медалі до 25 річчя.jpg
- File:Оргкомітет РУХу.jpg
- File:Рухівські посвідчення.jpg
- File:Платіжка нарозкидування листівок (за незалежність) вертольотами 1991 рік.jpg
- File:Фракція РУХу в парламенті 1996 рік.jpg
- File:Оргкомітет.jpg
_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8_1991_%D1%80%D1%96%D0%BA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC) No confidence that user created any of these text documents, awards, identity cards, posters, flyers and so on. Most likely all are COM:COPYVIOs. Шутов Ілля Якимович (обговорення) 03:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Шутов Ілля Якимович These are my personal documents and photos, posters, certifying and confirm my participation in the events. Without these documents, the information in the article about the participation in the revolutionary events, etc., referring to article Wikipedia - Шутов Ілля Якимович https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%86%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 will look false. These are mine Certificate of the organizing committee, the certificate a candidate for deputy parliament posters that I personally fought for victory in parliamentary elections.
Шутов Ілля Якимович Це мої особисті документи і фото, плакати, які засвідчують і підтверджують мою участь у подіях . Без цих документів інформація у статті про участь у революційних подіях та інше, на що посилається стаття вікіпедії - Шутов Ілля Якимович https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%86%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 буде мати вигляд неправдивої . Це мої посвідчення члена організаційного комітету, посвідчення кандидата у депутати парламенту, плакати з якими я особисто боровся за перемогу у виборах до парламенту.
Files uploaded by Шутов Ілля (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these black and white images (some appear to be halftoned) were created by user, despite claims of own work". The images are too variable in quality and style to have been produced by a single person.
- File:Говерляна.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович - воєнрук.jpg
- File:Рухівці.jpg
- File:Колгосп !.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Яким США.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Червона Рута.jpg
- File:Шутови , Шрамки.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович 1977рік.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович середина 80-х.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович середина 90-х.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Вєлігорський Володя Будзагін.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля я.jpg
- File:Шутова Надія Іванівна і Ніна 1961.jpg
- File:Шутови.jpg
- File:Шутови кінець 50х.jpg
- File:Сестри Раїса і Надія 60-ті.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович кінець 50.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович і Ілля кінець 50-х.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Мифодійович кінець 50-х.JPG
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович 50-х.jpg
- File:Говерла 1993.jpg
- File:Говерляна-93я.jpg
- File:Макіївка. У пікеті відновлювальної конференції компартії України. Макіївка. 06.03.1993 р.jpg
- File:Вінниця, 1998.jpg
- File:Велика Рада Руху, Будинок ЦР.jpg
- File:Єнакієве , виступ на шахті.jpg
- File:Говерляна-93.jpg
- File:Пікет РУХу в Донецьку 19.08.1991 проти ДКНС.jpg
- File:Покладання квітів ГЕНІЮ -Тарасу Шевченку.09.03.1995.jpg
- File:1990 Ланцюг Єднання! Брестлитовський Проспект. Берестейка.jpg
- File:Єнакієве 1990 р.jpg
- File:Scan0030вва.jpg
- File:Уке.jpg
- File:ВИСТУП і.ШУТОВА ПІД ЧАС ВИБОРІВ 1990 Р.jpg
- File:Жєдєзл.jpg
- File:ШУТОВИ 3.jpg
- File:Іллєнко Надія Іванівна2.jpg
- File:Шутов Яким Якимович.jpg
- File:ШУТОВИ.jpg
- File:Мій дід.jpg
- File:Іллєнко Надія Іванівна.jpg
- File:Мій пра дід матвій литвин.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) No confidence that user created any of these text documents, awards, identity cards, posters, flyers and so on. Most likely all are COM:COPYVIOs. Шутов Ілля Якимович (обговорення) 03:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Шутов Ілля Якимович These are my personal documents and photos, posters, certifying and confirm my participation in the events. Without these documents, the information in the article about the participation in the revolutionary events, etc., referring to article Wikipedia - Шутов Ілля Якимович https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%86%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 will look false. These are mine Certificate of the organizing committee, the certificate a candidate for deputy parliament posters that I personally fought for victory in parliamentary elections.
Шутов Ілля Якимович Це мої особисті документи і фото, плакати, які засвідчують і підтверджують мою участь у подіях . Без цих документів інформація у статті про участь у революційних подіях та інше, на що посилається стаття вікіпедії - Шутов Ілля Якимович https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%86%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 буде мати вигляд неправдивої . Це мої посвідчення члена організаційного комітету, посвідчення кандидата у депутати парламенту, плакати з якими я особисто боровся за перемогу у виборах до парламенту.
Deleted: The uploader may, as he says, own paper copies of these items, but they are certainly not "own work" and there is no evidence that he has any right to license them toothers. Owning a book does not give you the right to sell copies of it, similarly, owning a document does not give you the right to sell or license copies of it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Шутов Ілля (talk · contribs)
[edit]Fake authorship, depicted person stated as a photo author. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Шутов Ілля Якимович
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович палац Україна.JPG
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович і Богдан Футей.JPG
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович ВР.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля Якимович.jpg
- File:Донецьк 2009 УКЦ.JPG
- File:25 років НРУ.JPG
- File:25 років НРУ Політех зал.JPG
- File:25 років НРУ Політех.JPG
- File:Вру 2.jpg
- File:.У Миколи Горбаля з Михайлом Гументиком.jpg
- File:Революція. Майдан.jpg
- File:Січень 2014 Революція.jpg
- File:2014 vru.jpg
- File:2004.ВРУ.jpg
- File:Shutov I. Плакат 1998 р.jpg
- File:Афап.jpg
- File:ВРУ.JPG
- File:Яі.jpg
- File:Вру.jpg
- File:Illia shutov.jpg
- File:Шутов Ілля ВРУ.jpg
- File:Ілля Шутов.jpg
Dogad75 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 19:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moeez Shah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional images, out of COM:SCOPE attached to a promotional en:wiki article Neroon Kot Model United Nations. There are logos as well as a series of posed shots of people, no indication of user's own work on any of this, but a major problem is the promotional nature of the uploads.
- File:NKMUN-II .jpg
- File:NKMUN-II Logo.png
- File:NKMUN'15 Logo.png
- File:NKMUN-II EC 17.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 16.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 15.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 14.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 13.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 12.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 11.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 10.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 09.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 08.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 07.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 06.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II EC 05.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II OC 04.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II OC - 03.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II OC - 02.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II OC - 01.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II Director General.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II Seceratary General.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II Vice President.jpg
- File:NKMUN-II President.jpg
- File:NKMUN'15 Specialized Agencies.jpg
- File:NKMUN'15 U.General Seceratary.png
- File:NKMUN'15 DIRECTOR GENERAL.png
- File:NKMUN'15 SECERATARY GENERAL.jpg
- File:NKMUN'15 Vice President.png
- File:NKMUN-I President.png
- File:Logo of MUETMUN'15.jpg
- File:Mehran UET 16.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work, likely copyvio, violate COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Text document, out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that any of these images of men (illustrations and/or photographs) was created by this user. Variable sizes, some doodle, some cartoon, some perhaps older, none with any valid source, and all calimed as own work. About half of them appear to be part of a series.
- File:Luentai2016.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈထမ်ႇမတိင်ႇၼ.png
- File:ၸဝ်ႈပေႃႈသိၼ်ထမ်းဝုၼ်းၸုမ်ႉ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၶူးထမ်ႇမသႃႇမိ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈသုၶမ်း.jpg
- File:လုင်းဢေႃးၸိင်ႇၼ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၶမ်းပၢင်ႇ.jpg
- File:လုင်းတၢင်းၵႄး.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၺႃႇၼသမ်ႇၽႃႇလ.jpg
- File:ၼၢင်းၶမ်းၵူႇ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈပၼ်တိတ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၼေႃႇၶမ်း.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈဝေႃးရၶႄႉ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၵေႃးလီႇ.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈပၺ်ႇၺႃႇၽေႃးၵ.png
- File:ၸဝ်ႈဢမၢတ်ႈလူင်.jpg
- File:ၸဝ်ႈၵၢင်းသိူဝ်.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Landsmile1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these images was created by the uploader despite all being claimed own work. Variable colors, no colors, ages, views, no camera metadata, odd sizes and low resolutions lead to the opinion that this is an assembled grouping, not own work of uploader.
- File:1425732200-KingPrajad-o.jpg
- File:Queen of thailand.jpg
- File:2-saovabha-phongsri.jpg
- File:King Taksin King of Thonburi.jpg
- File:Queen Sirikit image.jpg
- File:Queen65.jpg
- File:Queen Sirikit of Thailand.jpg.jpg
- File:Orasa thirat 30.jpg
- File:Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn cropped 2.jpg.jpg
- File:548288c02db877ba181c7a1586c0e39f.jpg.jpg
- File:Coronation of king bhumibol adulyadej.jpg
- File:King Chulalongkorn 07.jpg
- File:King Vajiravudh portrait photograph.jpg.jpg
- File:Prayuth Chan-o-cha Prime minister of Thailand.jpg
- File:King Bhumibol Adulyadej06.jpg.jpg
- File:Mahidol family.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.Geography23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaders images are all (c) at the sources given. Not own work.
- File:Dami Im (Singer).jpg
- File:Highway (Band).jpg
- File:Ira Losco.jpg
- File:Gréta Salóme.jpg
- File:Minus One.jpg
- File:Samra Rahimli.jpg
- File:Sergey Lazarev (Russia).jpg
- File:Lidia Isac.jpg
- File:Argo (Band).png
- File:Sandhja.jpg
- File:Francesca Michielin.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence taht any of these uploads are own work of uploader, calligraphy, advertisements, art, photos, all given as "own work" and all most likely not.
- File:长图.jpg
- File:TttttttttttTT1231.jpg
- File:注册流程.jpg
- File:校园招聘.jpg
- File:六折六折.jpg
- File:6折对比.jpg
- File:网易的图.jpg
- File:38妇女.jpg
- File:23.pic hd.jpg
- File:弹窗huoguo.jpg
- File:谜面.jpg
- File:Dengmi.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on these text documents and older black and white images. Most likely rephotographs of some scrapbook or archive.
- File:ТРОИЦКИЙ П.Я.PNG
- File:Закладка церкви Святителя Петра, митрополита Московского, «Рижские Епархиальные Ведомости» 1898 год.jpg
- File:Похороны Троицкого в газете "Либавский Ллойд" от 5 янв. 1903.PNG
- File:Газета, "Либавский Ллойд" от 4 янв. 1903, Некролог Троицкого П.Я.PNG
- File:Газета "Либавский Ллойд", от 3 янв. 1903, Сообщение о смерти.PNG
- File:Отзыв. С.Я.Кулиш.jpg
- File:Миронова Е.В..jpg
- File:Приказ "Ленфильм".jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Odishastudents (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on this series of newspaper clippings, college logo and college map, nor of the collage photo of some awards.
- File:GIFT College Campus map.JPG
- File:GIFT Students shine at KIITFEST.jpg
- File:Pioneer GIFT Annual Fest News 04 Mar 2016.jpg
- File:GIFT College Logo.PNG
- File:Lelihan - Annual function of GIFT on 3rd March 2016.jpg
- File:Pioneer Musical Night at GIFT on 20th, Feb 2016.jpg
- File:GIFT Engineering College Logo.PNG
- File:Pioneer News Festronics 18 Feb 2016.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Olga daniluk (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these images was created by uploader, variable sizes, celebrity focus and no metadata.
- File:Зина Куприянович на Евровидении 2015.jpg
- File:Зина Куприянович 2015.jpg
- File:Зина Куприянович на Славянском Базаре.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs, and COM:VANDALISM a series of prank images, none of which were created by uploader, see sizes and subject matter.
- File:Can güz gırgır.jpg
- File:Can güz hahahaha.jpg
- File:Can güz vine.jpg
- File:Can güz komik.jpg
- File:Can güz komedi.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ferdaus0097 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Trophies and photos in a trophy case are not the own work of the uploader.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this complex logo.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vitanvmailru (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence these images were created by uploader, and most likely (due to the text below them) were previously published, somewhere.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs. Three publication covers, not own work.
- File:IntSec Cover Mid.png
- File:516O9NOcNCL. SX374 BO1,204,203,200.jpg
- File:31f1fVn1T1L. SX353 BO1,204,203,200.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
If either one of these is own work by uploader (see caption below image for doubt), we only need to keep one, as they are the same, and not in use.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Composites require the upload of the separate photos before the upload of the composite, if this is own work, please upload the separate pictures. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Commercial promotion of this company by this upload. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Two files cannot have two different creators and be the same "own work", please see File:OAK_Fashion.png where this same image is claimed as own work by another. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Composite image, without sources for both pictures. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Francisco Valdepeñas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Recent atwork which requires confirmation of a free license by the atist through Commons:OTRS.
- File:Elo hombre caballo.jpg
- File:Dama.jpg
- File:El Guitarrista.jpg
- File:Esfinjes del pasado.jpg
- File:Hombre sin rostro.jpg
- File:Pintor expresionismo abstracto, crea en su juventud un estilo de ver otros mundos del Universo.jpg
- File:Eje cosmico.jpg
JuTa 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Why not tag as Speedy? --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No quiero que siga esta imagen en wikimedia El hobbit Guisen (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
la foto no es de el hobbit guisen 2.137.164.226 12:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion Yann (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
La foto es robada. No es del usuario el hobbit guisen. 83.37.107.143 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR. Please provide the source were comes the "suspected" copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Laut Metadaten Autor: Nürnberg Luftbild, Hajo Dietz, es nicht erkennbar, dass der Hochlader der Autor ist Alnilam (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Laut Metadaten Urheberrecht bei 'Fotoatelier Bernhard e.K., Hardheim, es nicht nicht erkennbar, dass der Hochlader der Urheber ist Alnilam (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Wurde wegen unklarer Urheberschaft bereits als File:Karl-Friedrich Rogge.jpg schon einmal gelöscht Alnilam (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Voronezh violator
[edit]- Files uploaded by VoronezhAPK
- File:Ан-148-100ЕМ.jpg - source http://www.fguap-mchs.ru/index.php?id=510
- File:AirbusIL96.jpg - LOGO of JSC VASO on image
- File:IL 8.jpg - old image + source http://pinstake.com/штурмовика-ил-2-история-в-фотографиях/
- File:Voronezh1946.jpg - old image + source http://www.retromap.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7241
- File:Voronezh1950.jpg - old image + source http://pereselenie-vrn.ru/foto/fotografii-starogo-voronezha/attachment/0_2894b_d24f3d17_xl/
- File:Ion electrically powered spacecraft propulsion.jpg http://zonatex.ru/tag/ракета/
- File:R193road.jpg - source http://places.seephotosof.com/Russia/Tambov/Zharkovka/тамбовская-трасса@53366895
- File:Voronezh5118.jpg - source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=130214104
- File:Voronezh oblast 9832.jpg - source http://dev.geophoto.ru/?action=show&id=171323
- File:Voronezh oblast 87654.jpg
- File:Voronezh768L.jpg
- File:Voronezh oblast 7654.jpg - source http://www.smileplanet.ru/russia/divnogorskiy-uspenskiy-monastyr/photo/ (2 photo, crop)
- File:Voronezh oblast 12345.jpg - source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=130498598
- File:Voronezh on Europa map.jpg - map based google map (or other), low res
- File:ApkVrn.png - PNG, low res, +source http://36on.ru/news/people/55128-aleksey-gordeev-pobyval-na-prazdnovanii-300-letiya-kalacha-foto
- Files uploaded by Liallis
- File:Благовещенский собор Воронеж.jpg - + FoP +source http://www.brodyaga.com/pages/viewlarge.php?id=28903&cty=Voronezh&place=Russia
- File:Voronezh117.jpg
- File:Voronezh116.jpg
- File:Voronezh115.jpg - + scope
- File:Voronezh114.jpg
- File:Voronezh112.jpg - + bad quality of pano
Files uploaded Voronezh violator (also व्लादिस्लाव, GelioNvsb). Most likely all copyvio. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Voronezh uploaded by GelioNvsb, Commons:Форум/Архив/2015#Деятельность व्लादिस्लाव, User talk:व्लादिस्लाव, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by व्लादिस्लाव, meta:Special:BlockList/Liallis, ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/109.106.143.224, ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/GelioNvsb, User talk:Liallis, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liallis/Archive, ... --Insider (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violations. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Voronezh violator
[edit]Files uploaded by Viktor704 (Taivio)
- File:Vozair.png - png, no exif, copyvio from http://mostotrest.ru/activity/objects/3003/ (with crop)
- File:Vrnvoz.png - png, no exif, copyvio from http://www.tsm.ru/objects/1232/ (with crop, 3 photo in gallery)
- File:VoronezhWalk.png - png, no exif, copyvio from https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=148952811 (with crop)
Again (see above). Again started from the Voronezh airport. Copivio all. --Insider (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Golden Grey (Сергей Золотых)
- File:Vozairport.jpg - no exif, atypical resolution (indicative of croping)
- File:Aeroportvrn.jpg - no exif, atypical resolution (indicative of croping)
User has been warned about copyright violations at Commons and at ru-wiki. File:Vozaero.jpg was deleted. I think this is also copyvio, but I could not find the source. Identical edits in ru-wiki: [4] [5]--Insider (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Taivo удаляй эти фото вверху что ждёшь!?? File:Vozairport.jpg File:Aeroportvrn.jpg пусть порадуется в экстазе этот больной на голову Insider. Давай УДАЛЯЙ ПОСЛЕДНЕЕ нормальное фото которое размещено только на вики, пусть он вставит свои старые с очень плохим качеством и будет счастлив. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.41.156 (talk • contribs)
User:Taivo психически больной User:Insider не успокоиться пока не удалит все фото аэропорта, вот пожалуйста https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vozairport.jpg&action=history выставил на удаление File:Vozairport.jpg с целью чтобы вставить свои старые которые давно уже не аэропорт Воронеж и должны быть удалены. Почему и с какой целью Вы потворствуете ему ? Прошу навсегда забанить User:Insider и соблюдать правила Wiki к фото. Плохое качество запрещено размещать на википедии в статьях. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.61.81 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination files by Vikton. Lack of metadata is not a valid reason to delete Golden Grey's uploads. Ruthven (msg) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope: This looks like an advertisement (with phone number) for a firm. Rsteen (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-free photo from a 1950 book (author stated in the template is the architect, not the photographer). Retired electrician (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The car in the pick looks like a jeep or a car like that very unlike a 1930s car. I think. Rybkovich (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1934 is the year of completion of the building (check the caption in the bottom). The photograph was published in 1950. Retired electrician (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- By mentioning the car I meant that, the car does not look like a 30s car, so I agreed with you that it is very likely to be a picture that was taken later that the 1939s. I automatically double check unless there is a source for a conclusion. Since there was no specific mention of what book thats why I mentioned re car. Rybkovich (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS what is the name/title of the book or how do you know it was published in 1950? Rybkovich (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Так это легендарный альбом "Cоветская архитектура за XXX лет. РСФСР" (издательство академии архитектуры, 1950). И ваш покорнейший оттуда сюда грузил, и тоже удалили, и вот заново. Retired electrician (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1934 is the year of completion of the building (check the caption in the bottom). The photograph was published in 1950. Retired electrician (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be free Bilderling (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Per Bilderling.--Stang 08:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely cpyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
superseded by File:Ethylpropylether.svg.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution/quality, uncommon layout; several better alternatives in Category:Ifosfamide. Leyo 11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. rather thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cochintalkies.com/celebrities_image/premam-film-actor-shabareesh-varma-photos-gallery-35938.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cochintalkies.com/celebrity/gallery/premam-film-actor-shabareesh-varma-photos-gallery.html&h=960&w=717&tbnid=MMEyvXGjgjXw6M&tbnh=260&tbnw=194&usg=__QTpR_2ew-XPuK2DeYasAHk9CFYc=&docid=MJE4AsJKb8ekHM. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope -- no realistic educational purpose (non-notable cover of some SoundCloud mashup) IagoQnsi (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also maybe copyvio. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope -- no realistic educational purpose (non-notable cover of some SoundCloud mashup) IagoQnsi (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope -- no realistic educational purpose (non-notable cover of some SoundCloud mashup) IagoQnsi (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope -- no realistic educational purpose (photo of non-notable musician) IagoQnsi (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope -- no realistic educational purpose (photo of non-notable musician) IagoQnsi (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Posters not on permanent display; two aerial photographs by Walter Hahn (died in 1969) in high res. + in focus --> still copyright protected. Paulae (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Posters not on permanent display. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Pic of several copyright protected photographies within a building --> no "Panoramafreiheit" --> copyright violation. Paulae (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, FOP in Germany not ok for inside. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, it can be found previously published on the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also logo above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"Internet" for source is iunsufficient to claim this is copyright free SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Christian Ferrer. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no es el escudo oficial AYTOCUADROS (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep No existen escudos oficiales, sino blasones oficiales. Ese escudo, hecho por voluntarios de Wikimedia, se ajusta adecuadamente al blasón oficial, por lo que es correcto. --Rodelar (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I agree Rodelar. It is a CoA according to official blazon. --LMLM (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per Rodelar. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
no es el escudo oficial AYTOCUADROS (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep No existen escudos oficiales, sino blasones oficiales. Ese escudo, hecho por voluntarios de Wikimedia, se ajusta adecuadamente al blasón oficial, por lo que es correcto. --Rodelar (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per Rodelar. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No quiero que siga esta foto en wikimedia. El hobbit Guisen (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
la foto no es de el hobbit guisen. 2.137.164.226 12:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion Yann (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
La foto es robada. No pertenece al usuario de el hobbit guisen 83.37.107.143 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: No source provided for suspected copyvio and Google Image Search did not returned results prior the date of uploading to Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Granada Hills Charter High School has not approved the public use of this image. Please delete. 205.154.39.200 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Freedom of Panorama in the US for buildings, no permission needed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Unless "Granada Hills Charter High School" is the author AND did not upload the picture, they can't ask for its deletion. But, OTRS members know it is not true due to ticket:2016031110018701 that suggest they did not upload it or they are not the author. --Scoopfinder(d) 19:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not the coat of arms of Osborne. The blue should be red. See The General Armory, 1989 edition, page 764 Kiltpin (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Here you can see the blue colour: www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/images/e/ee/Leeds.tad.jpg Waterborough (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am in error. Waterborough, you are quite right. Kiltpin (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Waterborough (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am in error. Waterborough, you are quite right. Kiltpin (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CatFish2013 (talk · contribs)
[edit]too small picture, no exif-data, no usage, unknown church, not sure about copyright
- File:F4a4ad4d8ef090a5d233457bb2986730.jpg
- File:Fc58a7b0c7f6e81875e921b4f8f4916e.jpg
- File:Cc97c8130bb1244605355ba1cbc53ad3.jpg
- File:9a9bccfb96cd1d0e443d234359dce49b.jpg
- File:89274e28411f01f0e503a3d76b9f6311.jpg
- File:84e61f64c0fd43423349564f7cd797b8.jpg
Stolbovsky (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unidentified person. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:NETCOPYVIO Janet Rogers (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
copyvio from here; small size, no exif data and original source is older. Jcc (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Porque no es el escudo oficial AYTOCUADROS (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep No existen escudos oficiales, sino blasones oficiales. Ese escudo, hecho por voluntarios de Wikimedia, se ajusta adecuadamente al blasón oficial, por lo que es correcto. --Rodelar (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Rodelar. --Riley Huntley (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The employee didnt give permission to publish this picture. 141.90.9.62 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I doubt that anyone could recognize anyone in this image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Internet type meme, probably copvio as well. out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
copy from Dagestanskaya Pravda newspaper where original resolution and full extent image is present http://dagpravda.ru/rubriki/obshchestvo/34214/ Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
too small picture, no exif-data, no usage, unknown church, not sure about copyright Stolbovsky (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
derivative work (photomontage) 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 12:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work Josve05a (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per the nom, obviously above the too. --Base (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW (the artworks on the packaging are also copyrightable, not just logos) Josve05a (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, my bad. This was an attempt to help out another editor who has not been active for a while now. w.carter-Talk 13:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:FlowInstru-Asia). MER-C 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Book cover, derivative work of artwork on cover. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by derivitive? Did you ask the author where it came from? WayneRay (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment The template reads "Description: Bahasa Indonesia: Sampul kumpulan puisi Cinta Bersemi di Rumah Santri. Leutika Prio, 2012. ISBN: 978-602-225-388-4 - Date 30 April 2012, 17:00:13 - Source http://www.leutikaprio.com/main/produk/Cinta%20Bersemi%20dirumah%20Santri_web.jpg & Author Prams & LeutikaPrio" The author given is not the uploader, but the permissions read "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:..." The book is a poetry anthology with multiple authors, and appears that copyright is held by "Prams and LeutikaPrio" as written by the uploader. The situation pertains to the copyright of the book cover, and the uploader was automatically notified by the system when the discussion tag was added. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: License from the publisher required. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho a montage basing on File:Byndoor Railway Station.jpg - see palms in the background, groups of people and imho 'over-sized train station sign', Roland zh (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, false image, therefore out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that this uploader took this photo in 1940. Please provide more information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Also note http://koenigandclinton.com/exhibitions/miljohn-ruperto-2/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giovani Vieira Miranda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Giovani Vieira Miranda (newspaper/poster/etc. grabber). Uploaded since 02.2016 for pt:Antônio Carlos Barbosa, a Brazilian basketball ex-player and since 2016 (again) coach of Brazil women's national basketball team. All kind of personal photos (actual + historical) available, including mysteriously watermarked files like File:Barbosa clube3.jpg, photos of photos like File:Microcamp barbosa.jpg, unsource collages like File:Barbosasele.jpg etc.. Obviously multiple authors involved.
Considering also previously published at official Facebook:
- File:Barsil barbosa.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201077687340245&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722091.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:ACBarbosa1.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201077690060313&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722091.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:ACBarbosa bauru6.jpg ---> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200994944711731&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722138.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:ACBarbosa bauru2.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200827395803113&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722765.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:ACBarbosa2.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200809679000204&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722766.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:ACBarbosa bauru4.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200736452249581&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457722766.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:Barbosa clube3.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4850221589316&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457723317.&type=3&theater (2015)
- File:Barbosa maranha.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4029470431050&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457723531.&type=3&theater (2014)
- File:Barbosa campeao.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4769695136205&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457723317.&type=3&theater (2014)
- File:Barbosabasket.jpg --> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3880300501895&set=pb.1710270187.-2207520000.1457723574.&type=3&theater (2014)
- etc. = most likely all grabbed from Facebook.
Just advising that also "Antônio Carlos Barbosa" can't technically be the author of all these images as he is present on most (if not all) photos. Multiple permissions from the original photographers needed. Btw, uploader may be identifiable via Facebook and if he is really the person behind the Commons user, that would be quite annoying considering an in journalism + social communication postgraduate young Brazilian boy from whom I would expect some basic knowledge of copyrights. See also this post by uploader on Facebook. Pinging @Yanguas: because of the previous DRs.
- File:Barbosabasket.jpg
- File:Microcamp barbosa.jpg
- File:Barsil barbosa.jpg
- File:Barbosa maranha.jpg
- File:Barbosa magicpaula.jpg
- File:Barbosa clube1.jpg
- File:Barbosa clube3.jpg
- File:Barbosa clube2.jpg
- File:Barbosasele.jpg
- File:Barbosaselecao.jpg
- File:Barbosa e pagan.jpg
- File:Barbosa campeao.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru7.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru6.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru5.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru4.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru3.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa bauru2.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa paulista.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa BTC02.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa BTC.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa2.jpg
- File:ACBarbosa1.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No URL for trailer is given; the only trailer I find does not contain this image. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg Image appears to be a screenshot from this copyrighted film. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it is a screenshot from the film, I have to agree. Commons (obviously) doesn't host copyrgithed images except with the express consent of the copyright holder. The uploader needs to provide the URL for the trailer and show that the trailer is not copyrighted (most trailers are). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- High resolution screenshot is from an off-line DVD copy of the trailer a low resolution version of which is on-line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg. The trailer itself contains no copyright notice as is common in movie trailers. Centpacrr (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to if it's included on a DVD the entirety of which is copyrighted. Just as each chapter of a copyrighted book does not have to carry a separate copyright notice, each part of a copyrighted DVD does not need to be labelled as copyrighted - also note that under current copyright law, there is no neccessity for anything to carry an actual copyright notice - the fact of creation creates the copyright. Public domain material can be re-copyrighted if enough significant change is made to it to qualify it as a new work. If, for instance, the trailer was digitally enhanced, the enhancement may well qualify as sufficient to make it, essentially, a new work for the purposes of copyright. If this is the case, then the only thing that is in the PD is the un0enhanced copy of the trailer such as is found on YouTube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. However, it is plain from examination of the trailer at the link I provided that this could not have been captured from the trailer. The shot of Bogart is either covered with lettering or part of a "dissolve" from the previous scene. Given his uploading of this photograph of the "yellow stain incident" on Wikipedia, which is indisputably not a "trailer screen shot" as he claims, for no "yellow stain" shot appears in the trailer, it is safe to assume that this shot we are discussing is also a screen shot from the copyrighted film itself and not from the trailer. Coretheapple (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to if it's included on a DVD the entirety of which is copyrighted. Just as each chapter of a copyrighted book does not have to carry a separate copyright notice, each part of a copyrighted DVD does not need to be labelled as copyrighted - also note that under current copyright law, there is no neccessity for anything to carry an actual copyright notice - the fact of creation creates the copyright. Public domain material can be re-copyrighted if enough significant change is made to it to qualify it as a new work. If, for instance, the trailer was digitally enhanced, the enhancement may well qualify as sufficient to make it, essentially, a new work for the purposes of copyright. If this is the case, then the only thing that is in the PD is the un0enhanced copy of the trailer such as is found on YouTube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- High resolution screenshot is from an off-line DVD copy of the trailer a low resolution version of which is on-line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg. The trailer itself contains no copyright notice as is common in movie trailers. Centpacrr (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This user uploaded the identical photograph to Wikipedia after commencement of this deletion discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queeg_A.jpg This user needs to stop gaming the system and wasting editors time like this. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Picture from the late 1930s without evidence about the author. ХТЗ is the manufacturer of the vehicle, not a photgrapher. Nothing known about the copyright status, just taken from a webpage. Anyway, according to Commons:Copyright_rules#When_the_date_is_unknown not old enough for an unknown photographer. Druschba 4 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No URL for trailer is given; the only trailer I find contains FAR darker version of this image; this appears to be a screenshot from this copyrighted film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it is a screenshot of the film, I have to agree. Commons (obviously) does not hose copyroighted iomages except with the express permission of the copyright holder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- High resolution screenshot is from an off-line DVD copy of the trailer a low resolution version of which is on-line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg. The trailer itself contains no copyright notice as is common in movie trailers. Centpacrr (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to if it's included on a DVD the entirety of which is copyrighted. Just as each chapter of a copyrighted book does not have to carry a separate copyright notice, each part of a copyrighted DVD does not need to be labelled as copyrighted - also note that under current copyright law, there is no neccessity for anything to carry an actual copyright notice - the fact of creation creates the copyright. T Public domain material can be re-copyrighted if enough significant change is made to it to qualify it as a new work. If, for instance, the trailer was digitally enhanced, the enhancement may well qualify as sufficient to make it, essentially, a new work for the purposes of copyright. If this is the case, then the only thing that is in the PD is the un0enhanced copy of the trailer such as is found on YouTube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. However, it is plain from examination of the trailer at the link I provided that this could not have been captured from the trailer. Given his uploading of this photograph of the "yellow stain incident" on Wikipedia, which is indisputably not a "trailer screen shot" as he claims, for no "yellow stain" shot appears in the trailer, it is safe to assume that this shot we are discussing is also a screen shot from the copyrighted film itself and not from the trailer. Coretheapple (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to if it's included on a DVD the entirety of which is copyrighted. Just as each chapter of a copyrighted book does not have to carry a separate copyright notice, each part of a copyrighted DVD does not need to be labelled as copyrighted - also note that under current copyright law, there is no neccessity for anything to carry an actual copyright notice - the fact of creation creates the copyright. T Public domain material can be re-copyrighted if enough significant change is made to it to qualify it as a new work. If, for instance, the trailer was digitally enhanced, the enhancement may well qualify as sufficient to make it, essentially, a new work for the purposes of copyright. If this is the case, then the only thing that is in the PD is the un0enhanced copy of the trailer such as is found on YouTube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- High resolution screenshot is from an off-line DVD copy of the trailer a low resolution version of which is on-line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeErathhsg. The trailer itself contains no copyright notice as is common in movie trailers. Centpacrr (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Identical photo uploaded to Wikipedia after commencement of this deletion discussion. This is now the second time he has done this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queeg_B.jpg Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://thezt2roundtable.com/single/?p=8489176&t=9173297 Pompilos (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, qualifies for speedy deletion and tagged as such. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient source to verify the claimed anonymity of the photographer and the claim that the photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. It's also inappropriate to upload mirrored photos of people. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{PD-HU-unknown}} Tambo (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That template requires evidence that the photographer is anonymous, which we currently do not have. All we have is a link to a copy of the image somewhere on the Internet, without any information on how the picture ended up on the Internet. The picture may have been published in a book, a newspaper or some other place before it was uploaded to the Internet, and the photographer may have been credited there. The photographer might even be credited on the website - the link goes directly to the image, so it is not possible to check if there is any text on the website. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kornis Gyula Tambo (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- That page contains links to lots of books. It's possible that the image comes from one of those books (I don't have time to check all of them), or the website owner might have found the image somewhere else. In either case, we need to find out where the website owner found the image so that we can check if the photographer was credited there. If so, then the photographer isn't anonymous. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kornis Gyula Tambo (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- That template requires evidence that the photographer is anonymous, which we currently do not have. All we have is a link to a copy of the image somewhere on the Internet, without any information on how the picture ended up on the Internet. The picture may have been published in a book, a newspaper or some other place before it was uploaded to the Internet, and the photographer may have been credited there. The photographer might even be credited on the website - the link goes directly to the image, so it is not possible to check if there is any text on the website. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Note that PD-HU-unknown also requires proof of publication more than 70 years ago, which we do not have either. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wrong license, wrong author; pic of a photograph from around 1958 taken within a museum --> copyright violation. Paulae (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photograph of a copyright protected photograph in focus --> copyright violation. Paulae (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_by_Pericle_Fazzini_in_Vatican_Museum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Pericle_Fazzini_in_Vatican_Museum.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is a copyright violation: It shows a work of art that was created in 1977. Gnom (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Beautiful image, is there any way to move it to Wikipedia as fairuse or something? Other than that, I agree, I wasn't thinking about date of creation of the statue, I was thinking of date of creation of the photo which is CC. I suppose we consider the statue not the image of the statue? My past-self's bad. Makes sense, Nesnad (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we always have to consider both the copyright in the photo and the copyright in what's in the photo. As for fair use, I don't know much about how the English Wikipedia's rules concerning this.--Gnom (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected animation (figures can be easily identified) within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected cartoon /comic figures within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected animation (figures can be easily identified) within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected animation (figures can be easily identified) within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected animation (figures can be easily identified) within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stills of copyright protected animation (figures can be easily identified) within a museum. Paulae (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
What? Not that the works from the Federal Government of the US (including logos or seals of Federal Government agencies) are in the PD? Wikimedia Commons does not accept Fair use, so this template seems to be useless, unless if the author is attemping to use it between non-US Federal Government works. Therefore, this template should be moved to the english Wikipedia, that allows Fair use. Otherwise, just redirect this template to Template:Fair use Amitie 10g (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with Amitie. Any page on which this template could be used appropriately should be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://koenigandclinton.com/exhibitions/miljohn-ruperto-2/ Work from 1941. Enough old to be in the PD? Amitie 10g (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The photographer Jose Reyes, of Hollywood, California would be the copyright holder of this image. Mr. Reyes was originally from Manila, and I am unable to find a death date for him, although he was certainly alive in 1940 and since he started his career at 17 years of age, it's possible he's still alive. See [6] and [7]. It most certainly is not own work of the uploader, as it is a copyvio from the gallery webpage as shown above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Info: Notice that Philippines have the same copyright expiration as the US: Date of publication, and is 50 years after the first publication. If the work was first published in Philippines before 1966, then {{PD-Philippines}} apply; if the work was first published in the US, then {{PD-US-no-notice}} could apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Without information about publication, we can't keep this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. rather thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The file is captured in an Android Phone and I cropped the image. JØ +TALK 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded by CheckUser confirmed sock of Sm_Sangeeth_Sm77 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sm_Sangeeth_Sm77 - dubious that it is the user's own work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; non-credible claim. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused photo of a print of wikipedia article, which use ? Pippobuono (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: photo of text-only doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Microchip08 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: EXIF data says it's copyrighted
Converted by me to DR, as uploader has objected. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The following comment was moved to here from the file talkpage:
"Unfortunately, it would appear that User:Microchip08 hasn't quite checked before tagging, as the page clearly states that the image came from here. Now, if you go to that website; what does it say? "License: Creative Commons Attribution". Now if you follow the hyperlink on "Creative Commons Attribution" what license does it lead you to? CC BY 3.0. Now, if you go to Commons:Copyright_tags#Free_Creative_Commons_licenses, what license is listed under there? CC BY 3.0. The EXIF data does admittedly say "© Confidential, copyright DCA Design International Ltd"; but Hitachi has presumably since asked to change the license so they can use it in their marketing materials; if you look at all their free images here, you will see that many images have different authors, but are all under CC BY 3.0. That would suggest to me that Hitachi have some sort of deal with the photographers, though we could email them (listed under Press Contacts) to make sure. Jcc (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)"
Due to the explicit statement by the photographer "This image may not be used without prior written permission from DCA Design International Ltd" in the file EXIF data, it seems appropriate to request a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep: If the copyright holder released the picture under a free license, this should supersede any Copyright restrictions in the Exif. If DCA Design International actually agree to release (that is very likely) the picture under that license, then no permission needed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've filed off an email to clarify whether their website license overrules the EXIF data. Please hold until they respond. Jcc (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Argh, this is annoying, they don't seem to be responding. I suppose now it comes down to whether anyone located in the UK is willing to call them? Jcc (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- They still haven't replied. Could someone else email them? Contacts are at the bottom of the linked URL. Jcc (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep @Túrelio: They've finally replied, and basically it is free, they just couldn't be bothered to remove the EXIF data:
Jcc (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Thank you for your enquiry. The image originally was copyrighted to DCA (hence the EXIF data on the image itself once downloaded – this is hard coded into the JPEG) however the photographs are our intellectual property so we have given them Creative Commons access and they sit under CC-BY-3.0 . They are therefore fine to use as needed.
Kindest Regards,
Nina Harding Public Relations and Communications Co-ordinator
Kept: as above. --Yasu (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that this picture is really "own work" as stated since there is only this small resolution, the edges on the left and on the bottom fade in white which is is a hint for a photo of a printed picture from a book or brochure, and thirdly, there are no camera EXIF data but on the contrary the remark "Photoshop". Therefore, I assume a copyright infringement here, taking all three aforementioned arguments into account. I cast a vote to delete the picture. GeoTrinity (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: the original file (even cropped) may be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4654137.stm (© BBC) = http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41271000/jpg/_41271685_lunch203pa.jpg, already published in 2005. Gunnex (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Storkk (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope of project, also the use of the word "boy" in the title is concerning since the uploader makes no clarification in the description that the person in the image is not underage Libertybison (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: model release and age verification likely required, but also out of COM:SCOPE. --Storkk (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Source - Reuters PhyoWP *click 06:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation. @Phyo WP: please use {{Copyvio}} for this type of file. --Storkk (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Dinosaur Comic
[edit]Source file has been deleted as copyright violation 6 years ago …
El Grafo (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Info: See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Dinosaur_comic_panel.png, source file was inappropiately deleted. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Source file was correctly deleted, since license clearly restricts commerical derivative works. For details, see COM:L. --Storkk (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Screenshot of a high quality photograph, unlikely to be original work. The user has previously uploaded two copyvio images and there isn't enough information given to verify the license. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely professional sports shot. Photographer should follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to verify license. --Storkk (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work by an artist who died in 2011, still copyrighted, no FoP in Russia for artwork in public space A.Savin 15:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The fresco was made in 1987 and is still copyrighted, no FoP in Russia for artwork in public space A.Savin 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Files "*/Temp Saved Images/*"
[edit]Low-resolution images, probably copied from some resource like Facebook (file title suggests this "...INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images..." + blocks of numbers) and most probably aren't "Own work" how is stated in descriptions.
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1000832 10151585452653163 837095696 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1002748 10151585451868163 1246313126 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1002836 10151585450558163 968084771 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1005260 10151585452728163 2141054535 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1005693 10151585452688163 1358792226 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1011316 10151585451978163 1369081829 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1011982 10151585451153163 2053966786 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1012177 10151585451428163 944566690 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1012344 10151585451203163 238727506 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 1044574 10151585452023163 1953594932 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 10639406 10154549358340646 1993969527578275095 n.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/LeBeauVeloDeRavel/photos/a.10154548704870646.1073741881.501257365645/10154549358340646/?type=1&theater (08.2014, by "Le beau vélo de RAVeL - RTBF")
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 12289459 764368286997446 4923584722245864346 n.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=764368286997446&set=a.202746076493006.33309.100002728442672&type=1&theater (2015, by "Gabriel Sebastían Gauto")
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 480849 10151585452058163 1658527628 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 600487 10151585452858163 1801635324 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 941443 10151585452098163 1289833268 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 946221 10151585452323163 1097147779 n 1.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 946221 10151585452323163 1097147779 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 993899 10151585451183163 617746221 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 994204 10151585452128163 1534174129 n.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images Asroel 20Nursamsi (2) (2).jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images Happy-Independence-Day-Wallpaper-Images-Photos-7.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images carta-de-fundación 1.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images ga809388 02.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images images.jpg
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--XXN, 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Small images, lacking metadata, filenames indicate they were downloaded prior to upload... highly likely to be copyright violations. Photographers should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from this video. XXN, 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. Videographer/photographer/copyright holder should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Unusally small for "own work" and no EXIF. Square format at 213*213 px is more akin of an web account avatar image of some kind. Doubtful educational usefulness - on Wikipedia, I'd see it as "speedy-able" self-promotional stub. Grand-Duc (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal images are out of scope. Additional likely copyright issues as outlined by nominator. --Storkk (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
These are all paintings or drawings by an unnamed artist, with no useful categories or descriptions. Of the nine images of paintings, 3 are duplicates. In order to keep them on Commons, first it must be proven that the artist is notable, which means that he or she must have a WP article. Second, it must be proven that they are either PD because the artist died before 1946 or for some other reason, or that the artist has licensed them for use here. The tenth image is of the artist painting one of the images shown in the first nine. The same two provisions apply to it.
- File:Старик DSC2175.jpgвапвапвап.jpg
- File:Натюрморт DSC9067.jpgйффффффффффффф.jpg
- File:Женский портретDSC6374.jpg5н5н5н5н5н5н5н.jpg
- File:Александр Невский DSC3110.jpg
- File:Певчий DSC3630.jpg
- File:ЖеняDSC8103.jpgываываываы.jpg
- File:Певчий DSC3572.jpgппвппвп.jpg
- File:Юрко(Клен) МихаилDSC8158.jpg
- File:573fe131012685.563cc6230aa4f.jpg
- File:Певчий. мокрый соус. .jpg
- File:Мору.худ Клен Михаил(Юрко).jpg
- File:Худ. Клен Михаил (Юрко) мокрый соус. "Таня".jpg
- File:Х.д.КлКлен Михаил(Юрко) "Наташа"..мокрый соус..Русская школа рисунка. 2015 год.jpg
- File:Художник Клен Михаил. Козуе Айкава 2015 год DSC3700.jpg.jpg
_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BBDSC8158.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%83%D1%81._%22%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%22.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%22%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B0%22..%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%83%D1%81..%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0._2015_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Hangon Предлагаю доработать. Добавить имя художника и материал. Художник Клен Михаил. холст,масло. https://www.behance.net/Michail1972 Михаил Клен является профессионалом России, Российской геральдической палаты, выдвинут на звание заслуженный художник.. я считаю что современного действующего художника необходимо внести в статус Википидии. работы являются моей собсвенность, ссылки на сайты я дал.. может не в то место поместил. Прошу помощи. В любом случае я против удаления. Авторские работы находятся здесь http://classic-online.ru/ru/art/painter/Yurko/75 https://www.behance.net/Michail1972 и вот здесь . группа в контакте https://vk.com/public86228728 добавил к работам лицензию
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. |
- It turns out there is a WP article, Клен Михаил Михаилович,
which is up for deletionwhich has been deleted for lack of notability. Aside from the images being out of scope for lack of notability, it appears that our uploader is not the artist and these appear in a variety of places on the Web without free licenses. That makes them eligible for {{Speedy}}, but I'll let this DR continue. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright and scope issues as outlined by Jim. --Storkk (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
this photo has no connection with my work as a fashion designer/seamstress. Absolutely no rights to be shown with my images,Boutique Oonu 104.163.148.207 16:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please explain this request more clearly. As far as I can see, this image has no connection with anything called "Boutique Oonu". The image is in use in several places, all of which appear to be appropriate. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Storkk (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
blurred photo, unused (only bots and user pages) Pippobuono (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused and not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. --Storkk (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wrong date of pic, source / author + wrong license. Paulae (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: So, who is the actual author? Most correct license should be {{PD-old-70}}, but no reason for deletion without proof of otherwise. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. {{PD-old-70}} is for authors who have died over 70 years ago, not for works published 70 years ago. This is clearly from the 20th century, much later than the ~1860s cutoff I'm comfortable with to be relatively sure author has been dead for 70 years. Almost certainly not an anonymous photo either. --Storkk (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.astbusines.ru/photo/437_7c37926c75a.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Scan from the book "Filippas Engel". Photo 1 by Alexandra Sayn-Wittgenstein, Photo 2 by Cosimo Bargellini, Photo 3 by Frank Seeger. Tröte (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Storkk (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of screenshot with unknown copyright status. Maybe the video is free, but this needs evidence. Taivo (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a screenshot. It's a picture taken at a live event with my camera as can be seen from the metadata --Muhammad (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- But there is man in white on screen (even twice, on two screens). What kind of license does this video/photo have? What kind of image is it? Taivo (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Surely the video is simply a repeat of the live performer (seen further away to the right) on a large screen for the benefit of those too far away to see clearly without the enlarge image? grantem2000 14:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The video feed clearly has its own copyright, and the fact that it was nearly live (not quite as evidenced by the position of the left hand) doesn't IMO change the fact that this would be encumbered by the video feed's copyright. I've uploaded two alternatives over the original, one with the feed blurred and one with the feed simply set to black. I am somewhat concerned that it should be pretty obvious that something has been removed to preserve documentary integrity, but I resisted putting actual text like "image portion removed for copyright reasons" over the area of what used to be the video feed... that may have been the best alternative, but might also have been too intrusive. I will now delete the original and keep both alternatives. The choice of which version is least bad should probably be left to the uploader (who should ping me for a courtesy deletion of the other if desired). --Storkk (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Please have the photographer confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded on Flickr in 2021 on a blacklisted account. Uploaded on internet in 2020 https://www.instagram.com/vineesh_official/p/CCktw5oAizE/ MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Please have the photographer confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Colombia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused inferior raster duplicate. --Storkk (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing evidence of permission/license/copyright status. --Storkk (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The copyright status of this file is somewhat iffy and has been tagged as {{Wrong license}} for a while. The uploader had a fair few uploads of him deleted and it's not clear that the "own work" claim is credible - there is a website with a very similar album cover (?) here that has a Noncommercial-Noderivatives license which is incompatible with COM:L. Not sure it would be considered as beneath the originality tresholds, either - no clear information on the country of origin and it looks like very artistic text rather than mere calligraphy. Note to myself mostly and any crosswiki editor, if this is deleted the "Shadows Commons" template on en:File:Valientes.jpg ought to be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is this an album cover by a famous band or is the picture out of scope? The picture is not currently in use anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This image is clearly not free. That, and the subject of the image is most likely not notable enough for inclusion as an article on any Wikipedia, so this image will most likely not get used anyways as fair use (regardless if the Wikipedia allows fair use or not.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion: scope and copyright concerns. --Storkk (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Scope and copyright concerns. --Storkk (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
_COA.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_COA.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused redirect jdx Re: 01:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
_COA.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
_COA.svg){kind=link}
_COA_new.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_COA_new.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused redirect jdx Re: 01:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
_COA_new.svg){kind=link}
- Are you sure?. I just renamed in [8]. There are some more. Malarz pl (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Now I'm sure. I have manually changed references to this file in many more places because for some reason it has not been done automatically. --jdx Re: 02:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
_COA_new.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
_COA_new.svg){kind=link}
_COA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_COA.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused redirect jdx Re: 01:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
_COA.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
_COA.jpg){kind=link}
Unused redirect jdx Re: 01:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope and violation of privacy. School teachers lacking notability of a school deleted on nlwiki.
- File:Directrice juf Katrien.jpg
- File:Juff Elke.jpg
- File:Juf Joke.jpg
- File:Meester Sam.jpg
- File:Juf Lien.jpg
- File:Juf Liezel.jpg
- File:Juf Nele.jpg
ErikvanB (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Does not look like own work, but like a book page. The user has uploaded a lot of copyvios, so own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Second. The assumed existence of the textbook is less problematic than the idea of the uploader suddenly having professional talent despite flagrant disrespect for artist credit. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Small size, no metadata. Taivo (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
EXIF: Copyright status: Copyright status not set ?? 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 09:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: watermark, taken from internet, copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
dubious"own" work (small size, no EXIF) 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 09:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, already published on internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dubious "own" work 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 09:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KAPIL RAUT (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. (Also it seems to me, that educational value is not big.) Taivo (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
2010 literary work, no evidence for publishing under CC-license. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Doubius "own" work 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 13:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
no description, no source, no author 2003:45:5C6F:1201:3596:FCE0:87EE:23B5 13:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No useful description, no categories -- this image cannot be useful because it cannot be found among our 30,000,000 images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. Hay que ver cada imagen por separado Alelapenya (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No longer required Gilmore tj (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: self nomination, courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 7 April 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) 15:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope - small company from philadelphia , not notable Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muvunyi Leonce (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
- File:MUVUNYI Leonce M...jpg
- File:Muvunyi Leonce Mrisho.jpg
- File:Muvunyi Leonce M..jpg
- File:Leonce.jpg
- File:Muvunyi Leonce.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
._2015.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._2015.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
для замены на другой файл Vois (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
._2015.jpg){kind=link}
._2015.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
для замены на другой файл Vois (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Спасибо, нужно удалить, поскольку этот файл не дает возможности заменить его на другой более точный.
Deleted: self nomination, courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Да, можно удалить чтобы заменить его на новый. Автор Vois (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Raster version of File:B-2 icon.svg Elisfkc (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dubious uploads. They are all really small, lacking metadata, hold sometimes the evidence for not being own work directly in the file (-> Identity linkage matrix, Öqvis, 2008.png) are are of doubtful educational usefulness (or fall outright outside scope as the plain text in "surveillance,soussurveillance.png"). Additionally, the user has already three deletion warnings on his talkpage.
- File:The Maybecamera.png
- File:Pic(a).png
- File:Surveillance,sousveillance.png
- File:Identity linkage matrix, Öqvis, 2008.png
- File:Identity linkage matrix.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grand-Duc (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope (COM:EDUSE), likely a (self-)promotional upload, additionally most likely not "own work" as it seems to originate from Facebook. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The uploader didnt provide a real source of rights for this photo, this image could be copyrighted. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has had prior shots deleted as being copyright violations, so he has unclean hands. Tabercil (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: on looking at the shot further I feel that it was not taken in February 2016. He's been signed to the WWE since January 2016. Yet he's standing on a wooden floor, which seems more likely if it was a indy show, which would be prior to 2016. Tabercil (talk)
- Comment: Tabercil, the photo was taken at Styles' last indy show on February 5, 2016 when he faced Corey Hollis at Georgia Premier Wrestling. Styles had this appearance pre-booked before he signed with WWE. You are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.164.42 (talk • contribs) 19:01, March 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Mea culpa, I hadn't realized that he had made any indy appearances after his WWE debut - usually the WWE insists on clearing all that off first before they appear. It doesn't change that I find it highly doubtful that this is an image the uploader took. Tabercil (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diannaa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free logo, from https://twitter.com/jamiiforums Bellow the COM:TOO? Amitie 10g (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Offices of the company are in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Watermarked and shows up on 4chan, highly dubious copyright release. Keegan (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused image without educational value, maybe copyvio too. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kevinleowong (talk · contribs)
[edit]Three photos of the same group of desk top items, and a series of photos that appear to be from catalog and in use on promotional en:wiki page (if in use at all). Unlikely to be user's own work, despite the larger sizes, there's no metadata and no cohesion between the images. Probable COM:COPYVIOs but out of scope for promotional uploads.
- File:Desktop accessories in deli.png
- File:Desktop accessories deli.png
- File:Deli stapler.png
- File:Deli paper shredder.png
- File:Deli OA.png
- File:Deli filing.png
- File:Deli desktop accessories.png
- File:Deli calculator.png
- File:Deli binding machine.png
- File:Deli headquarter.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
What catalog are you referring to?
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If there is no SVG, it shouldn't be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are File:Bayer Logo.svg. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If this is a screen from Telegram.org, then it is a copyvio. If not, then it is a fake and is out of scope. Either way, we cannot keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rojelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.nobili-napoletani.it/Quaranta-Foto.htm Old picture, so a speedy is anappropiate Amitie 10g (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: improper attribution. --Basvb (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interiors of churches in Moscow
[edit]too small picture, no exif-data, no usage, unknown church, not sure about copyright
- File:2694afdcf03030ffd114a6b89c4d7a29.jpg
- File:3afd30c96f1f2acf77128e3004c72e3e.jpg
- File:44b20bc38c3a5b966c9081ca7d1d8793.jpg
Stolbovsky (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rojelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.nobili-napoletani.it/Quaranta-Foto.htm DR of an old painting. Enough old to be in the PD? Amitie 10g (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Photograph of a 17th century painting. In the PD. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It can read copyrighted writings. Copyvio as literary work by ja:本吉渚 LudwigSK (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It can read copyrighted writings. Copyvio as literary work by ja:本吉渚. LudwigSK (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It can read copyrighted writings. Copyvio as literary work by ja:本吉渚. LudwigSK (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It can read copyrighted writings. Copyvio as literary work by ja:本吉渚. LudwigSK (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is about Akari (ASTRO-F), JAXA's satellite. And, this image is also appeared on JAXA's website. I suspect that its copyright holder is not NASA but JAXA. If this opinion is fact, image is infringing copyright because JAXA do NOT allow that images on own website are used for commercial without permission. Kkairri (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: this image is probably from Jaxa (the image on JPL website contains a link to JAXA website). JPL website states that images from 3rd party cannot be used without authorization for commercial purpose (see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/). --BrightRaven (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://www.atlantachristianweb.com/links_artists_Main.asp and several other locations. https://www.tineye.com/search/fe550edade40f5baf25e77823f3f3ad64a83fdc3/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Redundant: There is a higher resolution version of this image - File:Vilhelm Melbye - Xebecs and other shipping off Gibralter at sunset.jpg - without the auction house text in the bottom right corner. Rsteen (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: superseded. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I could not validate the license. Source site did not open. OTRS-permission from author A. B. Fyhn is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
source page indicates copyright: https://realtimelogic.com/products/sharkssl/ Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Source page is updated to add permission: https://realtimelogic.com/downloads/docs/RTL-CC-Image-Release.pdf
Kept: licence published on the source website. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
File originally kept as license provided. However, per discussion at en-wiki COIN, the user has been in contact with the company specifically for purposes of writing an article on this product. A "to whom it may concern" letter without letterhead, without signature, and without elucidation of the CC license type, is simply not enough to establish valid licensing. We don't know who at the company is granting permission, among other things. At the very least, this will need OTRS permission. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, we consider the licence as valid when it is published on the source website. We do not request OTRS ticket in these cases, so I think we can keep this image. BrightRaven (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- @BrightRaven: I'd be inclined to agree, but the PDF linked to does not specify a specific license. It appears to state "Creative Commons 4.0", which is not specific enough, IMO - CC also publishes license with ND and NC clauses. This may be nitpicking, but I couldn't find any confirmation that the licensor understands they are allowing anybody to modify the image for commercial purposes. Ambiguities like this are probably best resolved through OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
blurred picture and possible copyright infringement since the design of the packet and the sachets is subject to the company's copyright. 85.177.17.223 17:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted packaging is not de minimis. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Image appears to be same as one published a month prior to this upload, see http://www.shejipi.com/98558.html ... this image has no metadata and no indication of user's own work other than large size. However, the image was previously published, so we need more information about this image to retain. Also promotional, please see use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also affected, same image smaller size File:Deli pencil sharpener.png. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ellin, The pencil sharpener photo is in fact the same product from the http://www.shejipi.com/98558.html article published last month. Does this cause a problem? What information can I provide? I saw that you said that it might be helpful to take a picture of the item to show that it is my own work. Please clarify.
- CommentNotice that uploader has only uploaded Deli products and is the only contributor at their page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deli_%28company%29&action=history which is why I said this is promotional. The uploads are all about this company's products as well and look like professional photoshoots, not amateur shots. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Image published previously. Please send a permission following this procedure if you want this image to be restored. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Scan from derivate work, unknown author, no permission for cc-license. (Original work date 1921, see this "1923-discussion" de:Wikipedia:Dateiüberprüfung/1923#Datei:Locherboden-Gnadenkapelle-1881.jpg.3B_Datei:Stams-.C3.9Cberfuhr-vor-1921.jpg (in german) Wdwd (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work. No information about the author or original publication. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The picture was taken in the 1940s by an unknown author. According to this guideline/example the picture is not old enough. Druschba 4 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The picture was taken in the 1940s by an unknown author. According to this guideline/example the picture is not old enough. Druschba 4 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The picture was taken in the 1930s by an unknown author (tractor can not be produced before 1931). According to this guideline/example the picture is not old enough. Druschba 4 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started as stated "Previously published: facebook", Roland zh (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. rather thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:PRP. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Crh23 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Nonfree logo of a company ([9]) Bellow the COM:TOO in Egypt? Amitie 10g (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: simple logo that is probably below COM:TOO. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Unreviewed photo uploaded from https://www.flickr.com/photos/botafogodaparaiba/15989447566/, licensed with cc-by-sa 2.0 but where states: "IMPORTANTE: Imagem destinada a uso institucional e divulgação, seu uso comercial está vetado incondicionalmente por seu autor e o Botafogo Futebol Clube. ". = IMPORTANT: Image intended for institutional use and distribution only; commercial use is vetoed unconditionally by its author and Botafogo Futebol Clube --> author's real intention may be in fact to distribute this photo under a NC (non-commercial) license, which is not compatible with COM:L. Gunnex (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominating also
= Flickrreviewed duplicate. --Gunnex (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Made up for fringe article about 'sacred geometric principles': "describe the real continuum of the matter through shapes that organize all universe instead of the Fractal paradigm. Fractal come from Mandelbrot who based it on the Latin fractus meaning "broken" or "fractured". But everything in the universe is connected and not broken. ReXxel has been proposed for the first time by Foudyl Zaouia a french spiritual designer in november 2015 and published in the Presse Galactique as a major discovery in the sacred geometry field. ReXxel new paradigm is for the unit of Reliance Element, like the pixel is for picture element."] Blythwood (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep Nice image of a three-dimensional fractal-like object. While it would be nice to know the generating system, I'm not sure it's educationally useless as is. Candidate to be {{Rename}}d if a target is identified. I've modified the categories a bit, it's clearly derivative of a Sierpinski pyramid and a Cuboctahedron in some way. Obviously, remove the rambling text. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment How do we know that the uploader is the same as the YouTube account from which this came? See https://www.youtube.com/user/fdyol. I think this needs OTRS at least as it is the only upload of the uploader who has also not replied to this situation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Potentially a useful image, but we need confirmation via OTRS that the uploader is indeed the creator, as claimed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The UN Web site cited in this template, http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm, says
- "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web. You can however create links to our site instead. No permission is required for the link."
That is a very explicit prohibition on exactly what we do here on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Question: Considering the wide use (more than 1000 files) and OTRS ticket, Is the ticket:2006090710013991 (tag located at the Talk page) actually valid? Should not be better to discuss this at the Talk Page instead? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The page linked from the template also says:
UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map… If you want to use the UN map (or maps) as a UN document, i.e. without modification in specific publication, book or article we can issue publication permission on behalf of the UN Publication Board. It is free of charge and is conducted via email. Please tell us a few words about your forthcoming publication along with a list of the UN maps you would like to use.
- --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Did you noticied my above comment mentioning an OTRS ticket? Jameslwoodward or other OTRS member should confirm that. If valid, the OTRS permission should be enough. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket referenced above was forwarded, not sent directly, in 2005. The message is from a cartographer at the UN who may or may not have the authority to release UN material and says in its entirety:
- " Thank you for your inquiri.
- The UN maps is an open source material. You can use them to make your own maps. You do not need our permission for that. Please be advised that the UN name and reference number should not appear on any modified map. The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified. You can said something like "Based on UN map no..."
- With kind regards," emphasis added
We also have the statement quoted in the box above:
- "If you want to use the UN map (or maps) as a UN document, i.e. without modification in specific publication, book or article we can issue publication permission on behalf of the UN Publication Board."
That is clearly limits the uses to which a UN map can be put -- you must get permission to use the map in an article that cites the UN map. It seems to me that both of these put unacceptable limits on our use of UN maps. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the specific OTRS verbiage. It looks like we need to remove the UN name and reference number from all the UN maps that still have that on it. I think that is all they care about from my reading of everything both on their web page, and in the OTRS message. It is easy to remove the UN name and reference number. See Help:Removing watermarks. I can help a little. I am very busy though, so we need to recruit others too.
- So please do not delete the maps. A lot of work by many people went into posting them on the Commons, and on the Wikipedia web pages. I don't think that the UN has a problem at all with Wikipedia using their maps. They, like many institutions, are probably a lot more concerned about the maps being used elsewhere with the UN name on it. They probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that line of reasoning fails. Commons is a source for everyone, everywhere, not just WP. So if, as you say, and the license says, "they probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website", then the images cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Your line of reasoning is failing. If there is no UN name on the map, then the images can be kept on the Commons. The removal of the UN name and reference number makes the map a modified map. An open source map in the public domain. Not even attribution is required. See the info again in the box higher up: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's a Catch-22. According to Commons rules, we can't keep one of these maps unless its file description tells us the source and the reason it is PD or freely licensed. But, according to the UN rules, we can't keep it unless any use of it (including on Commons) makes no mention of the UN. We have no way of keeping an image with a file description that says "This image is freely licensed but we're not allowed to tell you the source."
- I'd appreciate a comment here from Carl and Rybkovich. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Your line of reasoning is failing. If there is no UN name on the map, then the images can be kept on the Commons. The removal of the UN name and reference number makes the map a modified map. An open source map in the public domain. Not even attribution is required. See the info again in the box higher up: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that line of reasoning fails. Commons is a source for everyone, everywhere, not just WP. So if, as you say, and the license says, "they probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website", then the images cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- So please do not delete the maps. A lot of work by many people went into posting them on the Commons, and on the Wikipedia web pages. I don't think that the UN has a problem at all with Wikipedia using their maps. They, like many institutions, are probably a lot more concerned about the maps being used elsewhere with the UN name on it. They probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, their issue is more moral rights or trademark. If it is an out-of-date map, they request their authorship identification be removed. That is possible for *any* author to do -- moral rights let them force their name to be taken off any work; that does not render it non-free. Similarly, they do not want their name associated with a modified map, but the copyrightable content is free to use. I think we are fine... we could make a direct copy and just say "based off a UN map available at XXXX", like the tag says, and conform to their guidelines. At that point it is a "modified" map which we are free to use for our own purposes -- we just can't use the UN's name or reputation. I think it's certainly too much word-splicing for a tag we have used without apparent incident for over a decade, which would delete thousands of files. Realistically, the content appears to be free in a copyright sense, but they are protecting their trademark, and maps which have their logo and name might run afoul of that (especially if modified). I think it's a Keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the above, the way I see it now, the rule is pretty straightforward -
- "UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map".
- The "you" can be interpreted as referring to us wikimedia, and used in our work - to our project of hosting images for public use. So it would be ok for us to keep the files if the UN references are removed. I don't see the last paragraph's phrase - "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web" as an additional rule to what is stated above it. I see it as an explanation for the rule. So when it is stated that "we do not permit posting of our maps" 'our maps' only refers to maps that had not had their UN names or reference numbers removed. Rybkovich (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I think we should change the tag a little bit by adding a sentence to the very end. "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." Rybkovich (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, their issue is more moral rights or trademark. If it is an out-of-date map, they request their authorship identification be removed. That is possible for *any* author to do -- moral rights let them force their name to be taken off any work; that does not render it non-free. Similarly, they do not want their name associated with a modified map, but the copyrightable content is free to use. I think we are fine... we could make a direct copy and just say "based off a UN map available at XXXX", like the tag says, and conform to their guidelines. At that point it is a "modified" map which we are free to use for our own purposes -- we just can't use the UN's name or reputation. I think it's certainly too much word-splicing for a tag we have used without apparent incident for over a decade, which would delete thousands of files. Realistically, the content appears to be free in a copyright sense, but they are protecting their trademark, and maps which have their logo and name might run afoul of that (especially if modified). I think it's a
- Based on our discussion I would like to change the tag. My addition is in bold
- "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." This is primarily based on the points made by Carl and Jameslwoodward. Rybkovich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see: Commons:Watermarks. The UN has no problem with their "watermark" or UN name and reference number being removed from their maps. So that means we have none of the problems mentioned in Commons:Watermarks. So I suggest a simpler solution. All the relevant UN maps are OK on the Commons once the UN name and reference number has been removed from the map. Those maps are given a public domain license, and the description page for those maps must say "based on UN map" in order to prove their provenance, and that they truly are in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The current description of the tag states that "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map." I want to add the sentence A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number to make it clear that a UN map can be uploaded as it is, if any references to the UN are removed. Does any one have another suggestions? Like not making any changes? Rybkovich (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see: Commons:Watermarks. The UN has no problem with their "watermark" or UN name and reference number being removed from their maps. So that means we have none of the problems mentioned in Commons:Watermarks. So I suggest a simpler solution. All the relevant UN maps are OK on the Commons once the UN name and reference number has been removed from the map. Those maps are given a public domain license, and the description page for those maps must say "based on UN map" in order to prove their provenance, and that they truly are in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." This is primarily based on the points made by Carl and Jameslwoodward. Rybkovich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(unindent). I read the "about" page again. I think this is the key part: "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site." Emphasis added. Maps without their UN logo or number are no longer their maps. They are in the public domain.
The OTRS message says "The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified." Once the UN logo and number is removed it is no longer a UN map. It is an open-source public domain map.
Both sources say it is OK, but not required, to say "based on UN map." I suggest this message on the template:
| Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide. Some UN maps have special copyrights, as indicated on the map itself. All public domain UN maps uploaded to the Commons must have the UN name, logo, reference number, etc. removed from the map. See: UN Geospatial Information Section for more info. The UN source of a map must be linked to from the Commons in order to prove provenance, and thus meet the requirements of proving the public domain nature of the map. |
The OTRS ticket should also be linked from the template. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This template looks bad for several reasons:
- User:Jameslwoodward wrote that the OTRS message comes from a cartographer at the UN who may or may not have the authority to release UN material. If the cartographer doesn't have such authority, then the OTRS message is null and void, and if we don't know if the message is null and void or not, it's not a good idea to rely on the message.
- This page appears to be contradicting itself. The page both says that the material can be used and that the material can't be used.
- It is unclear if you can use unmodified copies of the maps. We could always get around this problem by requiring users to modify the map before uploading it, I suppose.
- There seem to be restrictions on how the source may be attributed, at least if the map is modified. We accept licences which require attribution, but I'm not sure if we accept licences which prohibit attribution. As part of COM:EVID, the uploader is required to prove that the material is freely licensed or in the public domain, and if attribution is prohibited, then it may be impossible to prove that the material is freely licensed or in the public domain, and the material might then end up being deleted per {{No source since}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain above, this is a Catch-22. I think that someone besides Commons may use these maps as long as they don't attribute them to the UN. The problem is that it says explicitly that you can't keep them and mention the UN as the source -- our rules require us to name the source -- we can't say "This map is free for any use but we can't name the source." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some notes:
- A licence can only be used if sufficient evidence is available that the licence exists. If sufficient evidence is unavailable or confidential, then you can't use the licence since you won't be able to defend yourself in a court. Someone might sue and that person might use forged evidence, but without access to the evidence, you won't be able to win against the person. If evidence is unavailable, the material is effectively unlicensed (and thus unfree).
- Others might have access to evidence, but the licence is then only usable by those who have access to this evidence.
- A file is only 'free content' if it can be used by everyone. Since a file only can be used by those who have access to this evidence, a file can only be 'free content' if everyone has access to this evidence.
- A file is only 'free content' if a content reuser can include a modified copy of the file in a media repository which the content reuser is able to allow others to copy freely.
- Then applying the above to {{PD-UN-map}}:
- If a content reuser includes a modified copy of a UN map in the media repository Wikimedia Commons, then the content reuser seems to be disallowed to provide sufficient evidence that the map is free content.
- →Others can't make verbatim copies of the media repository Wikimedia Commons.
- →Modified copies of UN maps which are included in the media repository Wikimedia Commons are not free content.
- Specifically about unmodified copies of UN maps:
- A map is only free content if people can upload modified copies of the map to the media repository Wikimedia Commons without violating the media repository's inclusion policy.
- Per the above, modified copies of the map are not free content and thus do not satisfy the inclusion policy.
- →Unmodified copies of UN maps are also unfree content.
- Sounds like a copyright tag which should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some notes:
- As I tried to explain above, this is a Catch-22. I think that someone besides Commons may use these maps as long as they don't attribute them to the UN. The problem is that it says explicitly that you can't keep them and mention the UN as the source -- our rules require us to name the source -- we can't say "This map is free for any use but we can't name the source." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
(unindent). From COM:EVID
In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
|
The requirements demanded by COM:EVID have been met for modified UN maps. Modified by removing the UN name, etc.. This UN page satisfies those requirements:
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm - that page suggests: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map…". That satisfies attribution to prove public domain.
That page repeats what was in the OTRS message. So we really don't need the OTRS message, though I think it helps to link to it to show how far back this all goes.
The requirements have not been met for the unmodified UN maps. See my previous comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I can clearly visualize situations where a user mischievously prepares a modified map ceding half of Pakistan to India, or vice versa, and adds the tag "based on UN map no. XXX". Jim is correct there is no way these files can be kept on Commons if they implicate / indicate "UN map" anywhere or in any manner. The UN page is clear, an individual person (ie. "you") is free to prepare and publish his own map (based on a UN map) in a book / article etc. so long as that person assumes legal liability for that modified map. But these modified maps of dubious authenticity cannot be uploaded to a website like Commons for general distribution especially by pseudonymous uploaders. Finally, "Open source" is not the same as "public domain". Unfitlouie (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- See: Commons:Map resources#Other map resources online. There are many sources for maps on the Commons. Such as the CIA, Library of Congress, etc.. Mischievous people can modify maps from any of those sources, and are required to point out the original map on the Commons or elsewhere that they are modifying. Or they can lie, and say they created the map from scratch. Either way there are many inaccurate maps on the Commons. They don't usually get used in Wikipedia articles if they have major errors. Because there are usually a few people editing articles that can eventually spot a bogus map with obvious errors such as ceding the West Bank to Israel or vice versa. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Has anyone tried re-contacting the UN about the catch-22? I would think they would want to know, considering if we're one of the largest public distributors of their assets. czar 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete all these unmodified maps speedily per COM:PRP. There is clear consensus that these are all massive copyvios. Templates can be created / discussed as and when any user uploads a modified map along with an appropriate licence for Commons. It is significant that there is a new UN copyright policy 2016 [10] None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher. This seems to prohibit modified maps !!! Unfitlouie (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. "except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites". And the terms and conditions concerning maps are found in the page we have been discussing:
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm
- The unmodified maps should have the UN name, logo, and reference number speedily removed. Versus the maps being speedily deleted, and disrupting many articles on Wikipedia. But I see from your user contributions lately, that deletionism is currently the main tool in your bag. Hey, to each his own. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
CIA maps are similar: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/refmaps.html
- Copyright page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html
| "The Factbook is in the public domain. Accordingly, it may be copied freely without permission of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The official seal of the CIA, however, may NOT be copied without permission as required by the CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. section 403m). Misuse of the official seal of the CIA could result in civil and criminal penalties." |
So I assume the CIA seal must be removed if it is found on a CIA map. Yet we still must state on the description page here that the map came from the CIA in order to prove that the map is in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- {comment}} The UN have asserted their copyrights globally. The page you link to does not relinquish/waive their copyright (in fact it reinforces it by requiring permission to publish). What it does do is to not stand in the way of individuals using UN maps as basis for creating modified maps so long as that other person assumes responsibility for those maps - ie. the OPEN SOURCE approach which is not the same as placing their maps in public domain. The proposition is simple A) UN maps are copyright asserted and not in public domain and so cannot be uploaded /retained in Commons, and B) Modified UN maps if uploaded to Commons cannot be referenced to the UN map or its UN reference number . Such modified maps may be used on projects like EN:wikipedia with different inclusion /retention standards. The CIA case is distinguishable because the CIA have explicitly stated their factbook is in the public domain. NB: I am not a deletionist, look closely. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- See: Commons:Copyright tags#Various free licenses
- See: Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags
- If the UN still retains copyright, then one of the tags from the above-linked page sections will work. This one for example:
- Template:Copyrighted free use. "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification."
- But I think they have given up copyright on the modified maps. Because they do not insist that they be given attribution. They allow people to say that their modified map is based on a UN map. But they do not insist on it. Doesn't sound like they want to retain copyright, nor insist on attribution for modified maps. That is the definition of public domain. The maps become public domain once they are modified, and once the UN name, logo, and reference number is removed. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshifter: You are grasping at straws. The UN has not given up copyright nor placed their maps in "public domain" (like the CIA has). Copyrighted works enter public domain either when their copyright expires/lapses or when the holder explicitly surrenders all rights in his work. The UN has done neither of these, instead they have effectively licenced their maps as "open source" (while retaining their copyrights). Such an open source licence is incompatible with Commons because it disallows the attribution which Commons requires. Unmodified maps continue to be copyrighted because UN insists on permissions for using them as-is. Unfitlouie (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- We do not disagree on the unmodified maps being copyrighted, and not free to use as is. So let us not continue arguing about that.
- @Timeshifter: You are grasping at straws. The UN has not given up copyright nor placed their maps in "public domain" (like the CIA has). Copyrighted works enter public domain either when their copyright expires/lapses or when the holder explicitly surrenders all rights in his work. The UN has done neither of these, instead they have effectively licenced their maps as "open source" (while retaining their copyrights). Such an open source licence is incompatible with Commons because it disallows the attribution which Commons requires. Unmodified maps continue to be copyrighted because UN insists on permissions for using them as-is. Unfitlouie (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think they have given up all rights to the modified maps. That is my reading. Looking at it this way they have not "licensed" their modified maps. Attribution is that it came from an unmodified UN map originally. That is very clear. I think it is you that is grasping at straws. I am repeating myself, and you seem to be ignoring some of what I am saying. If others have another reading of the facts, and don't believe public domain applies to the modified maps, then Template:Copyrighted free use still applies to them, looking at them as being copyrighted. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Gawd, what a long, convoluted story this has become! I claim no particular expertise in UN copyright policy, map licensing, or the definitions of "relinquished rights" or "public domain", but I am an OTRS volunteer and have been parsing some of these issues for a few years now in my head. Oh, and I am a deletionist. I admit that here and now. That shouldn't mean you think I propose material for deletion erratically or carelessly, but rather that I propose it for deletion often because let's face it: a lot of it simply doesn't meet policy requirements. In this instance, what concerns me initially is that the UN has apparently not released their maps explicitly into the public domain. That is a red flag. The CIA says, "Here it is, go use it any way you like," while the UN says, in not very good English, "You can use it, just don't tell anyone you heard it from us." I share Jim Woodward's concern that this conflicts with attribution and sourcing requirements. I am not convinced, however, that they mean they should not be attributed in a way such as the Commons file description, but rather that the UN logo and any map number, if visible, must be removed from the visual representation of the UN map, altering it and turning it into a derivative work entitled to its own copyright. It does not appear that the UN wishes to limit derivative works, and if ever there was a body which would define the concept/ principle of "public domain", that body might be the UN. That a lot of people have worked on creating these maps does not sway me— if they are copyright violations, then they should go, no matter how many there are. But I do not believe the UN has any desire to limit the distribution of its work— it wishes its work to be represented accurately and in its most current state, which is why it wishes to restrict the use of its logo on maps which it might deem no longer accurate. That's fine: we remove the logo by cropping or otherwise modifying the image, and the restriction goes away— not the attribution, the logo. That may seem like an overprecise reading of their terms of use, but I do not think it necessarily limits the re-use of such images in derivative form. Of course, all of this presumes that a map as a collection of information is prima fascie copyrightable to begin with: one cannot copyright information, only the presentation of information, and when those are one and the same thing, the copyright seems like it should fall out: if I want to use a UN map depicting the Tigris-Euphrates river basin mashlands, that map and its lines are the information I am depicting, and if I had gone and collected the data myself I would produce the same map with the same lines on it with variations only in scale and color. Data are not protected by copyright, and though maps have a long history of copyright protection, I believe most of it is fallacious. But this is perhaps not the place for me to make that argument. What I am saying is that I believe the UN does not wish to limit the dissemination of its maps, it only wants people to see its logo on current maps, which is a restriction we cannot abide, so the UN asks that we (or anyone) drop its logo for reuse, which is usually very simple to do. The resulting tag should reflect this, and we should not retain any maps that have the logo on them. Whether or not that is simple to do is not our concern: we cannot prevent people from uploading restricted material, we can only propose it be deleted when we encounter it. I think this approach avoids any legal complications from the UN (did anybody ever contact them back about this?) and satisfies Commons policy requirements as well (and sorry for the all the words, but I wanted to be careful in laying out my reasoning). KDS4444 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think there has enough doubt arisen to Delete per COM:PCP. Besides that I'm not sure if all images using this template should be bulk deleted; I'd prefer to have some individual review to keep on or another if possible, although I have no idea how this can be managed. --Krd 09:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks KDS4444 for your precision. And if some method is found to notify me of UN maps containing the UN logo, name, or reference number, then I will remove the UN info. It is easy for me to do. This way we do not disrupt any Wikipedia articles. Maybe ping me from the map page or the map talk page. {{ping|Timeshifter}} becomes @Timeshifter: . See Template:Ping for more info. Give me a week after pinging me before deleting the map. I don't check my Commons watchlist every day. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per COM:PCP. Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:PCP does not apply.
From COM:PCP:
| The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.
Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
|
- There is no "doubt" about unmodified UN maps. It seems that we are in agreement that the UN logo, name, reference number, etc. must be removed in order to keep the maps. It seems that many deletionists barely bother to read with understanding the pages for the acronyms (COM:PCP) they throw around. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The only agreement/consensus is that the present UN maps cannot be hosted at Commons since they are copyvios. There is no consensus on modified maps without logos and any references to the UN, should these be uploaded in future. It is undeniable that there is significant doubt expressed here by several editors and admins about the licensing permissions / freedom of such modified files being compatible with Commons free sourcing policy, which is preventing this long overdue for closure DR from being closed only due to your tendentious and incompetent comments. Hence PCP applies. Sigmabaroda (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are being argumentative, but without content. For example; just saying "delete" without any reasoning. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- And all your contributions since May 6, 2016 have been in deletion discussions. Special:Contributions/Sigmabaroda. You only had one edit before May 6, 2016. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:TLDR. These are all copyrighted files which must be immediately deleted from Commons. Derivatives without logos and attribution engender a Catch-22 licensing situation inconsistent with COMMONS' free policies negating any possible template. Sheesh, is that so difficult to understand ? ADMINS: Please close this. McGrath Clan Kirk (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- COM:TLDR is a red link. And TL;DR, short for "too long; didn't read", is irrelevant. And I am not the one making up commons policies out of thin air. Your Commons edits started May 12, 2016 and consist of nothing but comments in deletion discussions so far. Special:Contributions/McGrath_Clan_Kirk. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I try to summarize: The maps free but only if unmodified. So they are not really PD, but can only be used being unmodified. We don't accept -ND- works here, so we cannot accept these map here. Correct? --Krd 08:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- ...heu...no, they allow the creation of a new map but do not want the new map is quoted as UN map. "(...)you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name..."
This is not "ND", but this is clearly not PD as this is a restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)- if the template is kept, it must be written so that it says the same thing as their statement requirements. In summary they allow only derivative work "Content of your map will be your responsibility". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Possible template wording: "Unless stated otherwise, derivative UN maps (no UN name, logo, UN info, or UN reference number) are to be considered in the public domain. For more info see this UN page. To have the UN info removed from an already uploaded Commons map, please ping Timeshifter from the map page, or do it yourself. {{ping|Timeshifter}}." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this is necessary on the template: "Some UN maps have special copyrights, as indicated on the map itself." Those maps are not covered by the PD image license of this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Possible template wording: "Unless stated otherwise, derivative UN maps (no UN name, logo, UN info, or UN reference number) are to be considered in the public domain. For more info see this UN page. To have the UN info removed from an already uploaded Commons map, please ping Timeshifter from the map page, or do it yourself. {{ping|Timeshifter}}." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- if the template is kept, it must be written so that it says the same thing as their statement requirements. In summary they allow only derivative work "Content of your map will be your responsibility". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly in my understanding a PD template is not appropriate, as there are restrictions. I suggest to rename the template to simply "UN-map" and to edit the content in this kind of sense, all complemented by a free license to the user's choice:
| This work, or a part of this work is derivated from a UN map. United Nations allow reuse or modification of their map provided that the UN name and reference number are deleted, for the sake of updating and accuracy. The content here now is under full responsibility of the mentioned author. |  |
otherwise
Delete for me, as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what restrictions you are seeing. But your idea for the template works for me since if the UN is giving up all rights to the modified map, then whatever free image license is used by the modifier is fine as long as it is an image license acceptable to the Commons.
- Concerning public domain images already on the Commons. Can they be modified, and then any free image license used for the modified image? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current template say "Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain.", this is simply false because they clearly write "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site". We do not permit is a restriction, and We request however that you delete the UN name... is a condition. This is far to be the definition of Public Domain.
They allow to create a new map, without their name and this new map is not a UN map. Its content and it's licensing, is the responsibility of the author of the new map. In my understanding you have the right to publish here a UN map but as soon as it is published here it becomes something other than a UN map therefor it can't be licensed as a UN map. You can put it in the PD if you want but not because this is a UN map, it will be your (our) choice.
For existing files using this template, the best is to keep it and and to incorporate one of our license tag.
Example
| ||
|---|---|---|
   This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
|
Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course this Category:UN maps is not properly named as the files in this category are not UN maps "(...)We request however that you delete the UN name..." but derivatives of UN maps. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- So I guess we have been putting maps derived from UN maps under a kind of "conditional" public domain license. That of course, is not a true, complete form of public domain license. Thus the need for the modified UN map template.
- As for licenses for modified public domain maps (not UN maps) they can be put under any copyright license the author chooses. See:
- Public Domain Trouble Spots - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center. See section called "Public Domain Works That Are Modified".
- So since the UN is giving up all rights to modified UN maps we need to mention in the template that any image license may be chosen by the author, but that only a few are accepted for use on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest adding this to the template: "Please do not speedy-delete unmodified UN maps. Instead, link to the map at Category talk:UN maps. There are editors there that can remove the UN info from the maps in a few days." I propose changing the category name to "Maps derived from UN maps". --Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- This proposal won't fly. For a derivative work, and these are clearly derivative works, to be licensed under CC-BY-SA all the underlying works must be simultaneously linked under the same terms. This is the "Catch-22" situation. The UN's policy does not extend to or envisage file sharing sites like Commons which will create CC licenses out of the UN's copyright work; the UN were clearly only envisaging individual users who were statically publishing derivative maps for use in print or news articles under their own imprint - which is not the case here. Retaining such modified maps will create a huge PR and IPR mess in the future as it apparently legitimises fictitious, anonymous and fraudulent user accounts to pirate copyrighted work and palm it off as their own works under CC licenses merely by removing the owner's marks. Sigmabaroda (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Christian Ferrer is an admin, and so his proposal has merit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what, the requester User:Jameslwoodward is a bureaucrat ? Please directly address the following questions and don't side step them.
1) Are the original (unmodified maps) UN maps unquestionably in Public Domain? <Yes / No>
2) Are the original (unmodified maps) UN maps out of UN copyright? <Yes / No>
3) Is the UN's limited waiver to use derivatives after removing UN's logo and references) absent of restrictions prohibiting citing the UN's references or linking to their website / publications etc. thereafter? <Yes / No>
If your answer is "Yes" to any of these questions, please provide the evidence to prove your answer. If the answers are "No" then these files (modified or not) must be deleted as contravening COM:L and COM:EVID etc. Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- User:Sigmabaroda: Your argument that this is only meant for copyright holders who don't release their rights is ridiculous. If Joe Bloggs puts his personal Copyright All Rights Reserved on a book or a news article that has a UN map stripped of the required logos, he is not in violation and you admit it! So how the hell does he not have the right one fine day to log into Wikimedia Commons and upload that book to the world as his gracious gift, under whatever free license he wants? This kind of thinking that Commons is somehow inferior to private copyright holders is dangerous and destructive and totally unjustifiable. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what, the requester User:Jameslwoodward is a bureaucrat ? Please directly address the following questions and don't side step them.
- Christian Ferrer is an admin, and so his proposal has merit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems clear that a resolution that everyone agrees with is not possible. Someone with Wikipedia authority should write to someone with UN authority to request a precise clarification, giving examples of the maps we have and noting that the 10-year-old OTRS leaves us unclear of our legal rights. Meanwhile, we shouldn't be pre-emptively conducting a massacre of our map collection. Zero0000 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment That decade old map collection was amassed after a foolish misreading of the UN's policy. Now that it is clear that these maps were never in PD nor could be "considered" to be in PD, keeping them at Commons is a legal minefield. Under what licence can the modified maps User:Timeshifter is creating be permitted ? CC-BY-SA is ruled out because of the attribution requirements for Adaptations of Original works which the UN disallows (the "Catch-22"). Public Domain licensing for modified maps is also ruled out because a) the original works are not in Public Domain and b) the UN has not relinquished their copyright to their maps. The sooner all these images are deleted the better. Hence, per COM:EVID I say that if User:Timeshifter cannot obtain verifiable and authentic OTRS permission within 7 days all these "UN maps" must (regrettably) go. Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Destroying a decade of work in 7 days is wholly inappropriate. Now the question has arisen, so long as we deal with it cafefully and professionally we will pass the "hindsight test" of having acted appropriately. We do not need to irreversibly damage the encyclopaedia by panicking. And we shouldn't put all the burden on one editor such as Timeshifter to fix this. We should agree a plan to work together, possibly also with the WMF, to contact various entities within the UN in order to encourage a clear and thought through decision from them. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have raised the question on Jimbo's wikipedia talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Destroying a decade of work in 7 days is wholly inappropriate. Now the question has arisen, so long as we deal with it cafefully and professionally we will pass the "hindsight test" of having acted appropriately. We do not need to irreversibly damage the encyclopaedia by panicking. And we shouldn't put all the burden on one editor such as Timeshifter to fix this. We should agree a plan to work together, possibly also with the WMF, to contact various entities within the UN in order to encourage a clear and thought through decision from them. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and update OTRS permission: There is every reason to believe the UN would provide the permission we need to clarify this. These maps, many of which are very important to our project, should not be deleted without trying our very best to get the permission we need from the appropriate department at the UN. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- COMMENT This discussion has been inconclusive for almost 3 months. It has been regularly suggested that someone from WMF will contact the UN and get OTRS permission. So far it has not emerged and there is no reason to believe that the UN will permit massive and systematic piracy of their maps. These maps are now a major piracy embarrassment for Commons, symbolizing everything that is wrong with it, and posting to Jimbo's talk page is the surest way to inform the outside world about yet another Commons muck up. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, minus logos. Commons is not an appropriate place for posting files that cannot be modified. However, once the logos are stripped, the file is your map and free to use and modify. I do not believe the UN is asserting any extra objection to distributing a modified map with the UN logo as opposed to distributing a falsified map with the UN logo, i.e. one which is entirely your own creation but is deceptively attributed to them. The statement that you can make "your map" would be meaningless if there were not an actual right to use it. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The your map argument is fallacious and taken out of context. Please read the past discussions carefully. The UN had only indicated a limited waiver (similar to fair use) for people who want to use their maps by removing the UN logo and map references at their risk and cost. These modified maps cannot contain the UN logo as you wrongly claim, and neither can they link to or reference the original UN map. Because of these UN imposed restrictions, the adapted maps cannot be classed as PUBLIC DOMAIN or assigned CC free licenses and so cannot be hosted at Commons. As previous commentors have discovered the UN now has a new copyright policy and is strongly asserting their copyrights over all content on their websites. So either there is a very specific OTRS permission obtained rapidly from the UN or these maps must be excised. 7 days seems much too generous to obtain these, I would have specified the 5 days usual for DMCA requests. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that they are under any ongoing restriction. The communication and website say take the logo and crap off and it's your map. If it's your map, that means you can make a copyrighted derivative and sell it, or issue a CC-license, or declare it public domain, etc. There's no specific requirement against putting the logo and crap back on right where it was; however, an argument could readily be made that this is intentionally recreating a copyrighted work. I mean, AFAIK if Google uses a USGS public domain map you can isolate the USGS part and distribute it, but if you take a bunch and put a Google logo and frame around them and try to mimic Google Maps, they'll probably have words with you. Doesn't mean USGS isn't public domain! Bottom line - take the logo and crap off, and you have your file, you CC-license and PD the thing, and it's up to the person reusing not to precisely duplicate a UN-official format header. I do not believe that citation of the source is prohibited in any way either. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't say your map - it says your own map - a big difference in law !!! The UN copyright policy also says None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Cartographic webpage (which is not Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, also says We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article). This "our maps" / "your maps" confusion is a strawman argument based on the 2005 OTRS. The UN copyright policy linked makes it highly unlikely the UN will release their copyright for the mass scale piracy some Commons volunteers intend to perpetrate on these maps. Don't bring in crap like Google crap. This is not Google, as yet. Finally, and this is important, the cartographic page being cited deals with publication permissions. AFAIK Commons is not a publisher. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that they are under any ongoing restriction. The communication and website say take the logo and crap off and it's your map. If it's your map, that means you can make a copyrighted derivative and sell it, or issue a CC-license, or declare it public domain, etc. There's no specific requirement against putting the logo and crap back on right where it was; however, an argument could readily be made that this is intentionally recreating a copyrighted work. I mean, AFAIK if Google uses a USGS public domain map you can isolate the USGS part and distribute it, but if you take a bunch and put a Google logo and frame around them and try to mimic Google Maps, they'll probably have words with you. Doesn't mean USGS isn't public domain! Bottom line - take the logo and crap off, and you have your file, you CC-license and PD the thing, and it's up to the person reusing not to precisely duplicate a UN-official format header. I do not believe that citation of the source is prohibited in any way either. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per Carl Lindberg. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Other measures
[edit]1. Maps that cannot be freely modified don't belong on Commons, among other issues. All the maps I've looked at lack the UN logo or numbers I keep seeing referenced. Do we have maps with the restricted components that haven't been fixed? Because it is obvious we should take those off, providing text annotation of the removed source details of course.
2. Given that the maps are all modifiable, without the logos, we should change this template dramatically. It should explain that maps from the UN can be freely used provided those changes have been made, without giving the impression that the unmodified maps have the same permission.
3. Template should be renamed PD-UN-map-derivative, retaining the current name as a redirect/shortcut, just to be extra clear. Category should also be renamed. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. Your entire construct is false and based on the "our maps" / "your maps" fallacy. All maps, even after removing logos and reference bits, continue to be copyrighted by/to the UN, and which status cannot be altered by the uploaders. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Highlighting outrageous misquotes implying that UN maps can be further copyrighted/copylefted by anybody other than the UN. Read my lips, unless the maps are modified in very substantial ways (not trivial things like removing logos and minor text, ie. routine piracy) the UN continues to be the copyright holders in the adaptations also and Joe Bloggs (whoever the fxx he is) only owns a copy which does not permit dilution of the UN's inherent copyright bestowed by virtue of their authorship. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We are talking about moral rights and not copyright. Commons tends to ignore most of moral rights. Therefor I tend to follow the line of reasoning of Carl Lindberg and Rybkovich. Besides, there are always moral rights in play, even if someone licensed their works under a cc license and we are allowed to mention that the map is based on a UN-map so the no source problem seems to be resolved. I do consider the OTRS-ticket null and void btw, crappy ticket with no real relevant info.
If we would want to discuss further options like modifying the template I suggest we do it at a place not ran over by IAC and their sock/meatpuppets inserting disinformation. --Natuur12 (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)