Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/03/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_What?_(14125020270).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![338 File:Nina Kraljić "Zajdi Zajdi".jpg](#File:Nina_Kraljić_"Zajdi_Zajdi".jpg){kind=link}
![339 File:Nina Kraljić, "Nothing Else Matters".jpg](#File:Nina_Kraljić,_"Nothing_Else_Matters".jpg){kind=link}
![352 File:Jame "Clubber" Lang.jpg](#File:Jame_"Clubber"_Lang.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![378 File:Кадры из фильма "Клоун".jpg](#File:Кадры_из_фильма_"Клоун".jpg){kind=link}
2098bz4i978m jifasqe b ghtlop1poqw+. 80.80.171.242 11:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Too small. 89.66.66.43 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep: File uploaded in 2005 and in use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
File is corrupted and unusable. Squiresy92 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Nominated for speedy deletion. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
File is corrupted Squiresy92 (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: SVG is not corrupted, just is too big to be rendered as PNG. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment The file is still eligible for speedy deletion as uploader's request on uploading week. But this time the file is displayed for me totally normally, previous version seemed to me corrupted. Taivo (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the uploader requested the deletion due he think that the file is corrupued, but the problem is actually with MediaWiki (specifically with libsvg, bug reported almost 7 monts ago at Phabricator and the reason why I created {{HugeSVG}}), then, the the reason for deletion is invalid (even, the file is now used in 68 pages). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - The large SVG issue has been sorted out. --Ronhjones (Talk) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
657868678696825865855289657896699 95.137.218.106 08:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy-closed, as without rationale and likely vandal-nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted Google map Ies (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
{copyvio|image from the website of university}
Stolbovsky (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: image from the website of university
_What%3F_(14125020270).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_What%3F_(14125020270).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope? Riley Huntley (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
_What?_(14125020270).jpg){kind=link}
- KeepI do not think so... Can be used to ilustrate e.g. a poem on wikisourse or emotions (eg. surprise). Electron ツ ➧☎ 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn; wrong file nominated (oops!). --Riley Huntley (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
_What?_(14125020270).jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal image of non-notable person(s). Note: Commons is not Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: copyright violation and/or obviously out of project scope
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I have been asked by an admin to create another deletion request for the reason of a courtesy deletion. If an admin wants to discuss this in detail please contact me via email. 2mthswinter (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The image is unused, so I do not object. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy. --Ankry (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 21:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: Copyright violation
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 21:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: Copyright violation
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: Copyright violation
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: No license since 21 March 2016
- File:Licenciatura2.png
- File:Licenciatura1.png
- File:Inspección Naviera.jpg
- File:Office Tecnocargo.jpg
- File:Castillo Inspector Jefe.png
- File:Reserva Militar.png
- File:Inspector Jefe.jpg
- File:Driveng4.jpg
- File:Teenager.jpg
- File:Beach place.jpg
- File:Jose castillo Subteniente.jpg
- File:Resumen Curricular 2015.pdf
- File:Jefe de Operaciones Municipio Piar.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:A5j.JPG
- File:Acto 5 julio.JPG
- File:Reunion seguridad ciudadana.JPG
- File:Curso de formacion de agentes.JPG
- File:Inspeccion de vias fluviales upata.JPG
- File:Ee4.JPG
- File:Ee3.JPG
- File:Ee2.JPG
- File:Evacion y escape 2.JPG
- File:Evac y escape.JPG
- File:Curso de Perfección de tiro de combate.JPG
- File:Director Encargado de seguridad ciudadana.JPG
- File:Evacion y escape.jpg
- File:Hija.jpg
- File:Operativo fin de semana upata.jpg
- File:Jose rafael Curso evacion y escape.jpg
- File:Entrevista medios regionales.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Brazil.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Brazil.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplication. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Ecuador.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplication. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope ★ Poké95 03:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Text document, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope document. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional material is out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly promotional. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dammiecute (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal snaps, outside COM:SCOPE.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope personal images that are unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Imagen personal no usada; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope? Riley Huntley (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-notable artwork, see COM:SCOPE. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearly out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:EDUSE. INeverCry 03:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope files.
- File:Delta Sphinx Family 04.jpg
- File:Delta Sphinx Family 01.jpg
- File:Delta Sphinx Family 02.jpg
- File:Delta Sphinx Family 03.jpg
Riley Huntley (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Out of scope file? if my uploaded logos are to be deleted, any suggestion for the logos to be accepted and under what scope should it be? 19dsf78 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (AST)
- Hello, 19dsf78, your files were nominated for deletion because they appear to not meet Common' scope (click here for details). To be in scope, your files need to educationally useful to not only you, but others. Riley Huntley (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- keep - submitted for open use in public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Adamstraw99: Please read COM:SCOPE, the license of the file is not relative in this discussion. Please also sign using ~~~~. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
own work? see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7079491/resumephotos?v=me8002307751 Ralf Roleček 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This user has uploaded six images. Five of them were all over the Web with copyright notices and have been deleted. Google does not find this one, but there's no reason here to Assume Good Faith. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Advertising/promotion. Ahecht (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Should be fair use. Cloudbound (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Low quality, higher quality alternatives available. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
По желанию автора Dmitriyyakovlev (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope and Authot request. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal of encyclopedically non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Prominent copyright-note "all rights reserved" in the image is misleading and incompatible w. free license. One may assume that it was uploaded merely for promotional purposes. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salmanamsin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Outside of COM:SCOPE: commons is not facebook.
Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salmanamsin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 01:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 07:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salmanamsin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of scope
Mjrmtg (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist, out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Cidz.png
- File:Cid-Boy2016.png
- File:Cid-Boy.PNG
- File:Mangame.PNG
- File:Cardgame.PNG
- File:Max Med Max.png
- File:MikeMax SamireMed Max.png
- File:File-MikeLRWSanime.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Bazj (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in vanity article. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
not useful, uploaded for self-promo Rojelio (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
not useful, uploaded for self-promo on it.wikipedia Rojelio (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Not in use and seems out of scope - Wikimedia Commons cannot be a repository for just everything. Ldorfman (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
unused logo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a copyright violation. This news article [1] lists CBC as the source Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that any of these images was created by uploader, several cameras, no cameras, watermarks, no watermarks, variable (small) sizes... a pair of duplicatesFile:میل سنگی در سمیرم.jpg and File:میل سمیرم.jpg all suggest that these are rounded up from the internet, and not own work. Probable COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:ابشار سمیرمب.gif
- File:سمیرم 1.jpg
- File:میل سنگی در سمیرم.jpg
- File:دنگزلو.jpg
- File:Taqarcheh.jpg
- File:Barfsemirom-9.jpg
- File:Zeinali.jpg
- File:امامزاده ابراهیم سمیرم.jpg
- File:1میل سمیرم.jpg
- File:میل سمیرم.jpg
- File:معماری سمیرم 1.jpg
- File:اثر باقر سمیرمی.jpg
- File:فضائلی.jpg
- File:معماری سمیرم.jpg
- File:معماری.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. File:سمیرم 1.jpg, File:Barfsemirom-9.jpg, File:دنگزلو.jpg, File:امامزاده ابراهیم سمیرم.jpg tagged as copyvios after source identified. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: probably not own work. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tareq zezo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probable COM:COPYVIOs. Illustrative materials with no indicaiton of user's own work (small sizes, etc.).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. File:تنزيل.jpg tagged as copyvio after source possibly identified. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file, unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
originally nominated for speedy deletion: (request by uploader and pictured person permission of pictured person is *not* given! Stepro (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)) Didym (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Other crop of this one, taken and all rights reserved by Cuneyt Basegmez. COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Does not looks like a crop, it's another angle of view. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's an other piece of an originally bigger photo. The "angle of view" is absolutely identical, there is no parallaxe between the objects in both images. --Ras67 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: As Raz67 says, neither is the whole image, so possibly the two accounts are the same person, but that will take OTRS to prove. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A repost of a deleted file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%D0%A4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8.png Ari (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. --Yasu (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
quiero renovarlo Fausto771 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: upoader's request, unused. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
File:स्वर्ग में 365 दिनों की शानदार यात्रा (a journey to heaven of self development for 365 days) deepak burfiwala.pdf
[edit]See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The Boston Marathon banner is prominently depicted and is unlikely to have been released under a free content license. Gazebo (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative of copyrighted material. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Text document out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope document. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umma~ruwiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:45, 31 March 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) 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sir, I respect your opinion, but this photo represent the kids of our life who just spent the childhood using eletronic devices. It was my college project, sorry but I don't agree with you. mandypenida
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassan M 20 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from poster.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ti2bqN5HUUQ/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/RyRfc6m8f5I/photo.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Derived from deleted file. 217.67.183.62 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
False license information. Not personal work. No metadata, poor quality. minhhuy (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I assume, this is a screenshot Edgars2007 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
copyvio suspicion [2] H4stings (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Porque todo lo que pone es total mente mentira sobre este barrio, y creo que esta equivocado y que seguro se refiere a otro barrio llamado las 3000 viviendas que situado Sevilla. 154.56.142.88 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Información falsa y ofensiva 83.40.214.88 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Dicha foto NO se corresponde con el nombre de este barrio ni con la catalogación de "barrio marginal" 87.218.144.69 11:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Instead of subjective rationales, it's more simple to note that's it's a copyvio: [3]. And the file has no license anyway, which is reason enough for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Screenshot keine Freigabe zu erwarten Mauerquadrant (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Bazj (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Takeaway as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Probable copyright violation. Image seems to have been grabbed from the internet I went to that page, that image is smaller than this one which is also quite small. Converting to DN for consensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I see images of the exact same size on the Google Image Search link that I have provided. - Takeaway (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Наталія Іванович (talk · contribs)
[edit]These professional portraits are all sourced to the individual depicted. As they are not selfies, this is not possible. Probable COM:COPYVIOs, the individuals all seem to be connected to one learning center.
- File:Popov Oleksandr Vіktorovich.jpg
- File:Koval' Іrina Fedorіvna.jpg
- File:Zel'dіna Olena Romanіvna.jpg
- File:Dzhabraіlov Ruslan Ayatshakhovich.jpg
- File:Golovan' Іgor Volodimirovich.jpg
- File:Kurchin Oleg Gennadіyovich.jpg
- File:Bєlyaєv Oleg Anatolіyovich.jpg
- File:Єmel'yanov Artur Stanіslavovich.jpg
- File:Ustimenko Volodimir Anatolіyovich.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Macaco Chico (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal files. Author claims to use that logo on his own blog. None of the files are being used on any wikis since its creation and the educational purpose is not clear.
- File:Sérgio macaco chico do rubão.jpg
- File:Renan macaco chico do rubão.jpg
- File:Macaco Chico do Rubão logotipo.jpeg
—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the record: Previous deletion requests of files from same author: 1, 2.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is sourced to subject, but it's a professional shot, not a selfie and very small. I don't think it's correctly licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that this small, low quality bordered image is own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio): with no additional reason given. Files sent to speedy need to have reasons given for their nomination, it's not enough to just push the button. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- it is a cover. --Chatsam (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio): but no reason was given. To be speedied, some form of reason must be offered. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TnnXoxAHi6Sh.878x0.Z-Z96KYq.jpg --Chatsam (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- and http://twicsy.com/i/49ghUi
Speedy delete: Non-free character from Blizzard's Heartstone game (Warsong Commander). --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Image of non-notable person, with category YouTube suggests this is not own work of the uploader, but swiped from a video. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work of uploader whose other contributions were speedied. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No value to the project. Some random, unknown person. Sjö (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fatality megumi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Fatality megumi portada google @fatalitymegumi -fatality -facebook -youtube.jpg
- File:Fatalitymegumi y loki laufeyson.jpg
Ies (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Isnt the right part of the second one a movie snapshot and hence a copyvio? --Don-kun (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fatality megumi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploads contain copyright violations, and out-of-scope personal images.
- File:CYMERA 20160825 203011.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20160825 202829.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20160825 173322.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20160825 173048.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20160825 172844.jpg
- File:CYMERA 20160825 172501.jpg
- File:Megan frgtgfbvhjt6uy.jpg
- File:Megan dghh4tverdf.jpg
- File:Meg ghjtyygb.jpg
- File:Meg 1234356.jpg
- File:Megan sfgertbsdrfery.jpg
- File:Megan 124trfc.jpg
- File:Animes comics.jpg
- File:Villanos.jpg
- File:Heroes villanos.jpg
- File:Megumi solange.jpg
- File:Megan solange.jpg
- File:Pou bb.jpg
- File:Evans by megan.jpg
- File:Animes collages.jpg
- File:Suicide gfhnjym.jpg
- File:Simba velastegui.jpg
- File:Gatioto simba.jpg
- File:Meg trwdghgtfd.jpg
- File:Megan solange Facebook.com @Fatalitymegumi.jpg
- File:Megan solange @fatalitymegumicfrrrr.jpg
- File:Megan killjoy @fatalitymegumi.jpg
- File:Megddfdxc.jpg
- File:Megumighfgdfdc.jpg
- File:Meganvdffecv.jpg
- File:Meganfgdfgv c.jpg
- File:Meganfvcccv.jpg
- File:Megubnbndgdf.jpg
- File:Megecvcxvbersdxcx.jpg
- File:Megandfdferc.jpg
- File:Megdfdfdfsd.jpg
- File:Megandftrrgbfgvbdf.jpg
- File:Megsffrjuyj.jpg
- File:Megdfgbhth5ytyh.jpg
- File:Megan dolghyrthrtreer.jpg
- File:Megdfgjhyjuytjfg.jpg
- File:Coleccion by megan velastegui.jpg
- File:Batmanvs.superman and teamrogerstark by megan velastegui.jpg
- File:Civil war tony stark and steve rogers by megan velastegui..l,.jpg
- File:Loki love fatality megumi.jpg
- File:Marvelstudios -avengers thor capitanamerica---- by megan velastegui.jpg
- File:Nombres fatality megumi.png
- File:Megan velastegui fatality megumi.gif
Takeaway (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope, also own work is not sure. Taivo (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused logos of non-notable companies are out of project scope. Even company's website is down. Taivo (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content, see thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sujay subramanya v (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in sa.wiki and uploading a selfie, which is used nowhere, except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
2 unknown persons, see description, not used in any wikipedias Motopark (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adriana Rodrigues de Castro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Adriana Rodrigues de Castro and File:Foto Matheus.jpg, grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=798225106875178&set=a.148729491824746.47848.100000630894517&type=3&theater (2014). All files uploaded in a row on 25.01.2016.
- File:Reunião Câmara dos Vereadores Revolta da Catraca 02 06 05.jpg
- File:Vereador Matheus.jpg
- File:Foto Matheus.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Distorted, small size. Even if the file is fixed, educational value is still almost missing. Taivo (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No value to the project. Unknown person. Sjö (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploader is not author. OTRS-permission from Klaus Pichler is needed. Taivo (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promotional; see COM:SCOPE. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a copyvio. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional image, out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a copyvio. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional image, out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a copyvio. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional image, out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a copyvio. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- This file was created for page Noah Miller (businessman), but it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Buhram (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope file. Although it is cute, but still. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The uploading user stated in the description that this is "[him] With a Buzzcut". However, on his user profile on en.wp he states "I prefer my personal info to mostly be shrouded in anonymity", which could lead one to want to argue that this should be deleted a a good faith gesture, since the user now is "gone" from the wiki-community, and still was a child when uploading the image. Here, personality rights apply, and since the user wishes to "be shrouded in anonymity", we should delete this file per COM:IDENT (also some parts of COM:CHILDPROTECT since he is not active anymore and this was most likely a child's user page image). Also, I do believe we can find better images with model releases, or at least of adults, if we want to have an image with this narrow scope. Josve05a (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
And duplicate File:Sandeep Patil Image.JPG. Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Riley Huntley (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE, no file description, no categories, lacking proper title. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Too small to be useful. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused files.
- File:Yashaii Moran on a visit in the mountains of Chile (Part 3).JPG
- File:Yashaii Moran on a visit in the mountains of Chile 2.JPG
- File:Yashaii Moran in the mountains of Chile.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Riley Huntley (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful uploader holds copyright; screenshotted off facebook. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope(?) and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C3D:DF01:D120:99DC:DEDF:DCB7 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE. --★ Poké95 12:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C3D:DF01:D120:99DC:DEDF:DCB7 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No source, useless without a description
2003:45:5C3D:DF01:D120:99DC:DEDF:DCB7 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense image, see nonsense description and nonsense category. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unusable image without value. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Blurry photo, depicting very little. Out of scope. Themightyquill (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No source, no indication of user's own work. Image was found in reverse google search older, but not larger and in various croppings, showing that this image has been around for quite a while and is highly unlikely to date to 24 March 2016 or be own work of the uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- pro delete. Uploader blocked at dewiki for spamming of a "new luxury lifstyle magazine" or whatever. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Milton.jpg
- File:Kompany 2.jpg
- File:Marcelo 2.jpg
- File:Gfv.jpg
- File:Codiigo de ver foto rsrsrsrs.jpg
- File:Arsenal 3.jpg
- File:Ccuccyv.jpg
- File:Iiijnj.jpg
- File:Meu ermão.jpg
Steinsplitter (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Märcëllö 4.jpg
- File:Meu cota..jpg
- File:Ezequiel 2.jpg
- File:Milton 2.jpg
- File:MIlton.jpg
- File:Märcëllö 3.jpg
- File:Lucia 2.jpg
- File:Märcëllö 2.jpg
- File:Märcëllö.jpg
- File:Hff.jpg
- File:A pausa dos irmãos!.jpg
- File:Miguel Dos Anjos.jpg
- File:Marcelo 3.jpg
Ies (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Ëdmíílsön Míímösö Büniitãö.jpg
- File:Josiinara Joia Tiia Do Antunes.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 4.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano And Jerusa Castelo Branco.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano And Teresa Castelo Branco.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusiitano.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano And Luciila Mosso LM.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 3.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 2.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano.jpg
- File:Märcëllö.jpg
- File:Dos Black Fresco.jpg
- File:Mouse ybs.jpg
- File:Juniornd.jpg
- File:Young 2.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 8.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 7.jpg
- File:Antunes Paulo Lusitano 6.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Pokéfan95's request
[edit]Out of project scope, Commons is not a private photo album. Also a Wikipedia Zero upload.
★ Poké95 09:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Gunnex's request
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used (Wikipedia Zero upload). Uploader blocked on testwiki.
Gunnex (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Also:
and all further uploads by this user. See also logs. Block already requested. Gunnex (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jim. ★ Poké95 06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)
Out of scope
- File:Dino.jpeg
- File:Evander entre o mundo.jpg
- File:Eu 2.jpg
- File:Dänįël Ârômâticô FįlântrÓpïcö DjeyZzyi.jpeg
–Davey2010Talk 03:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy. ~riley (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Image can not be found in the URL source Yanguas (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: See the video... --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Yanguas: Satisfeito?--Juniorpetjua (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: concern resolved. --Yasu (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
SVG found at French Wikipedia tagged as Non-free. Delete this file anyway; if actually bellow the TOO in France, then transfer the SVG available at French Wikipedia here and edit the articles where this file is used. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Never ever rely on non-free tags in a Wikipedia. They are used quite randomly. --Leyo 08:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. simple geometric shapes and text, below COM:TOO. File is in use.--Wdwd (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The SVG has been transferred here under File:Trace Urban logo_2010.svg and all the articles was edited to use the new file (the only difference is that the SVG lacks of the "®" symbol). This file could be deleted if is actually necessary. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not below TOO in France [4], TOO is very low in France since there is a visible will of the artist. As exemple the text above this door is protected by french law. And here we have clearly an attempt of design from the artist/desiner = above TOO in France. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as per my comment above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
no es la persona 191.110.150.35 09:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Though claim is unsubstantiated, image was declared as userpage-image and is unused, whereby it is out of scope. Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: See also Special:DeletedContributions/Leoargu83. --Leyo 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sartan~commonswiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files make me feel uncomfortable. They are of very low quality and have no EXIF, so they may be images grabbed from the Internet. Additionally, the quality is so poor and the descriptions so incomplete that they seem to be out of scope.
Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iulian Dragnea (talk · contribs)
[edit]Text documents, one with illustrations, out of COM:SCOPE if not COM:COPYVIOs as well.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, likely copyvios. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As much as I understand Romanian language (actually not at all), the first file is staff list and table of contents of journal, copyright belongs to journal. The second file is probably an article, written by uploader himself, but it consists a photo with unknown origin, making it derivative work and violation of photographer's copyright. But both files are used in ro.wiki, making them in scope. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In use, but highly out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, only used on an inactive and near empty user page. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In use, but highly out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, only used on an inactive and near empty user page. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:TOYS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Files by User:Orangemike
[edit]- File:Screencast Draft PeteMike Picture 1.png
- File:Screencast Draft PeteMike Picture 2.png
- File:Screencast Draft PeteMike Picture 3.png
- File:Screencast Draft PeteMike Picture 4.png
- File:Screencast Draft PeteMike Picture 5.png
Out of scope images that would be better represented in text. --Riley Huntley (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Riley Huntley (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope image. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in scope: detail of mannequin. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
False license information. Not personal work. Fake metadata (not same pixiels) minhhuy (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope and unused file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely derived/photoshopped from copyrighted content + out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, private photo of an unidentified blogger from Norway (?). Photo not in use and the blog www.blomstertess.blogg.no seems to be deleted. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Bazj (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kamil Zámečník (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poster. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kbhalla-IU (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Sample inputs and outputs of procedural analysis.pdf
- File:Checklist for procedural analysis.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
File:A man walking down a stairway from Norra Benickebrinken to Österlånggatan i Gamla stan, Stockholm - watercolor - Holmstad October 2015.JPG
[edit]
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete and transfer to Wikipedia: The photographic reproduction is under copyright by the uploader at Flickr (who reserved all rights) in accordance with Italian law for 20 years after the reproduction is made. In this case, it was published to Flickr on May 11, 2006, by Alvaro de Alvariis.See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Italy. The painting itself and therefore any repdroductions are free in the US, as it is pre 1923. Jolly Janner (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - See COM:ART#Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?. -Zanhe (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good find, Zanhe! Thanks. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Zanhe. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that Antimalware Doctor, a rogue security program, was released under a free content license. Gazebo (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elkhan Mammadov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Inferiror duplicate of File:NSDCU emblem.png PsichoPuzo (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:45, 15 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) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Redundant because of File:Емблема Антитерористичного центру при СБУ.svg PsichoPuzo (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. A better piece in the same surrounding uploaded. URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sallai_R%C3%B3bert_Benedek_%281%29.JPG Elekes Andor (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
2D murals are not subject to Freedom of Panorama in Canada Themightyquill (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Stroller on Österlånggatan in Gamla stan - akvarell - Stockholm - Holmstad - October 2015.JPG
[edit]
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Österlånggatan ved Köpmanbrinken - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad - Akvarell Canon 70D.JPG
[edit]
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Two children looking into a window and an old man at Österlånggatan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad.JPG
[edit]
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ww2censor as no permission (No permission since) Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per my comment at COM:VPC#File:Luc Gelinas.jpg, I'm changing this to a deletion request so that a more detailed explanation can be given. I see two problems:
- This is a photo of Luc Gelinas, and the permission also comes from Luc Gelinas. However, the image doesn't look like a selfie, so someone other than Luc Gelinas seems to be the photographer. The copyright holder is normally the photographer, so the permission should be given by the photographer, not by Luc Gelinas.
- The permission is insufficient. The user asked Puis-je utiliser votre photo sur wikipedia? Il manque une illustration sur votre page dédiée. Merci! That is, the user asked if the image may be used on Wikipedia. Luc Gelinas replied avec plaisir...c'est pas la meilleure mais c'est la seule face que j'ai ! That is, Luc Gelinas approved the request to allow the image on Wikipedia, and there is now a Wikipedia-only permission from Luc Gelinas. However, a Wikipedia-only permission is insufficient - a more general permission is needed. See COM:OTRS for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. Obvious case. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: need otrs. --Basvb (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Kaffekoppen - Chocladkoppen - Stortorget - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad - C.JPG
[edit]
Probably not useful for encyclopedian purpose, overprocessed image. Please see this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sankt Nicolai skola - Storkyrkoskolan - Gamla stan - Stockholm - October 2015 - Holmstad B.JPG. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: although normal version would be prefered, these are quite good quality. --Basvb (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused, smaller & lower quality than File:Patrick Sannino - Président la CNHJ.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content of Mrs Vidyavati (b 1939) in 'younger days, Roland zh (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Small image, not sharp, and the species could not be identified. I hoped this photo could help to identify the insect on File:Unidentified insect Oderaue 01.jpg (identical individuum), but it didn't. Biodehio (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Uploader request: I hoped this photo could help to identify the insect on File:Unidentified insect Oderaue 01.jpg (identical individuum), but the species could not be identified. There are better images of unidentified Sialis, so this is probably useless. Biodehio (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content, see thumbnail format, rather 'advertisement character', and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content, see thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please delete this file.
Ez1989 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 21:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
blurred image
- Delete Poor quality, unused. Out of project scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
See COM:TOO#United Kingdom. Even the very simplest of shapes is copyrightable under UK law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
See COM:TOO#United Kingdom. Even the very simplest of shapes is copyrightable under UK law. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadate, unlikely to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope personal image that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Suspected copyright vio, missing EXIF data and low quality. Looks like movie screenshot. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient permission. The permission statement does not follow the standard format and fails to establish exactly which photos are covered by the permission, that the person issuing the permission has the authority to do so, that modification is allowed, that commercial use is allowed, and that the permission extends to everyone and not just the person asking for it. It also wasn't submitted according to our procedures.
- File:Ilie Oana Stadium - Official Training - June 2014.png
- File:Gevaro Nepomuceno June 2014 Training.png
- File:Jean Sony Alcenat July 2014 Training.png
- File:Ilie Oana Petrolul Flamurtari July 2014.png
- File:Ovidiu Hoban June 2014 Training.png
- File:Sony Mustivar June 2014 Training.jpg
- File:Vlad Morar June 2014 Training.png
- File:Albin June 2014 Training.png
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Moved from User talk:LX:
- It took me a lot to find someone who would allow me to post their images on wikipedia! He said I can take whichever photos I want. It's damn impossible to add images to this site. You always find something wrong.8Dodo8 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's not impossible to add images to this site. If it were, there wouldn't be 26 million files here. Yes, obtaining a licensing permission that is appropriate for Commons can be tricky, and it's easy to get it wrong if you don't use the standard e-mail template. That is why it exists. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Both are over the originality threshold and are copyrighted logos.
—Andrei S. Talk 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Exceeds COM:TOO
Gikü (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Can be uploaded to local wikis for use. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Claimed to be a selfie – does not look like that. I suspect copyright violation. But depicted person en:Abdurrahim Boynukalın is notable. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted book cover —Andrei S. Talk 09:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused, unexplained, unidentified, sourceless graph. The two files are duplicates of each other.
This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Found in http://estacionmir.com/Historia/historia_comun/Galichina_Es.html probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused low-resolution crop of File:Seahawksstadium2002.jpg. Out of project scope. See also w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 22#File:Seahawksstaduim2002clip.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hardly own work by uploader; mere web-resolution. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Нагрудний знак «Гвардія».png and File:Нагрудний знак «Гвардія» (ф).png PsichoPuzo (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Нарукавний знак СБУ.svg PsichoPuzo (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: reverted it to earlier version which is a real patch, and as such is a nice addition. --Basvb (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Lord Monk Bretton Vanity Fair 25 January 1894.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:The Earl of Harrowby Vanity Fair 1885-11-28.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Globally orphan low resolution duplicate of File:The Earl of Harrowby Vanity Fair 1885-11-28.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Matthew White Ridley Vanity Fair 23 July 1881.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Globally orphan low resolution duplicate of File:Matthew White Ridley Vanity Fair 23 July 1881.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Richard Assheton Cross Vanity Fair 16 May 1874.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Globally orphan low resolution duplicate of File:Richard Assheton Cross Vanity Fair 16 May 1874.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Hugh Oakeley Arnold-Forster, Vanity Fair, 1905-08-24, full page.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Charles Thomson Ritchie.png The Traditionalist (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Globally orphan low resolution duplicate of File:Charles Thomson Ritchie.png The Traditionalist (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F64SlWaNSjc/U_S2wrN8pEI/AAAAAAAAXk4/9qc2g2saSEw/s1600/danilo-montero-dios-de-amor.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work Josve05a (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical book. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Uruguay.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Argentina.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these Facebook sized images are own work of uploader. There are two sets of duplicates, and each appears to have been rephotographed by someone with prints at odd angles on various colored backgrounds.
- File:اللواء حسين علي عبد اللطيف 8.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين علي عبد اللطيف 5.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين علي عبد اللطيف 6.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف 4.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف 3.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف 1.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف.jpg
- File:مع قادة الجيش مصري العظماء.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبداللطيف يكرم.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبداللطيف في سباق الخيل.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبداللطيف مع الرئيس السابق جمال عبد الناصر.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبداللطيف.jpg
- File:اللواء حسين عدلي عبداللطيف مع قادة الجيش المصري.jpg
- File:مستخدم اللواء حسين عدلي عبد اللطيف ملعب.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unlikely to be {{Own work}} as claimed. Information regarding the original photographer and date/location of publication needed before we can decide if they are public domain. --Storkk (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Info.hcm90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I searched all the uploads by this uploader, and all but these two were found older, larger or had watermarks or other information showing they'd been harvested off the web. I have no confidence that these two images are own work of uploader either, and more likely COM:COPYVIOs.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyvios; File:Morteza ali.jpg tagged as such after source identified. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. --Storkk (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that this professional portrait is own work of uploader, no useful metadata, in use on a promotional en:wiki page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:OTRS confirmation needed. --Storkk (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joyyapril78 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these images are own work of uploader as declared, more likely copied from unacknowledged sources and COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Hayes Brick.jpg
- File:Orviston Church.jpg
- File:Hayes Run.jpg
- File:Rail Ticket.jpg
- File:The Deep Hole.jpg
- File:Monument's stone.jpg
- File:Harbison-Walker.jpg
- File:Monument school 1983.jpg
- File:Brick yard.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:Hayes Run.jpg, File:Rail Ticket.jpg, and File:Harbison-Walker.jpg tagged as copy violations after source identified. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all, with the exception Amitie 10g has listed below. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep File:Rail Ticket.jpg, only if is actually a 2D work and actually published before 1923. Delete the rest, unless the uploader provide the date of publication of the old pictures (and not found in Google Image Search). --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted material without proper CC license. "The author says its okay" isn't a valid license. Onel5969 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. An image like this needs a cast-iron license through OTRS or the authors website. Green Giant (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Curs3 and:
- File:FachadaFDUP.jpg --> copyvio via https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.album?p_num=25&p_pag_ini=1 (2005) = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.fotografia?p_id=6 (2005, credit: "Fotografia cedida por: FDUP") = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/imagens/album/n6
- File:Doutores honoris causa fdup.jpg --> per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doutores honoris causa fdup.jpg also taken from above photo galleries
- File:Ribeirodefaria.jpg --> taken again from above galleries via https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.album?p_num=23&p_pag_ini=1 (2006) = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.fotografia?p_id=35 (2006, credit: "Fotografia cedida por: FDUP") = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/imagens/album/n35 (identical exif)
All files uploaded in a row on 27.06.2009.
Gunnex (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Higher resolution versions of this image can be found with an image search, making it unlikely to be the uploader's "own work" The image looks like it might originate from a public domain photograph made by a member of the U.S. military or government official, which would be acceptable but there's no evidence presented for that. Libertybison (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No source, considering cropped from File:Kabelo Mabalane Peter P Gudo and the crew while filming in Maputo.JPG, deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Babudo. Gunnex (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominating (per above) also the crop:
= no source, considering cropped from File:Peter P Gudo on set with Director Flora Gomes.jpg, deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Babudo. Gunnex (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, considering also File:Platea este del estadio Brigadier López.jpg (author = "unknown"). Uploader related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estadio Brigadier López 2016.jpg (grabbed from Twitter).
Gunnex (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This needs discussion: there is no FOP in Taiwan for photographs. But the advertisements could be a case of de minimis Grand-Duc (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. Green Giant (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Claimed as own work, but also credits a website and "Gzozzo pictures". --ghouston (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Modern sculpture, no FoP for sculptures in Russia
- File:Девушка его мечты - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Венедикту Ерофееву - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Веничке - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Веничке Ерофееву - panoramio.jpg
- File:Производители памятника ,-) - panoramio.jpg
- File:Цитата из ^quot,Москва-Петушки^quot - panoramio - Александр Спиридонов.jpg
- File:Цитата из ^quot,Москва-Петушки^quot - panoramio.jpg
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stolbovsky (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Modern sculpture (1994), no FoP for sculptures in Russia
- File:Памятник Пушкину 1 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Пушкину 2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Пушкину 3 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Памятник Пушкину 4 - panoramio.jpg
Stolbovsky (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Modern sculptures. No FoP for sculptures in Russia
- File:Скульптура 1 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Скульптура 2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Скульптура 3 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Скульптура ^quot,К звездам^quot, 1 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Скульптура ^quot,К звездам^quot, 2 - panoramio.jpg
Stolbovsky (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Just personal travel photos?
Stolbovsky (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason. Araz Yaquboğlu encyclopedic person. The name of the files more accurately are as follows:
►Cekli829 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway even if the person has wikipedia article these photos look just like personal travel photos with no usage and any educational purpuses //Stolbovsky (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: They might be useful, but the subject is the uploader and they are not selfies, so the actual photographer owns the copyright and these are copyvios. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Private photos. Maybe not notable persons.
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (1).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (10).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (2).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (3).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (5).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (6).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (7).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (8).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov (9).jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio - Oleg Yu.Novikov.jpg
- File:Воскресная прогулка, Влахернское-Кузьминки. Moscow, Russia. - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kulmalukko (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Out of scope, photos of unsuccessful photos of Moscow, which potentially cannot be used in Wikmedia projects.
- File:Wetlands under the electric line - panoramio.jpg
- File:Вася - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Въезд запрещен - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Деревья у гаражей - panoramio.jpg
- File:Деревья у дома - panoramio.jpg
- File:Огни в сумерках - panoramio.jpg
- File:Подземный переход, утреннее, 15.04.2012 - panoramio.jpg
- File:ПОКРЫВАЛО - panoramio.jpg
- File:Проход между домами - panoramio.jpg
- File:Пустырь - panoramio (139).jpg
- File:Пустырь недалеко от памятника - panoramio.jpg
- File:Пустырь у берегов Москвы-реки, Братеево - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Пустырь у берегов Москвы-реки, Братеево - panoramio.jpg
- File:Руины цивилизации - panoramio.jpg
- File:Yard cleaners from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan play football. - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Brateevsky {talk} 13:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --A.Savin 14:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow
[edit]Sculptures by alive sculptor (Tsereteli). No FoP for scultures in Russia
- File:Moskvo100.jpg
- File:Moskvo102.jpg
- File:Moskvo103.jpg
- File:Moskvo104.jpg
- File:Moskvo105.jpg
- File:Moskvo106.jpg
- File:Moskvo107.jpg
- File:Moskvo108.jpg
- File:Moskvo110.jpg
- File:Moskvo111.jpg
- File:Moskvo112.jpg
- File:Moskvo113.jpg
- File:Moskvo115.jpg
- File:Moskvo116.jpg
- File:Moskvo117.jpg
- File:Moskvo89.jpg
- File:Moskvo90.jpg
- File:Moskvo91.jpg
- File:Moskvo94.jpg
- File:Moskvo96.jpg
- File:Moskvo98.jpg
- File:Moskvo99.jpg
Stolbovsky (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting photos of Moscow, but none of them used in any wikipedia's. Support deletion. At least, most of photos can be found here — 55.767192, 37.613664. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep ( PRUNARI , CAFUNI 151.57.92.153 10:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sono l'autore della foto in cui ritrae un tratto di vecchio tratturi che porta a varie zone orticole (cafuni) del comune di Fabrizia (VV), ancora in uso malgrado i vari smottamenti dovuti alle alluvioni. Perchè è stato richiesta la cancellazione del file?? Grazie dell'attenzione--Fernando.tassone (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Green Giant (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Coats of arms are not own work. Brazilian coats of arms are free, when created before 1983, but this has number 2002 depicted. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded in 2013 the file was taken from (example) http://acolitosaojoseguarapari.blogspot.de/2012/07/escala-dos-acolitos-agosto-2012.html (2012) = http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-INU3K8V3NzI/T9I4UD-75tI/AAAAAAAAAF4/twGTTe5psw8/s1600/brasao..jpg, needing permission.
Info {{PD-BrazilGov}} is only valid for works published or commissioned by a Brazilian government prior to 1983, but this is a coat of arms of a "Paróquia" = en:Parish (church territorial unit constituting a division within a diocese). Gunnex (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture 93.143.115.31 11:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Picture is copyrighted by Pixsell agency. See author at Večernji list and picture marked as PXL_110316_12723978 at Pixsell official page.--93.143.115.31 11:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture 93.143.115.31 11:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Picture is copyrighted by Universal Music/Sanja RedCat Baljkas. See it at Croatia's Eurosong official page.--93.143.115.31 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture 93.143.115.31 11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-93.143.115.31-2016-03-24T11:41:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić_"Zajdi_Zajdi".jpg){kind=link}
Picture is copyrighted by Dario Njavro/HTV (Croatian television). See [5].--93.143.115.31 11:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![11:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-93.143.115.31-2016-03-24T11:42:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić_"Zajdi_Zajdi".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
![19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Green_Giant-2016-04-18T19:00:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić_"Zajdi_Zajdi".jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted picture 93.143.115.31 11:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![11:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-93.143.115.31-2016-03-24T11:47:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić,_"Nothing_Else_Matters".jpg){kind=link}
Picture is copyrighted by Dario Njavro/HTV (Croatian television). See [6].--93.143.115.31 11:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![11:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-93.143.115.31-2016-03-24T11:48:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić,_"Nothing_Else_Matters".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
![18:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Green_Giant-2016-04-18T18:56:00.000Z-File:Nina_Kraljić,_"Nothing_Else_Matters".jpg){kind=link}
Probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- also file:WSO-Landkarte-2015.png
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Basvb on 15 April 2016. Green Giant (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://dianasilveirafans.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/3/3/24334381/5750757_orig.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soulistics (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and video clip. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:MisSiss - He's So Special (Doo Doo Doo Doop Doo Song).webm
- File:MisSiss white.jpg
- File:MisSiss Radio Wien Konzert @ Box.jpg
- File:MisSiss Web.jpg
- File:MisSiss.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing evidence that this was "published prior to 1962". Josve05a (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:RianaP/logs and 5 ongoing DR's indicating to copyvios from several photographers. Considering also File:Devondale Bubbles (4).jpg --> taken from (watermark removed) https://www.facebook.com/873488776021232/photos/a.912597522110357.1073741937.873488776021232/912597842110325/?type=3&theater (2015, © by "Anita Vosloo Equine Photography"), part of this photo album and File:Paardekop Toffie SASA klasse.jpg, same problem as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rooigras Style (4).jpg (copyrighted work by "Tamara & Blake Images"). All files uploaded since 10.03.2016.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Devondale Bubbles (4).jpg
- File:Plesierrit Boerperd.jpg
- File:Paardekop Toffie SASA klasse.jpg
- File:Hat Swenk Sanesa 2014.jpg
- File:Brand Merk.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I must apologise, I missed File:Paardekop Toffie SASA klasse.jpg when nominating the others that were clearly attributed to a photographer or agency. Good catch on Devondale Bubbles! In view of the upload history, I support precautionary deletion of these images. I suggest adding File:Calista Generaal Hoy 2015.jpg to the above list, for the same reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Own work is unlikely. If this is really school logo, then OTRS-permission from school representative is needed. Taivo (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo, inadequate description. Year of photographing, photographer's name and death year must be given to determine copyright status of the photo. Taivo (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The majority of the photograph is a copyrighted 2D image, not covered by the UK FoP. De minimis cannot be held to apply in this instance. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Historic photo from 1902, obviously not the uploader's own work as stated. Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This could be PD, if we knew who the author was or if it could be credibly confirmed that the author was anonymous. Green Giant (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
These portraits are all the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel (1905-1989). The images were uploaded by the owner of the physical paintings. Just as owning a book does not give the owner the right to make and sell copies of the book, owning a work of art does not give the owner the right to license the work to others. That right is almost always owned by the creator or his heirs. These cannot be kept on Commons unless the uploader can show via OTRS a written license from the painter or his heirs or if one of the painter's heirs sends a free license to OTRS.
- File:Alfred Hennig Portrait painted by P. Bendel.jpg
- File:Klaus Hennig Portrait painted by P. Bendel.jpg
- File:Liddy Hennig Portrait painted by Pjotr Emilevich Bendel.jpg
- File:Portrait Klaus Hennig Painter Pjotr Emilevich Bendel.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
My intention was to honor my friend by showing his work.
Peter Bendel dedicated this paintings to me and my family in return for being a (long time) guest in my house.
Verbally, he vested all rights for the paintings in me. But of course, at that time, I didn't think of making my friend to do this in writing.
Would it be sufficient to send an affidavit stating that he vested the copyright in me?
If not, I understand, then you have to delete the copies. --Klaus Hennig (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Please ask his heirs if they will contact Wikimedia with a license. Green Giant (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work considering uploaded in 2009 (dated with "2004", but per exif taken in 2005) versus previously published via http://guitarradecoimbra.blogspot.de/2006/10/os-primeiros-doutoramentos-hc-pela.html (2006, gallery) = http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6011/903/1600/FDUP10.jpg (identical exif). As indicated by the blog, taken from https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.album?p_num=23&p_pag_ini=1 (2006) = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/album_geral.fotografia?p_id=29 (2006, credit: "Fotografia cedida por: FDUP") = https://sigarra.up.pt/fdup/pt/imagens/album/n29 (identical exif)
Nominating (per above) also the crops:
Gunnex (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
higher resolution versions of this image of the fictional character, Clubber Lang- from the Rocky movie franchise, can be found with an image search; unlikely to be uploader's own work Libertybison (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![22:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Libertybison-2016-03-24T22:57:00.000Z-File:Jame_"Clubber"_Lang.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
![18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Green_Giant-2016-04-18T18:16:00.000Z-File:Jame_"Clubber"_Lang.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution, no EXIF data, unlikely to be an own ork. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination... although IMO small/no EXIF photographs from 2006 should be given considerable leeway, the watermark "Iván M" raises serious doubts when uploader's username is Cecilia heredia. --Storkk (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Eiffel Tower at night
[edit]Files in
- Category:Eiffel Tower at night: most files. (A few show only a part of the tower or the unilluminated tower at dusk and can be kept.)
- Category:Eiffel Tower illuminated as a memorial to the November 2015 Paris attacks (except for File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015 centre.jpg and File:Tour Eiffel Nov 2015 inferieur.jpg, de minimis), but also File:13th November 2015 Attacks in Paris - montage.jpg
- Category:March 2016 Brussels attacks (relevant files)
- File:Eiffel Tower and Front de Seine quarter from Pont Mirabeau, 12 April 2014.jpg
- File:12 - panoramio - ito1117.jpg
We seem to have accumulated a large number of files showing illuminations of the Eiffel Tower. While the building itself is in the public domain, these illuminations are notoriously copyrighted ([7]eiffel-tower-violate-copyright/[8] etc.). The category Category:Eiffel Tower at night bears an astonishing statement that the copyright may be disregarded because the case has not been tested in court, going frontally against the spirit and letter of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, putting the authors of the images and Wikimedia Commons at risk of litigation, and blurring the issue to newcomers. This is a pressing matter because
- with the emerging habit of illuminating the monument whenever a serious terrorist attack occurs in Europe, the temptation will grow for uninformed contributors to publish images and unwittingly expose themselves to litigation.
- there are ongoing consultations on copyright reform, in which Freedom of Panorama is one of the issues being discussed; disregarding the law as we do now only helps entertain the notion that the lack of FoP does not have consequences on public liberties
I recommend that all relevant files be deleted and the matter explained clearly. --Rama (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: there has been a previous deletion here, already resulting in a massacre of offending images, but because the matter was not explained clearly while some images remained, a large number of clear copyright violation have been allowed to creep into the category. This must be addressed in such a way that the problem does not re-occur every few months. Rama (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
PPS: Category:Eiffel Tower at night is cluttered with such a ridiculous number of copyvios that I am giving up on tagging all affected files one by one, life is too short. Rama (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I tagged the remaining files with COM:VFC. Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Rama (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Rama (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Come on, guys, are you serious????? This has been already talked and solved. There's no copyright for the usual lighting of the Eiffel Tower, there CAN only be copyright for special lighting exhibitions. Threshold of originality. You can't have copyright for a bunch of light bulbs, that's what the French court said. --Kadellar (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1) At least some of the images are not "usual lighting"
- 2) Care to give us the link where this has been "talked and solved"? (at [9] it was quite a slaughter)
- 3) Care the provide a link to this jurisprudence of the "French court" you are referring to? (which "French court", when?)
- Rama (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Rama, this is only your interprétation (your fight ?). For example, you can read here [10] and let me copy this in french, "Après quelques recherches, je pense que le partage sur les réseaux sociaux et sites photos (Flickr, 500px, etc.) est toléré, car de toute manière cela permet à la Tour Eiffel de bénéficier de retombées indirectes via le tourisme. Il faudrait vraiment que la SETE soit culottée pour vouloir à tout prix chasser les photos de la Tour Eiffel prise de nuit". It is obviously "tolerated", and the blue-white-red Eiffel Tower is on the 2015 Paris Attacks page on wp:fr since more than 4 months. And now, you want to delete it ? Why being "more papist than the Pope" (or, for instance, more royal than the King of Thailand) ? And Kadellar has said it all. Jmex (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1) "tolerated" is not enough. We want allowed.
- 2) "after a little research I think" is certainly not enough. We work on laws and jurisprudence.
- 3) "sharing on social media and photo sites" is not enough: we are a repository of Free media, which means we are as good as a commercial site -- we share our media for any purpose, including commercial. That we do not charge for the service is irrelevant.
- 4) The author of the paper is not from SETE and he does not speak for them, so the "more papist than the pope" argument falls flat, sorry. Rama (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS: yeah, Kadellar said it all, but he has not yet responded to my request for sources. Give it a little time, but I am quite confident that he has said it all, and that the all that he said is pure wishful thinking with no connection to reality ("the French court", indeed!) Rama (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- copyright only for the special lighting of the 100th anniversary. http://legimobile.fr/fr/jp/j/c/civ/1ere/1992/3/3/90-18081/
And check this, deletion request closed by Yann: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-11#File:Paris_2010Feb_218.jpg --Kadellar (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC) - Delete in regard to the law. We can't accord the right by ourselves because we wants some for wikipedia. Olivier LPB (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that "we want it for wikipedia". It's that an individual claim which hasn't been certified can't rule us all. --Kadellar (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually the burden of the proof is on your side, Kadellar. Rama (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The illuminated Eiffel tower picture from Luc Viatour (see thumbnail) was uploaded 4 years ago (23 January 2012), was nominated as featured picture on 4 February 2012 (12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral), selected as picture of the day 20 May 2014, promoted as Quality picture on 26 October 2014, and last-but-not-least was finalist of the Picture of the year 2012 election (ranked #22 with 69 votes). Should it be deleted? --Jeanot (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment In fact, the case has already been discussed on the discussion page of the picture, and it has been kept. --Asmoth (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Such as Asmoth, the case has already been discussed on the discussion page of the picture. And there is no original creation in these illuminations, only the french flag.Roland45 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Idem Kadellar & Jmex --Superjuju10 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Ce n'est pas parce que la SETE revendique(rait) un droit qu'elle est justifiée à le faire. Paradoxalement, elle pourrait peut-être le faire sur son éclairage traditionnel (il me semble que la question a déjà été débattue et résolue ici), mais sûrement pas concernant l'éclairage aux couleurs françaises ou belges. Threshold of originality.--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ce n'est pas parce que la SETE revendique qu'elle a raison, mais ce n'est pas à nous de contester les argument de la SETE. Le Principe de précaution est très clair sur ce point, on ne fait pas de militantisme juridique dans l'application des règles de Commons. Rama (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The images do not reach the threshold of originality for copyright to apply. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- And since it is not the image that we are talking about but the illumination, this is completely irrelevant (in France the threshold of originality is so low that reproductions of 2D artwork is protected by copyright, so these images easily reach it). Rama (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alright Mr. Pedant 2016, by using the word 'images', I am thus referring also to the illuminations contained within; I thought this would be obvious to anyone who wasn't openly trying to pull holes in loose semantics. I'm not sure the threshold of originality in France is so low that three block colours arranged vertically would be subject to copyright but find me a verifiable precedent and I may revise my stance; at the moment all you are proffering is your unqualified opinion. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. The burden of the proof is on your side, you find a positive proof that three block of colour arranged vertically are not copyrighted, and if you fail the photographs are going away. Check Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Rama (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Rama: According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has effect in French law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual creation'. [11] The French and Belgian flags are not the "intellectual creation" of SETE. They were created hundreds of years ago... Firebrace (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. The burden of the proof is on your side, you find a positive proof that three block of colour arranged vertically are not copyrighted, and if you fail the photographs are going away. Check Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Rama (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Idem Kadellar, Jmex et Jebulon --Mini1300 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The light displays are a public tribute to the victims of terrorism. The idea that SETE would sue the photographers is frankly ludicrous. Cmeiqnj (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Half your argument is utterly irrelevant ("are a public tribute to the victims of terrorism", yeah, ok, so what?), and the other is a direct rephrasing of what Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle states is an inadmissible argument. Rama (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's no significant reason to doubt that these are free images, as demonstrated by others above. My comment was simply a response to the phrasing above about "putting the authors of the images and Wikimedia Commons at risk of litigation", which I maintain is far-fetched. Cmeiqnj (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Half your argument is utterly irrelevant ("are a public tribute to the victims of terrorism", yeah, ok, so what?), and the other is a direct rephrasing of what Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle states is an inadmissible argument. Rama (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I am simply flabergasted by the arguments here. This page is not a vote on a policy issue, it is a consultation as to whether the images are legal or not. Almost all the "keep" entries here are basically votes stating that people would rather keep the images -- of course we would like to keep them, I would like to keep them as well, but this is not the question. Inventing court decisions, stating that SETE will not sue (in itself an admission that SETE could sue, i.e. that the images are indeed copyright violations), mentionning the social or emotional impact of the images or of the illuminations, all that is utterly irrelevant. Votes like that should be disregarded as empty opinions and wishful thinking bringing nothing to the technical debate. And if these images are kept, I can't see why we would delete anything at all when we fancy keeping it. Rama (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Rama, absolutely respectful of what you're doing since more than 10 years for WP and Commons, I think nevertheless that your approach is wrong. You ask people to "proove" that these pictures are legal and consider that the various arguments are off topic. in short, you tell the law. But i see no definitive proof that you are right. I see no definitive proof that WP should'nt use these images. And i see very relevant "keep" and "comment" arguments. So apart of saying yourself "flabergasted", apart of saying "this is the law because i'm saying this is the law", i still see no evidence that your approach is right and I find it very unfortunate that you reject outright any arguments that are not going in the direction you want them to go. Je continue dans ma langue natale : il apparait très clairement que ces histoires d'illuminations pour un monument tombé dans le domaine public ne sont pas toutes des créations protégées par un copyright et cela vaut particulièrement pour ce qui nous intéresse ici : celles figurant un drapeau français ou belge. Cette façon d'invalider tous les arguments de conservation en les balayant d'un revers de la main est assez désolante. Jmex (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The two sides of the argument are not equal: the burden of the proof lies on keeping the images, not on deleting them. If we cannot prove that these images are legal we must delete them, and I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect ats of yet, only wishful thinking. Deleting images when we cannot prove that they are Free is what what the written rules say we do; if we actually do something different than what is written, I cannot do much work here because I do not have access to the parallel sources that actually dictate people's behaviour. This is an absolute textbook case that should not even be subjet to a DR, it is SPEEDY fodder; if even in such a clear-cut case, with the precedents of the previous deletions, we end up with keeping these files, our collective behaviour will be devoid of consistency and predictability. Rama (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then, let me ask you this question : are the very specific illuminations of the Eiffel Tower with the french or belgium flags protected by a copyright ? Are they "creations" ? Have they something to deal with the classic illuminations that appear to be protected ? Jmex (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- We do not know, because there is no jurisprudence on that. And because we do not know, i.e. because we cannot prove the opposite, these files must be deleted (along with the dozens others that not flags).
- Disclaimers:
- 1) this is not what I think should be, this is the level of my knowledge. If I was dictator of Europe there would be Freedom of Panorama laws and they would apply in this case, but I am not.
- 2) I hear the argument about flags being very simple and not copyrightable (incidentally: THAT is an argument, thank you! I wish those would keep coming up with the "they'll never actually sue us" and the popularity contest brigade would watch and learn); problem with this is that we have no jurisprudence on that and we know that France has a ridiculously low threshold of originality (stuff a camera in front of a painting and take a snapshot, and congratulations! You have a copyright!) so I do not think that we can rely on this. I have heard nothing to answer that point so I remain unconvinced. Rama (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then, let me ask you this question : are the very specific illuminations of the Eiffel Tower with the french or belgium flags protected by a copyright ? Are they "creations" ? Have they something to deal with the classic illuminations that appear to be protected ? Jmex (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The two sides of the argument are not equal: the burden of the proof lies on keeping the images, not on deleting them. If we cannot prove that these images are legal we must delete them, and I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect ats of yet, only wishful thinking. Deleting images when we cannot prove that they are Free is what what the written rules say we do; if we actually do something different than what is written, I cannot do much work here because I do not have access to the parallel sources that actually dictate people's behaviour. This is an absolute textbook case that should not even be subjet to a DR, it is SPEEDY fodder; if even in such a clear-cut case, with the precedents of the previous deletions, we end up with keeping these files, our collective behaviour will be devoid of consistency and predictability. Rama (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for pictures showing only one colour light witch cannot be considered as an artwork. - Siren-Com (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This specific thing is specified in the law and in out FoP-guidelines. They, the ones that may be a violation, need to go. We might want to keep them, but we do not decide such things, lawmakes do... Josve05a (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Kadellar a déjà tout dit ci-dessus, mais puisque @Rama a entrepris une croisade et est a priori persuadé de ses arguments, arguant que la loi ne correspond pas à ce que l'on souhaite, je reprends ci-dessous, en français, les arguments juridiques invoqués à l'occasion du jugement relatif au contentieux lié aux illuminations du centenaire de la Tour Eiffel.
- Le 17 juin 1989, la société "La Mode en Image" a mis en place, à l'occasion du 100ème anniversaire de l'édification de la Tour Eiffel, un "spectacle sonore et visuel" consistant notamment dans des effets d'éclairage de la tour par une combinaison de rampes et de projecteurs, accompagné de projections d'image et d'un feu d'artifice. Les sociétés Editions de l'Est-Protet et Editions-Lyna ont fait réaliser par M. Y... des photographies de ce spectacle, à partir desquelles elles ont fabriqué et mis en vente une série de cartes postales".
- En première instance la société "La Mode en Image" obtient l'interdiction de l'exploitation de ces reproductions. Les sociétés éditrices de cartes postales attaquent cet arrêt mais n'obtiennent pas gain de cause en appel. La cour d'appel retient en effet que la composition de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et, partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit ; qu'il en résultait nécessairement au bénéfice de son auteur un droit de propriété incorporelle, abstraction faite de l'évènement public à l'occasion duquel cette oeuvre lui avait été commandée.
- Dans le cas d'espèce, celui des illuminations en hommage aux victimes du 13 novembre 2015, outre le fait qu'il n'est question d'aucun spectacle sonore et visuel, l'objet même des illuminations n'est pas de "souligner les lignes et les formes du monument", mais de constituer un hommage aux victimes des attentats en faisant apparaître l'image du drapeau français, qui est dans le domaine public. Le coeur du sujet n'est pas la Tour Eiffel, mais la France qui rend hommage aux victimes. Il n'y a aucune création de l'esprit en la matière, puisqu'en l'occurrence cette même projection du drapeau français a été vue sur de très nombreux édifices dans le monde. Il y a une différence de taille. En aucun cas la SETE pourrait invoquer un droit de propriété intellectuelle pour la représentation d'un à-plat du drapeau français à l'occasion d'un événement en hommage à des victimes. Cela parait évident.
- Dans les autres cas, à savoir illuminations courantes, sauf erreur de ma part, aucune société éditrice de carte postale n'a été attaquée pour une représentation courante d'illuminations de la Tour Eiffel, en dehors d'événements spécifiques. Cordialement.Roland45 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Le 17 juin 1989, la société "La Mode en Image" a mis en place, à l'occasion du 100ème anniversaire de l'édification de la Tour Eiffel, un "spectacle sonore et visuel" consistant notamment dans des effets d'éclairage de la tour par une combinaison de rampes et de projecteurs, accompagné de projections d'image et d'un feu d'artifice. Les sociétés Editions de l'Est-Protet et Editions-Lyna ont fait réaliser par M. Y... des photographies de ce spectacle, à partir desquelles elles ont fabriqué et mis en vente une série de cartes postales".
- Merci, donc
- 1) tu admets que non seulement il y a des gens qui arguent d'un copyright sur les illuminations, mais qu'ils l'on fait valoir devant les tribunaux et que les tribunaux leur ont donné raison.
- 2) tu poursuis par des considérations personnelles sur le manque supposé d'originalité du drapeau français -- ce qui concerne une minorité des cas qui nous occupent, au passage. As-tu à ce sujet davantage qu'un avis personnel ? Jurisprudence ? Pour rappel, les tribunaux français sont extrêmement généreux avec les seuils d'originalité, et considèrent par exemple qu'une reproduction photographique d'une oeuvre bidimensionnelle donne lieu à un copyright.
- 3) je rappelle vigoureusement que la charge de la preuve incombe à ceux qui veulent garder les images et les inviter à s'imprégner de Principe de précaution. Les argument du type "ouais mais ils ne vont jamais poursuivre en justice, YOLO" devraient être éliminatoires dans une Demande de Suppression.
- Rama (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tu n'as pas lu ou tu fais le niais. Pour qu'il y ait droit d'auteur, il faut qu'il y ait création originale. Le principe est le même pour les bâtiments récents. Il faut pouvoir identifier la patte de l'architecte. Tu as beau "rappeler vigoureusement", le principe de précaution ne s'applique que dans les cas où il y a risque patent. Ce qui n'est pas le cas, pour les illuminations courantes, puisqu'il y a aucune jurisprudence en la matière. Quant à dire qu'il n'y a pas d'argumentation mais que des considérations personnelles, tu peux t'appliquer aussi cette considération. Et quant à la charge de la preuve revient à celui qui veut garder les images, là aussi on peut retourner le propos : prouve nous aussi qu'il y a un risque patent susceptible de rendre nécessaire l'application du principe de précaution.Roland45 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- La charge de la preuve est de ton côté : tu veux garder des images, tu prouves en quoi elles ne constituent pas un risque pour les gens à qui on va les fournir en leur promettant qu'ils n'auront pas d'ennuis même s'ils essayent de gagner de l'argent avec. C'est ce que disent nos règlements. S'il faut faire autre chose que ce qui est écrit, il faut qu'on m'explique où je peux savoir ce qui se fait effecivement. Rama (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tu n'as pas lu ou tu fais le niais. Pour qu'il y ait droit d'auteur, il faut qu'il y ait création originale. Le principe est le même pour les bâtiments récents. Il faut pouvoir identifier la patte de l'architecte. Tu as beau "rappeler vigoureusement", le principe de précaution ne s'applique que dans les cas où il y a risque patent. Ce qui n'est pas le cas, pour les illuminations courantes, puisqu'il y a aucune jurisprudence en la matière. Quant à dire qu'il n'y a pas d'argumentation mais que des considérations personnelles, tu peux t'appliquer aussi cette considération. Et quant à la charge de la preuve revient à celui qui veut garder les images, là aussi on peut retourner le propos : prouve nous aussi qu'il y a un risque patent susceptible de rendre nécessaire l'application du principe de précaution.Roland45 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep File:Eiffel tower dark armenian genocide.jpg. Lights are switched off, there is no copyright on illumination. I recommand taking more time before nominating files for deletion that obviously do not correspond to any case of copyright infringement. Varmin (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The number of copyvios in Category:Eiffel Tower at night is so great that Thibaut120094 ran a script to put deletion banners on them and I removed the ones I saw that we not targeted by this DR. So we did devote time to this, but there might bn glitches such as this and I am grateful for your attention. Incidentally, this sort of inconvenience is an inevitable consequence of letting litterally hundreds of copyvios accumulate in a category, and thus a futher argument to be more serious in the future. Rama (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that there were already decisions about this, concerning the usual lighting. Anyway this doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality. Are there particular case sometimes? I don't know. If it is the case, it should be treated in separate DR IMHO. Jeriby (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*
Keep The 1989 copyright ruling was applied to an "original visual creation" of a dynamic light show. The lighting here is neither original nor creative. Orange lights are everywhere, and "Eiffel tower illuminated in colors of Belgian Flag" COPIES the Belgian flag; likewise "The Eiffel Tower lit up in French colours" COPIES the French flag. There is nothing original or creative about it... Firebrace (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete any whose uploaders state that they're afraid of being sued over the image. We have no business insisting that an image remain when it's potentially hazardous for the uploader. As noted by others, lots of the illumination photos show nothing original, so Keep because mass-deleting would be a horrid idea; you can come back with DRs for individual items. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per above comments, mainly Jebulon. The copyright claim over these files are mostly speculation fueled by the SETE. The court case specifically said that there is a copyright for the show, not for all images of the Eiffel Tower at night. Yann (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
At least for Germany, recordings and photos taken by CCTVs are copyright protected (as Lichtbild by § 72 dUrhG). The idea that CCTVs just record whatever comes to their lense is much too easy to substantiate that all their recordings are in the Public Domain as there are many more decisions that the positioner of the CCTV has to make: such as position, angel, image section, and so on. I don't know what the situation in other countries is, but according to the Precaution Principle it seems much too easy to just say that it "cannot be protected" without giving any court findings or law doctrines. If CCTV recordings turn out to be free in certain countries, these countries should be concretely listed to protect re-users in countries where CCTV recordings de facto are protected, such as Germany (and probably most EU countries). Yellowcard (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS: I asked about the situation in Germany on de.wp to make sure I'm not assessing the situation wrong. The discussion on de.wp turned out the situation to be clear, CCTV recordings are copyright protected. The corresponding Wikipedia article agrees on that as well. Didn't want to miss that one. Yellowcard (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Staring with At least for Germany invalids this DR, because this apply worldwide and only to cases ineligible for copyright. Also, this was already discussed in the Village Pump. If a footage of a CCTV is non-free according to the local legislation that belongs, then, tag for speedy the files rather than this template. Proper discussion should be in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussions about this topic on Commons:
- I’d prefer to have specific license templates for each country with detailed information on the national law. For the current template, I vote Delete as there is no information supporting the bold claim that CCTV generally is in the public domain. ireas (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Amitie 10g: Sorry, I cannot follow your argument. This template implicates that CCTV recordings are always and in general in the public domain. This is wrong, they are not, so this licence template is wrong. No question, there are certain (few?) countries where CCTV recordings are probably free (thinking of Switzerland), but you cannot assert the thesis that they are free in general and everywhere without specifying it. If CCTV recordings are not necessarily free in the US, this template is invalid as a whole, and yet there is no evidence for the status in the US. Yellowcard (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- This copyright tag is incorrect. The copyright tag states that CCTV material is below the threshold of originality worldwide, which seems to be correct. The template also states that CCTV material is ineligible for copyright worldwide, which clearly isn't correct. The person who created the template seems to have made the misinterpretation that 'below the threshold of originality' always implies 'ineligible for copyright', which at least isn't the case in Europe. In the European Union, films which are below the threshold of originality are protected by copyright for 50 years from creation of the film (video) or 70 years from publication (audio), and you can't publish the video stream until the end of this term. Additionally, some countries have special rules for photograph. In Sweden, a photograph which is below the threshold of originality is protected by 50 years from creation of the photograph, and a screenshot from a photographic film counts as a photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up with regards to the situations in other European countries, Stefan2. Now it would be interesting if someone could come up with knowledge-based information about the copyright status of simple videos and photos in the US. Yellowcard (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: at least the Dutch court seems to disagree with your rational regarding films that are below TOO being protected for 50 years. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, the court only notes that certain pictures aren't a work. A sound or video recording is not in itself a work, although the recording may contain one or more works, for example a cinematographic work. The right to video recordings is a right which is separate from the right to works (and these rights are typically defined at different places in the copyright law). Therefore, it is not useful to link to rulings which discuss whether a video recording is a work or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Something has to be creative in order to be a work in the first place so if something is not creative enough court will often rule that something is not a work. Natuur12 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The Dutch court ruled that something wasn't creative (and thus not copyrighted as a work), i.e. the material wasn't copyrighted under s:Auteurswet - Hoofdstuk I#Artikel 1. The Dutch court doesn't seem to have assessed whether the material was copyrighted as a sound or video recording. Maybe the person only copied film stills? In that case, the right to sound or video recordings might be irrelevant for that ruling. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no "protection term" for "stuff" that isn't protected as a work of... I noticed that I wrote video. My mistake. Natuur12 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not true in countries which have implemented directive 93/98/EEC. Articles 1-2 contain rules for protection for works while article 3 contains rules for protection of things which are not works. There are also other EU directives about the protection of things which are not works. For example, the copyright term of sound recordings was extended in some other EU directive. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no "protection term" for "stuff" that isn't protected as a work of... I noticed that I wrote video. My mistake. Natuur12 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The Dutch court ruled that something wasn't creative (and thus not copyrighted as a work), i.e. the material wasn't copyrighted under s:Auteurswet - Hoofdstuk I#Artikel 1. The Dutch court doesn't seem to have assessed whether the material was copyrighted as a sound or video recording. Maybe the person only copied film stills? In that case, the right to sound or video recordings might be irrelevant for that ruling. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Something has to be creative in order to be a work in the first place so if something is not creative enough court will often rule that something is not a work. Natuur12 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, the court only notes that certain pictures aren't a work. A sound or video recording is not in itself a work, although the recording may contain one or more works, for example a cinematographic work. The right to video recordings is a right which is separate from the right to works (and these rights are typically defined at different places in the copyright law). Therefore, it is not useful to link to rulings which discuss whether a video recording is a work or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: at least the Dutch court seems to disagree with your rational regarding films that are below TOO being protected for 50 years. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up with regards to the situations in other European countries, Stefan2. Now it would be interesting if someone could come up with knowledge-based information about the copyright status of simple videos and photos in the US. Yellowcard (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, It is quite clear that CCTV recording are not under a copyright in France, as explained in the DR. In France, copyright results from the "originality as the expression of the author's personality". This is obviously lacking here. Although I don't know the details, Belgian law is usually close to French law. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- We don't discuss a certain file here, but the licence tag itself. So far, the template doesn't refer to the jurisdiction of any country, but states CCTV regordings to be in the PD in general, which is wrong as shown above. Yellowcard (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Yann, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the French copyright law.
- Article L112-1: "Les dispositions du présent code protègent les droits des auteurs sur toutes les oeuvres de l'esprit, quels qu'en soient le genre, la forme d'expression, le mérite ou la destination."
- Article L213-1: "L'autorisation du producteur de phonogrammes est requise avant toute reproduction, mise à la disposition du public par la vente, l'échange ou le louage, ou communication au public de son phonogramme autres que celles mentionnées à l'article L. 214-1."
- Article L215-1: "L'autorisation du producteur de vidéogrammes est requise avant toute reproduction, mise à la disposition du public par la vente, l'échange ou le louage, ou communication au public de son vidéogramme."
- There are three things which are protected by copyright: "œuvres de l'esprit", "phonogrammes" and "vidéogrammes". An "œuvre de l'esprit" is something which has "originality as the expression of the author's personality", while "phonogrammes" and "vidéogrammes" are defined differently. Article L112-2 also gives some information on what may constitute an "œuvre de l'esprit". It would seem that Article L213-1 protects the soundtrack of CCTV recordings (if any) while Article L215-1 protects the video. I don't know if Article L215-1 only protects the video in 'video form' or if individual screenshots also are protected under this article. A few European countries, such as the Nordic countries, additionally contain provisions for 'photographic images', which unambiguously cover screenshots, but French law doesn't seem to have this provision. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Yann, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the French copyright law.
- We don't discuss a certain file here, but the licence tag itself. So far, the template doesn't refer to the jurisdiction of any country, but states CCTV regordings to be in the PD in general, which is wrong as shown above. Yellowcard (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
We should note any exceptions in the template documentation, but keep the template. I see the info from Carl at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices as compatible with this.--Elvey (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That page only discusses whether such recordings meet the threshold of originality, not whether they are copyrighted. See for example this ruling: recordings of certain hockey matches don't meet the threshold of originality. They are therefore ineligible for copyright protection under Article 1 of the Swedish copyright law, but they are nevertheless subject to copyright protection under Article 46 of the Swedish copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete This template claims, that CCTV recordings are in the public domain in general. Since this is obviously not the case (not even in the mayority of countries), there shouldn't be a template like this. // Martin K. (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the description, this appears to be modified from an image of a game model, therefore not free. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Egor as Copyvio (db-copyvio), without any reason given. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: see source field. --Jcb (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 50.100.107.183 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Work under copyright as indicated by the watermark- Creator of work still living - Work not in public domain. Creator of work uses Wikimedia for self promotion. I do not want to delete it speedily, if nominator is anonymous. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This file is in use in Wikipédia in the article about the artist. The artist may or may not meet the notability criteria of Wikipédia, but the article has not been discussed for deletion, and we on Commons can't judge that. Examples of works of an artist who is the subject of a Wikipédia article are within the scope of Commons. Even in the hypothesis that an artist wouldn't meet the notability criteria for Wikipédia, a few free-licensed images of works of a professional artist with regional notability can have a reasonable potential to be useful to someone within the scope of Commons. The images being published on the artist's website, and given that they were likely uploaded to Commons legitimately by the artist or his mandatories, what is missing is a confirmation through OTRS. So, keep for now, leave time for the uploader to notice and to follow up, but if no reaction in a month, then delete. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: apparent copyvio. --Jcb (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 50.100.107.183 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Work under copyright as indicated by the watermark - Creator of work still living - Work not in public domain. Creator of work uses Wikimedia for self promotion. I do not want to delete it speedily, if nominator is anonymous. Taivo (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 50.100.107.183 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Work under copyright as indicated by the watermark - Creator of work still living - Work not in public domain. Creator of work uses Wikimedia for self promotion. I do not want to delete it speedily, if nominator is anonymous. Taivo (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by WinTakeAll as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Poor quality reproduction of the ZX81 logo given that it's from a specimen with its red color worn off, as acknowledged in description. Many better depictions exist in Category:Sinclair_ZX81, including the better near-duplicates ZX81-closeup.jpg and The_Mighty_ZX-81.jpg. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Iran, we need to know when this sculpture was built. ★ Poké95 11:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Reimaginingenglishproject (talk · contribs)
[edit]I strongly doubt these images are own work given the lack of EXIF, the size, the quality and the copyvio record of the uploader.
BrightRaven (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Own work seems reasonable, but it being a derivative might cause reason for deletion. Basvb (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This file is also concerned:
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly a render. I doubt the author has copyright of this. The actual building does not have spire Triplecaña (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
These postcards are all the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel (1905-1989) and are not, therefore, PD.
- File:USSR EWCS №21 Rusanov sp.cancellation Arkhangelsk.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №21 Rusanov sp.cancellation Moscow.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №21 Rusanov sp.cancellation Oryol.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Moscow.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Tallinn.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №39 Ayni sp.cancellation Dushanbe.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №39 Ayni sp.cancellation Moscow.jpg
- File:USSR EWCS №40 Tamanyan sp.cancellation Yerevan.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №43 Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky sp.cancellation Leningrad.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №43 Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky sp.cancellation Lipetsk.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №45 Pyotr Nesterov sp.cancellation.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №59 F.Bellingshausen sp.cancellation Leningrad.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №59 F.Bellingshausen sp.cancellation Moscow.jpg
- File:USSR PCWCS №49 Felix Dzerzhinsky sp.cancellation Moscow.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:USSR EWCS №33 Union of Artists congress sp.cancellation.jpg. Please read - exhaustive reasoning for kept. Signs post payment many many times were discussed, see Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept --Andrey Korzun (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep @Andrey: Thanks! --ScriWi (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- But certainly the category name is a problem. Because these items are not postcards but there are postal cards and postal envelopes. It is necessary to understand the difference, because it is critical importance. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Andrey, ok, I understand, but do you really think this would have made any difference to @Jameslwoodward: or to @JCB: ??? I don't think so. I get the impression they just don't care about other people's work and just like to delete. In my opinion, they know it's {{PD-RU-exempt}}, they just don't like the images. Because if they were right, all the stamps and postal cards which bear the license {{PD-RU-exempt}} would have to be deleted. That would be a whole lot of deletion requests, probably hundreds of thousands. I just feel bad I entered Peter Emilevich Bendel as creator, that was my mistake, because that made them angry and twitching their deletion finger. If I had not entered the creator line, they wouldn't even have noticed. That's the game. --ScriWi (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - a derivative of a copyrighted work can only be PD if COM:DM applies, which is not the case for these files. --Jcb (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @JCB: "a derivative of a copyrighted work" cannot apply since it is not copyrighted work, it's {{PD-RU-exempt}}. You are all wrong!
- And by the way... why are you not continuing the discussion. Just deleting without discussing is simply wrong! --ScriWi (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [12]. Yann (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
These stamps are all the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel (1905-1989) and are not, therefore, PD.
- File:1975 CPA 4529.jpg
- File:1976 Даль.jpg
- File:Albert Einstein 1979 USSR Stamp.jpg
- File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
- File:Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value. Albert Einstein, 1879-1955 -en.svg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Soviet and Russian postage stamps are official signs and therefore not objects of copyright. See {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR. --Grebenkov (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep @Grebenkov: Thanks! --ScriWi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Перечень объектов, подпадающих под охрану авторского права указан в статье 1259 ГК РФ. В части 6 комментируемой нормы действительно содержится положение, согласно которому не являются объектами авторских прав государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное), а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований. Очевидно, что данный перечень не является закрытым, а основным критерием исключения является статус отнесения объекта к государственным знакам.
В соответствии со статьей 2 ФЗ "О почтовой связи" почтовые марки и иные знаки, наносимые на почтовые отправления и подтверждающие оплату услуг почтовой связи являются государственными знаками почтовой оплаты (то есть имеют статус государственного знака). --Stuchka (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Painter of a Soviet stamp doesn't have copyright on it, he delegated all rights to the USSR government (and Russia as its successor), because the stamp was issued by USSR Post and is official sign, which is in public domain per {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Illustr (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Soviet and Russian postage stamps are official signs and therefore not objects of copyright. See {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR. --Maimaid (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - a derivative of a copyrighted work can only be PD if COM:DM applies, which is not the case for these files. --Jcb (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Have you read Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia? Sealle (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's selfcontradicting and does not justify to keep these files. I have also read various discussions about this issue and I completely agree with @Jameslwoodward: that there is not justification to assume these files to be PD. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing PD and free of copyright. You can not substitute the concept. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Still voting for keep! "a derivative of a copyrighted work" does not apply, since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}}. James Woodward and you, you are all wrong! --ScriWi (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: if you were right... you would have to delete all stamps on commons that are {{PD-RU-exempt}} because they are all painted by someone. So you are self contradicting! --ScriWi (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Still voting for keep! "a derivative of a copyrighted work" does not apply, since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}}. James Woodward and you, you are all wrong! --ScriWi (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing PD and free of copyright. You can not substitute the concept. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's selfcontradicting and does not justify to keep these files. I have also read various discussions about this issue and I completely agree with @Jameslwoodward: that there is not justification to assume these files to be PD. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [13]. Yann (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Edward Gibson, Vanity Fair, 1885-07-04.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution duplicate of File:Sir Harold John Tennant. Colour lithograph by Sir L. Ward (S Wellcome V0005756.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Info: This file is older. Edit the artcles where is used first. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Jcb (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Globally orphan low resolution duplicate of File:Sir Harold John Tennant. Colour lithograph by Sir L. Ward (S Wellcome V0005756.jpg The Traditionalist (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
possible copyvio - I noticed this file w:File:Cotton1943 cropped.jpg on en.wiki, credited to the same "Windfield Photographic Collection", but with "C. Ray" as author and c1943 as date, and uploaded by a different user than WayneRay - both images say "granted pd" in the permission field - do we have evidence that this collection is PD? - we have another file File:Truck at Quarry 809th.JPG, which states "George Sharp with permission" as author, and "obtained PD" in the permission field - this source seems dubious - WayneRay uploaded more images with this source - he claims himself as author in some and other authors in other images, but there seems to be no proof of permission for any of them, which casts doubt on WayneRay's authorship claims as well - this and other "Windfield Photographic Collection" images may need to be deleted per COM:PRP INeverCry 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This image would probably not have been an issue without the controversy over Wayne Ray. It looks innocent enough, but inevitably some people are going to draw their own conclusions. I can't see obvious copyright problems with the canoe image, and it isn't ideal to draw conclusions from the copyright status of other images.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ianmacm: Have a look at File:Truck at Quarry 809th.JPG. Do you see any proof of permission from George Sharp? If WayneRay can make an unproven claim of permission, his claim of authorship in regard to other Windfield Photographic Collection images like this scout image is also suspect. See COM:PRP. I didn't file this DR just because of the child porn conviction issue; I've worked extensively with copyright here on Commons for several years and still hold the #2 spot in admin experience with over 300,000 log actions performed between 2012 and 2015. INeverCry 18:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that this probably would not be noticed without the controversy, but I think the issue has merit. There is no record of the Windfield collection other than from Mr Ray. "granted pd" seems woefully inadequate, in light of there being other photos where the same was incorrectly claimed. Even if the photo is by ray, a photo of children taken by a convicted child pornographer seems problematic. recommend deletion to be safe on both counts. A photo of boyscouts in canoe can be easily replaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the image may well have dubious copyright status, a lot of images on Commons do. I checked on tineye.com and Google reverse image search, and Wikimedia Commons and various language Wikipedia articles are pretty much the only place that this image is found. I don't think it is outside the realms of possibility that Ray took this photo himself, as it is nothing special and does not look like the work of a professional photographer. If anyone wants to delete it per COM:PRP, I'm not going to argue.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Given the problems described by INeverCry, I suggest deleting. Mr. Ray seems overall to have had a poor or idiosyncratic understanding of appropriate attribution, permission and content. The Master (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per The Master, and I think this could be extended to many of his other photos, especially those of copyrighted book covers. That said, I'm not entirely clear that the 'Windfield Photographic Collection' isn't just his fancy name for himself, since he seems to have quite the history of creating organisations that may or may not be just him and an email address. Blythwood (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed... I've had a look through his other uploads and they are rife with unlicensed derivatives, images with dubious permission, images lacking sources, etc. Some really needs to at least go through the lot and delete the blatantly problematic images or barring that just wipe all of them. Even ignoring very questionable, surreptitiously taken images like this [14], we have blatant unlicensed derivatives (copyvios) like these [15], [16]. The Master (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Having looked at this again, I agree that the "Windfield Photographic Collection, POB 340 Stn. B London Ontario Canada N6A 4W1" situation isn't ideal as it may be just a pseudonym for Wayne Ray. I doubt whether he took all of the Windfield photographs or had permission to upload them with PD tagging, but still think that he may have taken the canoe photo himself. So my vote is Delete per COM:PRP.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Having looked this over, I agree with the analysis by INeverCry (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - agree, but lets also add File:MudBall01.jpg / File:MudBall05.jpg / File:MudBall07.jpg / File:T.B. topless nude negative.jpg / File:JeanWPC.jpg to this DR, especially the last 2 as her age may be in question..we will deal with the rest of his uploads once WMF takes action on him...--Stemoc 14:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queens_Ave._Bike_path.JPG){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carnival_Poster_Oakridge_SS.JPG){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Apple_Tree_Poster_Oakridge_SS.JPG){kind=link}
Comment To address something repeatedly mentioned here, User:WayneRay/Windfield Horticultural Photographic Collection describes the collection as "Photos by Wayne Ray, Karl Wimmi, John Riley, John Narroway who have donated slide transparencies to the collection over the years since 1980." Based on other searching (including tidbits that ended up on speedy deletion wikia), it appears to have been originally related to E. P. Taylor's Windfields Farm, and a donation of seeds to the Royal Botanical Garden sometime around 1980. While Wayne Ray was in Canada around that time, and appears to have had at least some slight degree of involvement (it was asserted that he did some of the seed collecting in the 70's) I can't find any information about such a photographic collection outside of what he has said on Commons... particularly, nothing that gives those images a clear copyright status (the ones I glanced at would seem to be deletable as 'no evidence that the given author agreed to the stated license'). Reventtalk 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- He also uploaded a number of images from the 40s/50s, with the Windfield Collection label, attributed to "George Sharp with permission", and to "Capt. Claxton Ray", whom WayneRay states he's the heir of (perhaps an uncle...or an invention). See m:User_talk:Jalexander-WMF#Possible_sock_of_WayneRay. INeverCry 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like a case of assuming that conveyance of a copy passes along the copyright, without any evidence that the copyright was actually transferred, with the result of creating an unresolvable mess (especially if he's in prison, as I doubt he'll be editing Commons while incarcerated). Reventtalk 00:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mr. Ray is not incarcerated - that's why all the attention, he was editing on here until last week. Regarding the photos apparently taken by relatives...I have to say I can't quite be bothered to delete them, they don't seem any more problematic than many other pictures on here. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like a case of assuming that conveyance of a copy passes along the copyright, without any evidence that the copyright was actually transferred, with the result of creating an unresolvable mess (especially if he's in prison, as I doubt he'll be editing Commons while incarcerated). Reventtalk 00:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Wayne Ray has created a grand amount of mess on Commons by attributing PD to photographs in a way which is unlikely to be correct. Although the initial concern here was some people making a hoo-ha on Wikipediocracy over the child porn angle, a far wider problem has now occurred because it is hard to tell if any of Ray's images have proper permissions. At this rate, any image uploaded by Ray with the "Windfield Collection" permission has to be seen as a potential candidate for deletion per COM:PRP.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- While this is certainly the case, it seems clear that Mr. Ray owns these photos (or perhaps has donated them to a collection he has close ties to), and we have no evidence to disprove that he inherited the rights to them. There is no evidence that any of them have been published elsewhere, the Korean War photos for example. So apart from this particular one (which has particular issues given his record), I don't see any reason to delete them unless a contested claim turns up or evidence that they weren't taken when and where Mr. Ray says they were. The book covers are perhaps another matter. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Blythwood: When a person uploads images that they did not personally create, we need evidence that they either own the actual copyright (per a legal conveyance) or that the work is actually PD. The issue with the "Winfield Collection" images is an unproven (and potentially mistaken) claim that a third party (the original photographer) gave such permission. COM:PRP (and COM:EVID) dictate that we delete such works unless evidence is provided. It's far too common for uploaders to incorrectly assert that ownership of a physical copy of a work gives them the right to license it... it does not. Reventtalk 04:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- While this is certainly the case, it seems clear that Mr. Ray owns these photos (or perhaps has donated them to a collection he has close ties to), and we have no evidence to disprove that he inherited the rights to them. There is no evidence that any of them have been published elsewhere, the Korean War photos for example. So apart from this particular one (which has particular issues given his record), I don't see any reason to delete them unless a contested claim turns up or evidence that they weren't taken when and where Mr. Ray says they were. The book covers are perhaps another matter. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Blythwood: Wayne Ray may have taken some of the Windfield photos himself, but others he clearly did not. The sloppy use of public domain tagging has called all of these images into question.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and do the same with similar images uploaded by the same person. SarahSV (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Quality is bad and in my opinion educational value is almost missing. Taivo (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Сомнения в лицензии. Скан фото, авторы фото известны, разрешения от авторв фото нет. Dogad75 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Сомнения в лицензии. Необходимо разрешение на фото авторов-фотографов Ю. Ланкиной и В. Дробинина. Dogad75 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Сомнения в лицензии и авторстве. Кадры из фильмов. Dogad75 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Dogad75-2016-03-24T19:26:00.000Z-File:Кадры_из_фильма_"Клоун".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/24#c-Jcb-2016-04-23T14:50:00.000Z-File:Кадры_из_фильма_"Клоун".jpg){kind=link}
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Нет разрешения авторов фото. Dogad75 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Нет разрешения фотографов на фото. Dogad75 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Нет разрешения авторов телепередачи на кадр. Dogad75 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Здравствуйте! На официальном сайте телеканала "Культура" есть информация, что использовать фото, видео и т.п. материалы НЕ запрещено, в том числе и скрины телепередач, при условии, что "При любом использовании текстовых, аудио-, фото- и видеоматериалов будет проставлена ссылка на tvkultura.ru" Подскажите, пожалуйста, правильно ли я подставила ссылку в "источник"для файла === File:Алёна Шаповалова Проект Паноптикум сюжет на телеканале Культура.jpg === ? User:AljonaSha
- Нет, этого недостаточно. В описании не сказано, что тестовая, аудио- и видеоинформация может использоваться в любых целях, в том числе и коммерческих, а также не сказано, что материалы, опубликованные на сайте можно изменять (те делать производные работы). С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
п.1 и 2 ч. 1 статьи 1274 Гражданского кодекса РФ:
Свободное использование произведения в информационных, научных, учебных или культурных целях
1. Допускается без согласия автора или иного правообладателя и без выплаты вознаграждения, но с обязательным указанием имени автора, произведение которого используется, и источника заимствования:
1) цитирование в оригинале и в переводе в научных, полемических, критических или ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫХ целях правомерно обнародованных произведений в объеме, оправданном целью цитирования, включая воспроизведение отрывков из газетных и журнальных статей в форме обзоров печати; 2) использование правомерно обнародованных произведений и отрывков из них в качестве иллюстраций в изданиях, радио- и телепередачах, звуко- и видеозаписях учебного характера в объеме, оправданном поставленной целью;
Википедия - если верить названию, это свободная энциклопедия, и материалы , размещённые на ней носят ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫЙ, а не коммерческий характер. В том числе и изображение, о котором идёт речь. Если я не права- поправьте, пожалуйста.User:AljonaSha
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Похоже на скан старого фото из семейного архива, разрешения от авторов фото нет, автор, скорее всего, неизвестен. Dogad75 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content, see thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Non notable person. Only use on Wikipedia is for bio soon to be deleted, no other particular usefulness for it. The Master (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - while perhaps not notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, Mr. Ray's fascinating profile means for me that Wikimedia would be well-served by having a freely licensed photo of him for the benefit of news organisations should Mr. Ray ever again return to public attention. (Seriously though, I damn well hope not.) Blythwood (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have nothing to say about whether the image should be kept or not policy-wise, but it does seem to me that Blythwood's reasons for keeping the image and categorizing this image and another a certain way are not in keeping with the purpose of Commons. The man has only been covered in his local press from what I can tell outside of the above blog specifically covering his activities on Wikipedia and even that coverage is extremely limited. Should someone think he needs to have his name and face permanently affixed and identified with his actions then I would suggest finding some other place to do it. As it is the aforementioned blog post already does more than enough to serve that purpose anyway. While it was completely appropriate to remove him from this community and any other Wikimedia communities, that does not mean we should leave a permanent mark of shame up on this site. Any decision to keep the image should be based off policy not a desire to harm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - even the 'fascinating profile' has disappeared. --Jcb (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Images uploaded without context Thatonewikiguy (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Irrläufer-Duplikat von File:Heinrich VI - Konstanze von Sizilien.jpg 217.83.25.84 23:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not exact duplicate. --Jcb (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
As summary states, this is a derivitave work, yet there is no license information about the deriviatve work itself. Considering that India adopts some level of common law, I would assume this reaches the threshold of originality. Maybe there is consideration for it being a government-issued medal or by being old, but it's from 1954 so nothing obvious comes to mind. Delete as a precaution is best way forward. Jolly Janner (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted material without proper CC license. "The author says its okay" isn't a valid license Onel5969 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is from Mister Lionel. I'm not sure how to leave a reply but hope this is the correct way. Author Gary D. Rhodes emailed me this image with intent to use on his Wikipedia page. I requested he send me some interesting images. This image is for his next book through BearManor Media. It is copyrighted but we filled out under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0" with the specific purpose to "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
