Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/06/11

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive June 11th, 2016
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I had posted to the talk page of the wrong file - for correct one, see redirect. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Created erroneously, author's request. --Achim (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright by korean newspaper Fetx2002 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Screenshots from a copyright movie. Green Giant (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

because is explict sex 190.86.22.2 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a wikipedia policy against depictions of explicit sex deletion might be okay but the fact that this image shows explicit sex is not in and of itself reason for deletion.


This certainly should not be deleted. Various statues in the Borgasi Museum in Rome have far more explicit information.


Kept. Leyo 15:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Deletion requests/Archive/2016/06/11}} Bastenbas (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Non-trivial logo

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

sex in the wods 63.143.116.0 18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --A.Savin 18:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Godwinme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status / out of scope.

   FDMS  4    16:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Godwinme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No indication of user's own work on these three files which were uploaded after deletion notices had been put on three other files.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Godwinme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No indication of user's own work: one with camera data, the rest appear to be from other - unacknowledged sources.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
low quality of
Paul Signac, 1921, Entrée du port de la Rochelle, oil on canvas, 130.5 x 162 cm, Musée d'Orsay
Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily kept as this file is used in multiple projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation (OTRS 2016061110011177) Sphilbrick (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also ticket:2016061110011113. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Used elsewhere before upload to commons (http://retroradiove.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html), so speedydeleted as clear copyvio. --Ankry (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: obvious copyvio. — regards, Revi 12:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry,


{{Delete}} Berkay Toptan (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploaders request. --JuTa 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by FahrenheitLucas

[edit]

According to at least 3 watermarks the photos are created by various photographers. The uploaders claim that this photos are own work is not credible. Most likely copyright violations / COM:NETCOPYVIO.

Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third incarnation of the same editor, both previous had all their uploads deleted (and the first also blocked) for this same pattern of copyvio (including images of the same subject in the same style). All three accounts now also copyvio/sock-blocked. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo mit en double, déjà mit sous le titre suivant : B-52 Stratofortress leads a formation over the Baltic Sea.jpg L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Billinghurst: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:B-52 Stratofortress leads a formation over the Baltic Sea.jpg

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

not own work; source=http://www.biolampy_bioptron.bioptrony.sk/bioptron_medall/ Tomas62 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Dharmadhyaksha: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange.

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

Unused small-size private photo. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused selfie of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope - unused personal image Глеб Иванович (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self with family - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept / In use.--Fanghong (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo is of self - clearly out of scope Yohannvt (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

empty since 2013 SamWinchester000 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Empty.--Fanghong (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope: personal image, no educational content Florn (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Maxadamia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:COPYVIOs: Notice the names in the titles which show who took the photo...

None of the images seems to be by the uploader. Notice also the small and variable sizes, styles and so on.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I agree, unlikely to be uploader's work. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by 逃逃隐身

[edit]

Files uploaded by 逃逃隐身, including

Extreme low resolution, quite likely to be copy-vio. Siyuwj (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

correction Schach100 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: If you make a mistake, you can use {{Speedy}} next time. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax flag. No sourses for Lordship of Apia in internet. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax flag. No sourses for Lordship of Apia in internet. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax flag. No sourses for Republic of Uaboe in internet. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax flag. No sourses for Maltata in internet. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax map. All edits of uploader here and in other wikiеs also hoaxes. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 110.1.117.120 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: Hoax flag. No sourses for Maltata in internet. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: I did some googling, seems like a hoax. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poor quality image of a soccer scene that is undescribed. Does not seem within scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poor quality image of a soccer scene that is undescribed. Seems out of scope  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of project scope, not useful for education George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of project scope, not useful for education George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

morphing, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

screenshot of a copyrighted page Pippobuono (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by DaCasa013 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... or * probadly grabbed from Facebook. Uploaded in 04.2016. Considering also File:Vivên'Cia Cultural de Rua 2ª Edição.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/VivenciaSonora/photos/pb.433817100058345.-2207520000.1465627994./662399093866810/?type=3&theater (2015).

Gunnex (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Very unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Velu66 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Meaningless name direct or promotional name

~AntanO4task (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ирина_Карра_Бранкович.jpg Ирина Карра Бранкович (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request, personal image. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work of copyrighted content (if own work in the first place).    FDMS  4    08:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sandinovamh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope / unclear copyright status (lowres, no EXIF and/or derivative works)

   FDMS  4    08:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most have apparently been taken from Facebook (FBMD "special instructions" in EXIF).    FDMS  4    08:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unlikely to be own work, unclear copyright status. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work; source=http://www.ogloszenia.krakow.pl/476305 Tomas62 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination + advertising content. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope: poor quality photomontage without educational purpose Florn (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Kodakan51

[edit]

The claims of all uploads being "own works" are implausible given the starkly different styles of the photos and the inconsistent EXIF data. Further, one file is clearly a logo and two others are at a minimum derivative works of the works of a still living artist. Some might be relicense-able but otherwise they should probably be all deleted under COM:PCP --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Pour : Je suis d'accord pour la suppression, d'autant plus que cette photo pourra être remplacée par un autre portrait de Dame CSaunders qui figure au même fichier mais téléversé le 29 avril 2009. Cordialement.--Sidonie61 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Proper licences are needed. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by DrAnnamalaiPandian (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.deepamhospitals.com/images/news/img17.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Lbfagien (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Collection of promo photos and album covers. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Collection of promo photos and album covers. No evidence of permission(s). -- Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Lbfagien (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope

Mjrmtg (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unused, personal images, out of scope. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no use for educational purposes. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by RecordMeister1984 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Claims of "own work" do not hold up due to age of the photos. They might be PD, but without real sourcing one can't tell.

XR728 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Proper source needed to identify the licence. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Yk jadeja (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Drawings or paintings unlikely to be own work of uploader, yet licensed as "self".

Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. Some photos have in EXIF "Software used: Google"". --Podzemnik (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agreed. Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Delete}}


Deleted: Was deleted. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was an error. Please delete it. -- ■ Sultan mesaj 06:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: If you make a mistake, you can use {{Speedy}} next time. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{delete|reason=It is old one|subpage=hasitha oshan.jpg|year=2016|month=June|day=10}}


Deleted: Testing page?. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am uploading the same file in better resolution Herambms (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: You can use "Upload a new version of the file" next time. New version is now available at File:Citadel of Peth Fort (Kothaligad) in Western Ghats.png. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

La resolución de este archivo es muy pequeña y hay otros de mayor calidad que reproducen esta pintura. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, see File:El descubrimiento del pulque, por José María Obregón.jpg. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low-resolution version of content already available in Category:Descubrimiento del pulque (José María Obregón). False licensing claims. LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 06:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplication of File:Aboard a Japanese carrier before the attack on Pearl Harbor.jpg, which is of better quality than this image Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused logo Mippzon (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope I think. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused blank image Mippzon (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused image that does not provide any value to commons. Mippzon (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused logo with no added value to commons Mippzon (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commercial message Mippzon (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screenshot with no use Mippzon (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

 Info These are just some files I picked from the user's uploads to avoid a huge DR with several thousands of files, but the concerns are applicable to all of the user's uploads.

While checking the user's uploads of the past year, I was able to find pictures taken with 16 different camera models (and some without any Exif data):

  • Apple iPod touch
  • Apple iPhone 3GS
  • Apple iPhone 4
  • HTC One V
  • HTC Panache
  • ZTE N762
  • ZTE N860
  • LG Electronics LGP500
  • LG Electronics T320
  • SAMSUNG SGH-I827D
  • SAMSUNG GT-S7560M
  • BlackBerry 8530
  • google Nexus S
  • KENOX S760 / Samsung S760
  • PENTAX Optio E40
  • Acer A1-810

While the uploader may own some of those, most of the files are most probably not own work (as tagged).

Also alarming:

Didym (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I'm not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to warrant PCP-based mass deletion of Bull-Doser's (claimed) *own* images such as those listed above.
Here's one strong piece of evidence- I checked most of the images listed on a reverse Google Image search and can't see any signs of them being- or having been- used elsewhere. All matches seem to be Wikimedia references to the Commons uploads.
I've tweaked a quite few of Bull-Doser's images, as they're often flawed but still usable with some minor work. As a result I've come to notice that he has a moderately consistent "style"- to the point I've recognised images as his when reading an article. This includes:-
    • Almost aggressively tight cropping of cars (example), often squeezed in on the diagonal (e.g. example). (Since- as stated- the images don't seem to appear on a reverse search, they probably *haven't* been cropped from elsewhere).
    • Use of smartphone cameras (often with white clipping)
    • High contrast and glare issues (due in part to pictures having been taken under sunny conditions or in car show halls with reflective lights, but also seems to be no attempt to avoid this issue)
      • Sometimes shot against bright sunlight causing massively excessive glare and loss of detail; many such examples have been deleted due to being deemed unacceptable quality
    • Issues with colour balance (possibly due to aforementioned smartphones; this seems to be more common on his older uploads)
    • Haze (common with smartphones where grease can get on the lens) (e.g. this image)
    • From what I can tell, mostly (but not exclusively) shot in or around Quebec, as evidenced by signs and use of French (e.g. this image again)
Yes, may of these are quality issues- but that's not what's under discussion here. The point is that there seem to be recurring traits in almost all his uploads, suggesting they came from a single source (i.e. him). That, combined with the lack of reverse search matches elsewhere implies that few- if any- came from elsewhere.
I agree that the use of multiple cameras is strange; however, I also note that they're mainly smartphone cameras, with a few low-to-midrange digital compacts and a tablet. No DSLRs. If Bull-Doser's (claimed) own images were actually copyvios, I'd expect a more diverse range of styles including higher-quality images and/or DSLR sourced ones.
I'm not anti-PCP, quite the opposite. But for it to be applied in bulk to *all* a user's uploads- as seems to be suggested here- there has to be very strong evidence, and I don't see that's the case for his *own* images.
However, we definitely *should* examine the files he's explicitly uploaded from external sources (e.g. Flickr) separately. I haven't done this myself, so I can't say if there's consistent evidence of a problem there or not (e.g. Intentionally uploading copyvios? Shortcutting the review process? I don't know).
Ubcule (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep As much as I am tired of BD's awful photos, I don't feel that he's a copythief. If anything he may lack some basic understanding of Commons operations and functions, but he has been uploading s**t phone pictures of cars from Quebec and from the occasional Caribbean or Mexican vacation for many years now without copyright issues. I am in favour of mercilessly pruning for quality from BD's uploads while vociferously defending his basic decency. And, as per Ubcule, his photographic thumbprint is easily recognizable for those of us who have dealt with BD repeatedly over the years. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep... Like Ubcule and Mr.choppers, I too am very familiar with Bull-Doser's uploads. He is the oldest car photographer at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, having started uploading in 2005 as Take Me Higher. He is blocked on en.wiki, and while he was there, was universally loathed for annoying edits that did not follow guidelines despite multiple attempts by various users to engage with him.
Regarding his photos, no matter which camera he uses, no matter what the car, no matter what the weather, his photos are highly consistent—consistently bad. Sometimes I wonder if this is just a really long-running practical joke to see how long he can upload poor quality photos for... but probably not. As mentioned by Ubcule, Bull-Doser's "style" is also a consistent form of low quality photography that one does not see elsewhere. Nonetheless, he makes a valuable contribution despite uploading a bunch of unusable garbage to go along with the odd useful file. I have no doubt the work is his own. I have not come across any suspicious activity regarding fake copyright with Bull-Doser's "own work" ever—not even an inkling of doubt. I have nominated many of his photos for deletion on the grounds of "low quality", as a look at his user talk page will testify. I have also nominated hundreds of other car photos from other users as copyvios based on suspicious circumstances, so I am certainly not allergic to deletions.
The multiple cameras is a little strange, but even I am currently using four cameras right now (two generations of iPhone, a pocketable point-and-shoot, and a bulky point-and-shoot). Look, maybe Bull-Doser is really just a Québécois family of identical octuplets running around with a fleet of cheap cameras and chasing their neighbours driving to work like here and here. I don't know, but the multiple camera anomaly is not strong enough to offset all the other evidence that is in Bull-Doser's favour.
Regarding the Flickr issues, as per Ubcule this should be examined separately. I would not trust Bull-Doser's judgement for such issues. But in summary, PLEASE DON'T DELETE... these ARE his own work! OSX (talkcontributions) 01:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I blocked Bull-Doser for two weeks. That gives us some time to scan through at least some of his uploads without him creating more havoc. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts: Skimming over the uploads, one can see several photos made at the same location on the same day with two or even more different cameras. I assume that Bull-Doser is more than one person, willingly or not. That would explain the great variety of camera models. Right now it seems more like a PCP problem, rather than AGF. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you saying, we should delete all of his photos as a precaution? Because that is the stupidest idea I have ever heard! OSX (talkcontributions) 08:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions as an admin are way out of line: this attack ("End your copyright violations or the next block will be much longer or even indefinite") is entirely inappropriate and is based on a misguided opinion by you, not a fact. OSX (talkcontributions) 08:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely disagree with this decision. I have also nominated many of BD's worst photos for deletion, but I have never seen anything (until this Baptiste Hamon incident) that would suggest any copyright improprieties. I feel that a much stronger case than a hunch would be needed before any blocks or anything else. If I had the time I would even venture to start proceedings to have BD unblocked. @Hedwig in Washington: could you provide a set of pictures taken the same day with several different phones? Or, more to the point, could you provide an example of a photo (other than the Baptiste Hamon photo discussed separately) that is a copyvio? Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OSX: No, I didn't say delete them all. I just stated that there is a reasonable doubt about the copyright of his/her uploads. And no, it is not an attack to warn the user about what will come next. How is that an attack? This doesn't belong here, but on the AN board.

@Mr.choppers: Like I and Didym stated above: The use of that many cameras is at least suspicious. I should have been more explicit. What I meant by the date is the upload date. I seems that the files are uploaded when the user gets a hand on the other cameras used. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but this does not excuse you from applying an unjustified two-week block. There is doubt about the upload of ONE file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baptiste W. Hamon dans le 12h20 de la Gare Montparnasse.jpg. No one knows for sure as to whether the file was in fact licenced as Creative Commons at the time of upload and was changed soon after or not. This can happen and considering there is only one dubious file out of many thousands he has uploaded, I would tend to give Bull-Doser the benefit of the doubt. He uploaded the file six weeks ago at 04:56, 17 July 2015, why make a block after such a long time has passed?
The reason why it is an attack is because nobody knows if the file was actually temporarily licenced as Creative Commons at the time of upload. Maybe it was an honest error as well? Given 10 years of intense uploading, and this is the first issue regarding copyright (AFAIK), this seems entirely plausible. Thus, by stating "End your copyright violations or the next block will be much longer or even indefinite" and then issuing a two-week block seems very much like an unjustified attack to me given the circumstances. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the different cameras when looked at from the date of upload, this is not a good measure. If Bull-Doser is getting the faulty cameras in large numbers and uses them, it is entirely plausible that he uploads the photos from each device in a batch. So yes, sometimes the date taken will not be in the same order as date uploaded. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon he uploads each camera in turn. I know that uploading phone images to my computer is a hassle, so that doesn't surprise me. I reckon that if there was a concern with the number of phones (they're mostly low grade cell phones) then copyright concerns would have percolated up long long ago. I am completely on board with keeping BD away from Flickr and such. But again: this entire thing is just based on a gut feeling. Me (and several other users) have dealt with BD over the years, and have never felt any concern in this area. Perhaps you could check some of BD's wp:en history? See this section for a comment that should make it obvious that I am not BD's buddy (I don't think you think so, just wanted to make it clear!) and to find a number of other editors that can't be expected to hold BD's back. Perhaps some of them could shed some light on BD's habits? And lastly, if there is someone out there who can prove that BD stole an automobile image from them (I can only speak surely of those photos), then I will completely withdraw my objections. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly fine with taking the heat for the block, since it seems that the block did what is was supposed to do. The block might have missed BD's attention if it was way shorter. Giving his edit pattern, I decided on two weeks to reach BD. That's all there's to it. Removal of the block is already underway, see BD's talkpage. Regarding the cameras out of the recycling bin: This is news and came to light today after the block got BD attention. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodie, I think that is fair. And you're right, BD only listens after one pokes him a bit. Maybe we could also force him to archive his talk page, it is so friggin long that nothing works on there any longer. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done: [1]. I'm probably not meant to do this... OSX (talkcontributions) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: - it just occurred to me, do we have a policy on using stolen equipment? BTW, I am not sure that BD is stealing them, his explanation is rather unclear and he often misses the kernel of an argument. Also, I reckon that File:Stéphanie Lapointe dans le salle Jean-Claude Lauzon de l'UQAM -- 2.jpg should definitely be deleted due to its stalkerish quality plus the fact that a toddler (hers?) is in the photo. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it matters. Say, I steal your camera and snap a picture with it, I am the author. A status which I might enjoy looking out from my cell window tho. To make it perfectly clear: I didn't accuse BD of stealing those phones. Actually, I should have refrained from even asking. But that's hindsight. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, can I really claim ownership when using stolen property? Unsure right now. Oh oh, back to the the monkey took a photo discussion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that event entirely! Thanks for sharing. Took the liberty of wikilinking above. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical issues aside, surely ownership/authorised use of the device and copyrights of the work are separate matters? If using stolen cameras is a problem, I would hate to think what this means for all the people using pirated version of Adobe Photoshop to edit their images! OSX (talkcontributions) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what everybody's talking about but uploading with 16 different camera models can't be all own work. We can not trust the own work claim. so definitely  Delete -- Geagea (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geagea, I ask that you please take a look at review in greater detail. Your comments suggest that you have not spent any considerable time looking at the case and have drawn a conclusion based on the 16 different camera models alone. At face value, I agree that it can be misconstrued that BD is uploading copyright violations, but looking closely, it is clear this is not the case. OSX (talkcontributions) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OSX, Please explain yourself. And remember admin action is irrelevant here, only the copyright issue. -- Geagea (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean. I'm not talking about the admin action. I am pointing out the flaw in your comment that 16 different camera models = definite copyvio. What myself and others are stating is that at face value, the uploads look suspect, but a deeper analysis shows that this is not the case. BD admitted he pulls old cameras and phones out of recycling bins for old electronics found in department stores and the like [2]. Considering the devices used are never particularly new, this story can be corroborated by the uploads he makes. All the photos follow a consistent "style" of poor quality that is unique to BD (as detailed by Ubcule above). The photos are almost always taken in and around Quebec, those that are not are part of a series of very occasional vacation shots (usually Mexico or the Dominican Republic). He has followed this pattern since 2005 when he began as Take Me Higher. If Bull-Doser's (claimed) own images were actually copyvios, we'd expect a more diverse range of styles including higher-quality images (i.e. DSLR sourced ones) and photos from more places that just Quebec. Out of the 15,299 files (including deletions) he has uploaded to Commons as of today, 336 to the Wikipedia, and 427 files uploaded by his old Take Me Higher account, we have one proven copyvio of a file transferred from Flickr with an invalid licence [3]. No one knows for sure as to whether the file was in fact licenced as Creative Commons at the time of upload and then changed back to "all rights reserved" soon after. Furthermore, no one has been able to locate an original source for any of the other 16,062 files in question that have been uploaded prolifically for 10 years (99 percent plus of which are as claimed as his own work). Something would have come up well before now if there was impropriety going on. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wouldn't usually nominate images for deletion if they were the only photos Commons had of a given subject. I've cut some of Bull-Doser's concert and stage images a lot of slack for this reason.

In this case, however, the quality is so poor that the images don't show anything meaningful about the band in question. If I hadn't done a Google search for them, I still wouldn't know what they looked like; they're just a bunch of indistinct figures on a stage. In the second photo, I assumed the figure on the right was a woman until I realised there wasn't a woman in the band...!

To be honest, smartphone cameras aren't the best for high contrast, low light photography like this. The high levels of noise reduction they use under those conditions loses tons of detail.

(Also, due to the way areas of detail are detected, the haze on the lens increases this tendency).

Ubcule (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as per Ubcule. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Abysmal quality. If we had better-quality pictures of this subject, all four would be unacceptable. As it is, I've left the least bad (File:Hatchie Ritz PDB -- 4.jpg) and nominated the other three.

This user's effort is appreciated, but their complete lack of quality control totally lets it down.

Ubcule (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Ditto previous nominations- abysmal quality. If we had better-quality pictures of this subject, all four would be unacceptable. As it is, I've left the least bad (File:Kississippi Ritz PDB -- 4.jpg) and nominated the other three.

Ubcule (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (Dead Posey au Le Ministère) (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not of reasonably usable quality.

Ubcule (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Regardless of whether or not we already have pictures of this actress, do we consider these of usable quality?

It's a shame that this editor seems to make the effort to find these subjects, then squanders that by not putting more effort into the photographs themselves, but experience shows that this is something that will not change.

Ubcule (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dreadful quality, File:Folly & The Hunter au Ritz PDB -- 1.jpg is the least awful, and we only need one in the absence of anything better.

Ubcule (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Unusable quality.

Ubcule (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely being charitable! :-) If an image's main purpose is to serve as a representation of that person then- IMO- it's not useful in any meaningful sense if the *most* one can make out is that they're blonde...!
I think we have to have some minimum standards for usefulness and general quality, even where an image is the only example of a person on Commons.
While I'm here, I'll also note that many of this uploader's images which *do* make it over that low bar of being (barely) usable- e.g. File:Cindy Daniel dehors le Zénith Promutel assurance.jpg- are still {{Low quality}} and would probably warrant deletion if Commons already had better examples of the subject.
That most of his images of people *are* the sole examples at least show that Bull-Doser is covering a previously-unfilled niche... it's just a shame that he's doing it with such poor-quality images. Ubcule (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded my share of really poor quality sole images of people, mind you. For example, File:Charlayne Woodard at Dramatists Guild of America.jpg, and File:Margaret Abraham.jpg. I try to do better (see my user page) but sometimes, a poor quality fuzzy image is all we can get, and they are better than nothing. --GRuban (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too sidelined here, but with respect, that first one's really pushing the limits of what I'd consider acceptable, even after sharpening. Ubcule (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann and GRuban: - See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aram_Bajakian_café_Résonance.jpg. Ubcule (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Poor quality images, most with significant haze problems. These are vehicles we already have plenty of representative (and better quality photos) of.

Ubcule (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. Unneeded, unused, and unusable for any purpose. --Sable232 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low-quality images unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Ytoyoda (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any other images, the "Jay Du Temple" image is acceptable; it shows what he looks like, even if the lighting and processing/NR makes him look oddly plasticky, like an early CGI rendering....!
The first (Alice Morel-Michaud) is poor; I'm not sure whether or not it could be argued that it's better than nothing. I increased the brightness, but that also shows up the flaws more.
Looking at the second one (Anik Jean), IMHO it's below acceptable quality regardless. Ubcule (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all.
The "Anik Jean" photo looks more like Odo from Deepspace Nine, having a Bad Bucket Day. Photographs this poor serve no purpose here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bull-Doser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Adding more unused and likely unusable portrait images to the above listing.

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Burak Durgun

[edit]

These "own work" claims are highly suspect in light of the starkly different natures of each image (logos, photos of what seems like different origins), the missing/inconsistent EXIF data. Further, it's not clear that the uploader is the copyright holder of the logos. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyvio, cf (c) in the center Pippobuono (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not the uploader's work (available e.g. on http://hsr-staubsauger.de/sebo/staubsauger.php ) and the leaf may be copyright eligible Nemo 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyviol from http://www.lacittadelluomo.it/img/bambino_studioso_322.jpg Threecharlie (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cropping and adding a logo over a copyrighted publicity image (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br91hXDCEAED_eS.jpg and other locations) does not qualify a work to be free. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless file with no useful information. Selfpromotion. Zac Allan (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Launch Terminal 3700.jpg Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Launch Terminal 3700.jpg Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Launch Terminal 3700.jpg Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Launch Terminal 3700.jpg Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Launch Terminal 3700.jpg Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looking at the original image, this is a photograph of a screenshot. See COM:DW. Also, even the photograph was never properly sourced. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bad quality, Commons has whole category:The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne (painting by Vinci). Taivo (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not own work, bad quality. Commons has whole category:Lamentation of Christ by Mantegna. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

How the certificate is in project scope? What does it illustrate? In addition, the certificate is not own work, maybe copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pohľad_na_Bukovské_vrchy_zo_Sninského_kameňa.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, uploader added two the same, removing one. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not even close to same picture. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9   15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_031.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Images were taken two years apart and are not same image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9   15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not same image, taken over a year apart. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9   15:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_026.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_026.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not same picture, taken two years apart. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate: File:Paul Signac, Application of Charles Henry's Chromatic Circle; Théâtre-Libre playbill of January 31, 1889.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{BadJPG}}; orphaned/replaced by TeX code. Leyo 21:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{BadJPG}}; orphaned/replaced by PNG version and TeX code. Leyo 21:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{BadJPG}}; orphaned/replaced by TeX code. Leyo 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{BadJPG}}; orphaned/replaced by TeX code. Leyo 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is an ESA image and not free enough for Commons! Ras67 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo not useful for an educational purpose; out of scope Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Self-created artwork for self-promotion not useful for any educational purpose; out of scope Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like commercial message Mippzon (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is an ESA image and not free enough for Commons! Ras67 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by ALTO es ALTO (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked/photoshopped.

Gunnex (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The resolution is very small, making it not useful on commons Yohannvt (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Suthep hope (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook.

Gunnex (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no explanation or evidence as to why this would be in the public domain. LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very low resolution. No scope of use in Commons Yohannvt (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

low resolutionm no exif, unlinkely own work Krd 10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

low resolutino, no exif, unlikely own work Krd 10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

"File:Sinar Mas Center.jpg" it's a photo from Shanghai (China), not UAE. Jackedi07 (discusión) 11:35 14 may 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jackedi07 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No FOP in the UAE

Elisfkc (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Jackedi07 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These drawings are silhouettes of copyrighted buildings and can not publish under a free licence without the architect's consent!

Ras67 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estas imágenes ni siquiera son representaciones exactas de los edificios, no entiendo como una imagen en negro puede tener copyright, entendería si fuera la imagen real del diseño del edificio. Y ademas esto no se aplica a fotos en las que salen diferentes edificios, ¿por que en esta si cuando ni siquiera es una representación exacta si se aplica este criterio de borrado? Jackedi07 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: the silhouettes are very simple --> PD-ineligible. --Jcb (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, this is a derivative of someone else's photo. As much as it is useful to have an identifying photo, it will not be possible to host this on Commons, unless the original photographer licenses the image, or when 70 years have passed after the death of the photographer. Alternatively it might be possible to upload this locally as fair-use on some Wikipedias. Green Giant (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

better: File:Paul signac, la barca a vela verde, 1904, 01.JPG Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Didym (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely out of scope and still no license. --JuTa 07:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

this map is based on wrong sources --Georgiano (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you should know, since your name is given as its creator!

This map should be deleted, since it is a distorted version of the original map of Zakarid Armenia by George A. Bournoutian --Rs4815 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, OK, uploader's request, unused file. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not convinced this is too simple for copyright in Canada. See COM:TOO#Canada. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not convinced this is too simple for copyright in Canada. See COM:TOO#Japan. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Liondartois (talk · contribs)

[edit]
English: The architect was Robert Mallet-Stevens (1886-1945) ; not in the public domain before 2016.

VIGNERON (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Villa Cavrois too.

I feel that some of these pictures may not be named. If we take the examples of the clock, the floor, the kitchen or the furniture, we can't attribute that to Mallet Stevens. This is not in the "framework" of the French law on the panorama.Don't you think?--Liondartois (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On peut parler français, ce sera plus simple ;)
Effectivement, certains fichiers ne représentent peut-être pas des œuvres de Robert Mallet-Stevens (sans certitude, il n'est pas inhabituel pour un architecte à cet époque de concevoir l'aménagement intérieur, cette page du site officiel le confirme au moins pour la cuisine et les chaises Tubor) ; cependant ces œuvres ont forcément un auteur et donc une protection.
Quant à la liberté de panorama, elle n'existe pas en France ; on est donc forcément hors de son cadre ;) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: To be restored on jan 1, 2016 Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Liondartois (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The University of Artois was founded in 1992. Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in France. Commons cannot host these photos unless we have permission from the architect, or when the architect had been dead for 70 years. It might be possible to upload them locally to any Wikipedias that allow fair use.

Green Giant (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, modern architecture in France, which has only non-commercial FOP. --Storkk (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

画像を差し替えたため Pony Bin (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Щербаков4 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Headstones: no FoP in Russia for sculptures, others: not own works but derivatives.

カザフ (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work (animated gif), probadly grabbed somewhere from https://www.facebook.com/GeoGIF/ Gunnex (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

no evidence of CC-license on given source Avron (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

More for discussion than deletion. It's a duplicate of this file at english wikipedia, which was uploaded in 2015 as "own work" by a different user. Themightyquill (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very small resolution. Of no use in commons Yohannvt (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No Metaadata. Also it looks like this is a photo of another image Yohannvt (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original DR by Exj - seem to violate TOO. — regards, Revi 08:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Das Bild stammt von ca. 1940. Der Hochlader hat keinen Beweis vorgelegt, dass der Fotograf vor 1946 verstorben ist oder nicht feststellbar ist. Siehe auch das vollständige Foto, ebenfalls ohne Quellenangabe, hier: http://www.noveporte.it/dandy/dandies/rochelle.htm Goesseln (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work of 2016, no permission Krd 10:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely authorship claims. Needs truthful source, authorship and copyright information. LX (talk, contribs) 10:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Random picture. Out of scope. No value to commons Yohannvt (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in France. Whilst the museum has existed since 1922, this building was only designed recently and opened in June 2014. We cannot host images of the exterior without permission from the architect. Green Giant (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in France. Whilst the collection has existed for some years, this building was only opened in 2012. We cannot host images of the exterior without permission from the architect, until the architect has been dead for seventy years. We need to know who designed the building and whether they are still alive (as morbid as that sounds). Green Giant (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in France. Whilst this monument appears to have existed since 1993, we cannot host images of it without permission from the architect, or until the architect has been dead for seventy years. It might be possible to upload the photo locally on any Wikipedias that allow fair use or the equivalent. Green Giant (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

FC Exchange logos

[edit]

While the uploader's edit history on enwiki suggests that they may be editing on behalf of the group, there is no firm proof nor firm proof that they have the authority to relicense the logos. Further, the group website indicates it's a London-based group and thus PD-logo may not apply in the country of origin.--Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Viola los derechos de autor C. Jonel [talk] 13:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

and

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo potentially above TOO Nemo 14:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contradictory copyright information: the source is indicated as being Onis (a company that's the subject of the image), but the uploader's username appears in the Author field. We can't keep something with an unclear rights status. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

possible copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frze (talk • contribs) 2016-06-10T21:02:27‎ (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[koha.net/?id=6&l=113317 Copyright violation]. Rapsar (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I doubt that the uploader created this photo by their own. A question asked on their german talkpage on the circumstances the uploader was able to took the photography in the 80s still remains unanswered to this day. On the other hand I couldn’t find any other source for the picture. vıכıaяפ 18:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This work is in three dimensions and PD-art doesn't apply. See COM:ART#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lyrics copyright violation, no article used DreamLiner (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo copyright violation, no article used DreamLiner (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical image, not own work. The file can be in public domain due to age, but correct author, source and license are needed. I do not know even country of origin. Taivo (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of user's own work on this headshot. No exif data, not in use, no category. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image of jackal from King Tut's tomb, very similar to https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cd/a8/05/cda8052d802c0253231f1b365b740b8b.jpg except that this version has jpg artefacts and other indications that it is not user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate: File:Paul Signac Les Bateaux à Flessingue.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate: File:Paul Signac, Application of Charles Henry's Chromatic Circle; Théâtre-Libre playbill of January 31, 1889.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No permission, questionable source, See [4] Giraldillo (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The user has a history of uploading copyvio images to commons for spamming on en-wiki. I have tagged the other verifiable copyvios for deletion with tineye links. I blocked 3 socks on en-wiki, only two have been active here this one & User:Jack3rnation. --versageek (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The uploader didnt provide a real source of rights for this photo as it can be copyrighted. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploader claims that the WikiCommons user User:Oliver Burghart has released the logo to the public domain. No such user exists, hence the copyright status can not be verified. Thuresson (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyvio: We have established that this memorial is under copyright so we delete photos of the statue per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There doesn't seem to be any connection between the title, subject and description. Image was used in a declined submission, is not presently in use and seems to be out of COM:SCOPE, must be realistically useful for an educational purpose, and also the text appears to be promotional - but of what? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9   17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by 5.9.162.140 as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Commons is not private photoalbum - out of scope  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vector version available : Divided Yemen.svg Flappiefh (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Tomasddl as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry not free licensed. Other works have been similarly commented yet were works of the author. Contributor has been request to comment on the deletion request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, at panoramino, the author has written "Las fotos subidas son propiedad personal y son compartidas bajo los derechos [Creative Commons Venezuela](http://www.creativecommonsvenezuela.org.ve/cc-licencias) bajo los cuales tienes la libertad de compartirlas haciendo atribución al fotografo (Tomás De la Rosa, aunque prefiero coloques un enlace), bajo ningun concepto podrás hacer uso de mis fotos con implicaciones monetarias a no ser que yo lo permita explicitamente…" Which rules out commercial use. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Tomasddl as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry not free licensed  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no source. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Tomasddl as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry not free licensed  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no source. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Tomasddl as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry not free licensed  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no source. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Tomasddl as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Sorry not free licensed  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no source. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better: File:Paul Signac Palais des Papes Avignon.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better: File:Paul Signac Femmes au puits 1892 high resolution.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My image shows more how the colours look like in real. I think we can easily keep both. --Sailko (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, the one kept credits the painter, the one removed was listed as own work which it obviously is not. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better: File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better what? I want my images to include the frame, if you want to create a derivation without the frame please re upload as another file. Thanks --Sailko (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. Jaipasdepseudo (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, the one kept credits the painter, the one removed was listed as own work which it obviously is not. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative of presumably copyright photos; no COM:FOP in France MPF (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously my own work. Everybody may see this tree in the little arboretum of the municipality of Epinal, a public place alond the Moselle. This picture would had to be joined to File:Thuya émeraude du parc Epinal.jpg. But I don't succeed to create a link. I try now.--Harvey Stillnot (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is your own work, but not the notice, created by a professional, actual owner of the copyrights. Freedom of panorama is not recognised in France. It would be diffrent if the notice had been smaller , and not un the center. --Salix (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yamamoto Kanae died in 1946. His paintings had not fallen in the public domain in Japan on Jan 1, 1996, and the copyright was restored in the USA until 2017. This nomination includes only the paintings which are not claimed to predate 1923.

— Racconish ☎ 08:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow—even if this challenge is valid, is there any point in removing these images six months before the copyright would expire again? Curly Turkey (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment There is an ongoing discussion on the French project to nominate the article on this painter as a "good article" [5], which would imply featuring it on the main page. We are wondering if we should wait and until when to do so. — Racconish ☎ 08:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting—it looks like a translation of the article I wrote for the English Wikipedia. I haven't finished expanding it yet—I have a lot of information to add yet from Kosaki's biography, particularly in Kanae's later life. Curly Turkey (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamamoto Kanae died in 1946. His paintings had not fallen in the public domain in Japan on Jan 1, 1996 and the copyright was restored in the USA until 2017. This nomination includes only the paintings which predate 1923. Although the US copyright office clarifies that offering single copy works for sale in a gallery exhibit is not to be considered as publication [6], I have found no evidence of such exhibition of these paintings before 1923, in contrast with his "peasant art" multiples which were exhibited at the Mitsukoshi department store in 1920 [7].

— Racconish ☎ 08:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: non-USA works. --Jcb (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA - URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Selbst hochgeladen. Bild wurde von mir ersetzt durch eins mit Quellenangabe. Dieses ist nun überflüssig geworden. Außerdem fehlt bei diesem der Bindestrich im Nachnamen. Geo-Science-International (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Das alles ist eigentlich kein Grund für eine Löschung, sondern hätte durch "Hochladen einer neuen Version" gelöst werden können. Zudme wird hier auch nicht wirklich gelöscht, sondern in Wahrheit bleibt alles auf dem Server. Insofern macht es keinen Unterschied, ob das jetzt bleibt oder geht, aber meinetwegen:  Delete I cast a deletion vote, uploader's own will, he replaced the picture by a better version. GeoTrinity (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assertion is that "Die Deckelvorderseite der Originalverpackung selbst erreicht nicht die nötige Schöpfungshöhe, um Urheberrechtsschutz zu genießen." ("The lid front the original package itself does not reach the original authorship to enjoy copyright protection.")

Is this correct under German law, and doesn't it also have to be true under US law for Commons (i.e. both below the threshold of originality in the US and in Germany)?

(Google translation: "Ist das richtig nach deutschem Recht, und nicht, es muss auch nach US-Recht für Commons wahr sein (das heißt sowohl unter der Schwelle von Originalität in den USA und in Deutschland)?")

Ubcule (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: COM:DW. --Krd 15:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this below threshold of originality in Germany, and doesn't it still fall foul of Commons' requirement for uploads to be free in both country of origin *and* the US?

(Google translated: "Ist das unterhalb der Schwelle von Originalität in Deutschland, und es fällt nicht noch Foul von Commons Anforderung für Uploads in beiden Ursprungsland * und * den USA frei zu sein?")

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:GEOS 128 Version 2.0 German.png (which includes rationale) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:TI-99 Terminal Emulator II.jpg (which doesn't).

Ubcule (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No confidence that this image was created by uploader whose other uploads were all on this same subject, and all copied from (C) websites. I was unable to find a larger, earlier version of this in a net search, but there is also no indicaiton of user's own work and a history of COM:COPYVIOs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please see discussion on my talk page where user makes clear that this file is not his own work. I have asked the uploader to comment here. The images were taken from a news website, although they may be available from the prosecutor's office which was not cited as a source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amitie, You won't able to find a larger version of this photo in the english web as I personally took it during the Annual Prosecutors Conference in Baku in January 2015. However, If you search əziz seyidov net then you will be able to stumble upon his pictures. Furthermore, in http://www.genprosecutor.gov.az/?/az/pressreliz/view/261/ there are numerous other photos of Aziz Seyidov published by Press Service of General Prosecutors Office of Azerbaijan and which have been used by news agencies such as trend.az, haqqin.az, telegraf.az and etc.

You can see the similar photo to mine which was taken at the start of the conference in January by the trend.az news agency.

http://az.trend.az/azerbaijan/society/2354142.html 

http://metbuat.az/news/12766/baki-seher-prokurorlugu-istintaq-ve-tehqiqatin-obyektiv-apar.html


However, there are other pictures of Aziz Seyidov such as:

Aziz Seyidov in the press conference.jpg 

Opening of annual conference of the Prosecutors in Baku 2014.jpg

Aziz Seyidov with his collegues.jpg

Aziz Seyidov before the crowd.jpg

That are not my work, but the work of the Press Service of the General Prosecutors Office of Azerbaijan (where are currently work) which were used by other news agencies. I took them from the news agency websites instead of the Press Service and posted the source of a picture as that agency but the author was the Press Service of General Prosecutors office of Republic of Azerbaijan (Metbuat Xidmeti).

Best regards, Alex


Deleted: per COM:PRP. --INeverCry 23:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image would have value if it was described and had a place in the world. O have asked the user to add the description, however, if they do not add the detail, then it should be deleted as out of scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: very blurry. --INeverCry 23:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bilderwiesel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

author unknown, no evidence for given license

Krd 06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just a wrong template used? I think that e.g. File:Friedrich Alfred Krupp.jpg could be marked as {{Anonymous-EU}}. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted book cover (PD tag doesn't appear to apply).    FDMS  4    08:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: The book is old What is the problem in the Cover? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Old? 1991 is the opposite of old in terms of copyright. While the text may be some centuries old, the cover picture doesn't appear to be so.    FDMS  4    10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: Everything was produced in 1991:This file is currently in the public domain in Egypt --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the PD tag you used, Egyptian works with an identifiable author are in the PD in Egypt and the U.S. if the author died prior to 1966 and the author died prior to 1946 or [the work was] published prior to 1923.    FDMS  4    13:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FDMS4: In Egypt, the file be free after 25 years from its creation (See in Wikipedia) and the license must be corrected in all languages --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the English Wikipedia version of the template this work will enter the PD in Egypt in 2017. However, a PD status in the source country only isn't sufficient for file to be hosted on Commons, and this file certainly isn't in the PD in the U.S.. What exactly did you mean by everything was produced in 1991?    FDMS  4    14:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete One correction and an opposing point of view: The date counts from publication, not from creation. The painting shown on the cover is not a work of applied arts but fine arts, the relevant date here is 50 years post mortem auctoris. If the painting is old and the painter died >50 years, than the 25 years term would be relevant for the design of this bookcover. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin H.: The author (The Painter) is unknown.if the file will be considered as a work of art, it will be free in 2041.But I see it is not so.It is not a painting --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you have to describe a little bit why you think it is a work of applied art, this edit suggests that you know more. It does not look like a simple photography but a painting (or drawing, ... technique doesnt matter) and such works qualify as fine art. --Martin H. (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin H.: It's a simple drawing, not a painting --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it will be free on January 1 2042. You also uploaded a photo from the book which could have the same problem as a work of literature, unless the text is much older. The description and source information isnt very informative on this matter. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin H.: No problem in old books and I do not see a problem in a simple drawing.I see that it is not a work of art --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is not a work of applied art, it is an artistic work as defined in egyptian copyright law Article 140,9. And works, even if insignficant (Article 138,1) are protected 50 years post mortem (Article 160). The case is pretty clear. And for Category:Pope Shenouda and the history of Coptic Church you should describe who wrote those old textes. The publcation date suggests that there is a problem, any literary work - and that is almost any text - by Shenouda III or about the papacy of Shenouda III will be in copyright today by simple math and logic. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is personal POV without any references to the claims of seperatism or autonomy in each region. It mixes - like apples and pears - serious issues, that cause even international tension, with hobbyist movements that are not even taken serious within the regions themselves. Wuselig (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also File:Active separatist movements in Europe.svg.--Enok (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The File:Active separatist movements in Europe.png is not updated, though some movements seem to be weird to me, like the Castillian separatist movement... but as long as it is reliably referenced, I don't oppose that it is displayed. I'm taking into account the policy Wikipedia:I just don't like it (which prevents removal of content for subjective opinions about issues). If something has to be updated, let's do it, but not dismissing a more updated version, on the behalf of a more obsolete version of it. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the missing "reliable reference" that I base the deletion request on, and which makes me not like this image. But it is not a personal dislike, but a dislike, because the image is not up to the standards of Wikipedia to display reliable, unbiased, and well sourced information. --Wuselig (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It is widely in use on various WPs, therefore cannot be deleted except for copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superseded by higher quality vector version File:Active separatist movements in Europe.svg. This file is no longer used on any Wikimedia projects. Nominating for deletion, rather than speedy deletion, just in case there is a reason I have overlooked for keeping the original. Rob984 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question since the original is CC-BY-SA (as opposed to PD), if the SVG is based upon the PNG, is it necessary to keep the file for its contributor history? Storkk (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vector techincally superseded the original one day after it was posted, in September 2013 (by the original uploader). However, changes made to the vector generally just reflected changes made by many contributors to the original. The original was used on Wikipedia up until recently when I changed them all to the vector (since the files are now identical again). So I'm not sure if keeping the contributor history for the original file is necessary. Rob984 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Unfree book. Dispute to resolved via deletion request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it would be tagged as unfree, it is definitely CC BY. - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lawsonstu: What is the evidence for this? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is on page 2 of the PDF itself, and also stated at the source given in the file summary ([8]). - Lawsonstu (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Out of COM:SCOPE, please see the sections on books and pdfs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's out of scope. It's a freely licenses media file, of scholarly content that can be used for educational purposes, that could be transcribed on Wikisource. I originally posted it because I post open PDFs of academic books on Commons in order to later transcribe them on Wikisource. The page you link to explicitly states: 'The file would be within the scope of another project of the Wikimedia Foundation if it were to be uploaded in the same format to that project, for example: A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. Examples of in-scope documents include published books'. - Lawsonstu (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Ellin Beltz. --INeverCry 23:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vector version available here : Image-South Yemen governorates.svg Flappiefh (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG file is not in use, the PNG is in wide use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in wide use. --INeverCry 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

and

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here. It is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeDanielBorel (talk • contribs) 11 June 2016‎ (UTC) (Originally posted within the nomination)
Hello User:LukeDanielBorel, please reply after a post, not within it, so that it remains clear who said what. Just add one more ":" than the person before you, to indent accordingly. I did that for you, in this case. Also, please sign your posts using --~~~~.
As for being in scope: the text might be suitable for Wikiversity, but I don't know their rules. The illustrations could then be uploaded to Commons and would certainly be in scope. A video of someone scrolling through a text document that's also original research is of questionable value. --rimshottalk 07:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soft copy of File:Medalof Valor.svg; this should be deleted and redirected. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: usage on Ukrainian Wikipedia replaced and file redirected. --INeverCry 23:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See COM:FOP#Australia. This likely counts as a 2-D work according to Australian custom. The text and logos are probably copyrightable in Australia; see COM:TOO#Australia. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to FOP in Australia, "Freedom of Panorama applies to eligible works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public"." The memorial plaque in question is situated at the entrance to Gurney Airport - a public place. On this basis, I believe that the photo is valid.
As for the TOO, the image does include three logos - the RAAF, RAAF No. 33 Squadron, RAAF No. 11 squadron. All of these are already available within Wiki Commons as non-free images, yet justified as being appropriate representations of the unit(s) identified with no commercial value. I would have thought that a public memorial in a public place bearing the logos of non-commercial organisations would not be subject to copyright constraints, but I would be happy to bow to the views of those more knowledgeable in these areas than I. Sjudall (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination/COM:PRP. --INeverCry 23:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User has uploaded another software image with rationale that (essentially) it's below threshold of originality, presumably under German law. (See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GEOS_128_Version_2.0_German.png). However, no such rationale is given here, and I'm assuming that this was originally released in the US, so this is probably a US law case, and I'd assume it's still above the threshold of originality?

(Google translation: "Der Benutzer hat eine andere Software-Image mit Begründung hochgeladen, die (im Wesentlichen) es unter den Schwellenwert von Originalität ist, vermutlich nach deutschem Recht. Es wird jedoch keine solche Begründung dafür gegeben, und ich gehe davon aus, dass dies ursprünglich in den USA veröffentlicht, so ist dies wahrscheinlich ein US-Gesetz Fall, und ich würde davon ausgehen, es ist immer noch über der Schwelle von Originalität?")

Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; A notice displayed while editing the en.wikipedia TI-99/4A article states
*** NOTE TO EDITORS *** Texas Instruments released all the source code and schematics for everything related to the TI-99/4 and TI-99/4A computers long ago. The images of TI-99 software, the sounds of TI-99 software, schematics, whatever, are all fair use as long as you credit Texas Instruments.
So this may well be okay; if so, this should have been stated by the uploader, however. Ubcule (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's got already a ticket OTRS: Ticket#2014121510019592. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination/OTRS ticket added by non-OTRS member. --INeverCry 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User has uploaded another software image with rationale that (essentially) it's below threshold of originality, presumably under German law. (See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GEOS_128_Version_2.0_German.png). However, no such rationale is given here, and I'm assuming that this was originally released in the US, so this is probably a US law case, and I'd assume it's still above the threshold of originality?

(Google translation: "Der Benutzer hat eine andere Software-Image mit Begründung hochgeladen, die (im Wesentlichen) es unter den Schwellenwert von Originalität ist, vermutlich nach deutschem Recht. Es wird jedoch keine solche Begründung dafür gegeben, und ich gehe davon aus, dass dies ursprünglich in den USA veröffentlicht, so ist dies wahrscheinlich ein US-Gesetz Fall, und ich würde davon ausgehen, es ist immer noch über der Schwelle von Originalität?")

Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; A notice displayed while editing the en.wikipedia TI-99/4A article states
*** NOTE TO EDITORS *** Texas Instruments released all the source code and schematics for everything related to the TI-99/4 and TI-99/4A computers long ago. The images of TI-99 software, the sounds of TI-99 software, schematics, whatever, are all fair use as long as you credit Texas Instruments.
So this may well be okay; if so, this should have been stated by the uploader, however. Ubcule (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's got already a ticket OTRS: Ticket#2014121510019592. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination/OTRS ticket added by non-OTRS member. --INeverCry 23:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]