Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/09/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
,_visualizing_the_many_trackers_on_the_website_'abovetopsecret'_(on_160912)_(cropped).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I didn't mean to upload it GoDoggies (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/COM:DW. --INeverCry 07:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sam Bahour (highres).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This image is reported in ticket:2016091110009353 as copiet from copyrighted book "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (2011 ed.; maybe also older) Ankry (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: ckear copyvio: converted to speedy. --Ankry (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
page created accidentally by me, it is empty and useless Mænsard vokser (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Please use {{Speedy}} for routine housekeeping. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Screengrab of 'Disconnect', (a free internet-browser addon), visualizing the many trackers on the website 'abovetopsecret' (on 160912) (cropped).png
[edit],_visualizing_the_many_trackers_on_the_website_%27abovetopsecret%27_(on_160912)_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_visualizing_the_many_trackers_on_the_website_%27abovetopsecret%27_(on_160912)_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unnecessary cropped version of original picture. Submitted by mistake. --- kxxvii (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
clearly marked copyrighted Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Clearly marked copyrighted "Joe Bielawa" with an watermark on flickr source, was marked as having (and still has) a free license by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). And the the flickr user that is named... Joe Bielawa. So , why the opening of this deletion request if the flickr user is the same as the copyright holder. Tm (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: There is no contradiction - the authors owned the copyright, and released the image with a cc-by license. --Materialscientist (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is a duplicate KWitt (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: housekeeping. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
the redirection does not point to the correct name... Esby (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- File:Jennie-Anne Walker - Japan Expo 2013 - P1660380.jpg needs also to be deleted for the same reason. (the redirect, not the file.) Esby (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Rama (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Recreation of content previously deleted per community, see File:BarcelonaSportingClub.png ✎kovox90 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Block user, repeated uploading of inappropriately licensed media. ✎kovox90 04:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: and blocked. --Jcb (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Recreation of content previously deleted per community. ✎kovox90 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Beacuse of the small words on the top right, I am sure that this image is not his own work. There is no permission from the website that allow this image to be uploaded. N-C16 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, there are words "weather-models.info" bottom of image and "Commercial use prohibited" top of image. I can safely say: license review failed. Taivo (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
A photo of a newspaper. No evidence that this is allowed by copyright. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Per previous DR, DR 2: Derivative work of a football trophy established in 1969 so it is still copyrighted by FIFA. - Fma12 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The Flickr source claims this images is PD... not CC-0, but actually 'PD'. I'm extremely dubious that an image of this person is actually in the public domain if not actually 'placed there' by the photographer, and given the resolution this is almost certainly cropped from a copyrighted source. Reventtalk 02:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Test upload , non worthy to include in Wikimedia Thatonewikiguy (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cakesandrollsbakery (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam-only account and these files are probable copyvios. I have already marked for speedy deletion his/her other three files which are copyvios without doubt.
- File:20091349.IMG 7189.jpg
- File:50th-Anniversary-Cake.jpg
- File:2Tier-Pink-Flower.jpg
- File:2Tier-Waterworld.jpg
- File:Cakes and rools logo.jpg
- File:Cake shop image.jpg
jdx Re: 12:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete copyrighted photos uploaded without permission. User Cakesandrollsbakery is a spam-only account. --173.55.239.44 03:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Info: User is now locked globally per spam only account. --Achim (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Not PD-textlogo Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Non-free screenshot Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Claimed as own-work, but has in-image copyright notice that does not match uploader. Instead, it matches [1] that asserts all rights reserved. Image is also available on other websites, for example, [2]. Uploader has a history of uploading and claiming to be license-holder and open-license release for things found on the web. DMacks (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Reason
[edit]
Sir!I'd uploaded this image on one website a long time ago. Perhaps it spreads from that website. Otherwise I am still saying it's my own-work. Son of ATM (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gladiateur men 1
[edit]Not own work (looks like derivative of low quality video), and propaganda, out of scope. Many images of this uploader were already deleted as blatant copyvios and attacking individuals.
- File:Satanic symbol.jpg
- File:Fuck illuminati.jpg
- File:Bohemian club.jpg
- File:At Bohemian Club.jpg
- File:The truth of illuminati.jpg
- File:Coming soon.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination Ariadacapo (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 01:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
At best, duplicative, unused photos of non-notable shopping center (COM:SCOPE). Uploader is serial copvio uploader (see user talk/deleted contribs), including bogus authorship claims for shopping centers (e.g. File:Malldegoa.jpg) taken from Google Maps' images). Quack?
Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No evidence it is properly licensed. The file is named "USA Today..." implying it first appeared in the news organization in question. Jayron32 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to look at File:Carson Wentz.jpg too. Not sure if that is actually own work. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture uploaded from Facebook by someone who is not the artist. MarkTraceur (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This image is not owned by the uploader; it is from a copyrighted motion picture, and there is no notation that it was captured from a public domain trailer. — WFinch (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is not owned by the uploader and has an incorrect license. It is from a copyrighted motion picture, and there is no notation that it was captured from a public domain trailer. — WFinch (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
probably not "own photo" – pic can be found on Pinterest and other places on the web: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/327707310364171730/ Albinfo (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
grabbed from the web: http://partisan1943.tumblr.com/post/139854135200/soldiers-of-the-albanian-peoples-s-army Albinfo (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
grabbed from the web http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/bg_nmmh.html Albinfo (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
not "own work" – most probably grabbed from the web http://www.shopbulgaria.com/bulgarian-militaria-5001/2153/bulgarian-communist-parade-visor-cap-of-an-air-forces-soldier.html Albinfo (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Author is "Zenith Banker photography" with no explicit permission given Coderzombie (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Advertising (see desc), out of scope. Achim (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: spam and likely copyvio. --INeverCry 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Disneyclips.com/Walt Disney Company image. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a case of Flickr washing, as there's a much larger version available here of the same image. Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Other uploads by the same user with a similar issue:
- File:Shalabee Ibrahim Avas.jpg: Appears to be cropped from here
- File:Kanika Kapoor.jpg: Appears to be cropped from here
- File:Seezan.jpg: Cropped from one of the images here. Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted source. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted source. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright was renewed, contrary to the PD license given. See http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Screenshot from TV, even the logo is displayed. 92.73.27.125 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Movie still 92.73.27.125 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
File:5149834,vADbWDL43NRAF3Y53Z1Pp1Z76LkGhMHep p 6W7601FwpWgi6UYEvgJgPeOS3+TzP7qqwCcLyODdR79920XjOw==.jpg
[edit]
Movie still 92.73.27.125 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Not free under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, the YouTube video is under a "Standard YouTube License", which is Rights Reserved (copyrighted). So unfortunately the screenshot can't be uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about original video copyright as per COM:PRP --173.55.239.44 05:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
$%^%%
[edit]
Oops! My error. I thought I found this as a "reuse allowed" license using google but it appears its is a standard license. Happy for you to delete ASAP. Victuallers (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
My comment: I converted the tag to a DR since two users at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files has questioned Jcb on tagging this file as "no source". IMO, it seems that there's no source needed to prove that this file is an U.S. insignia, common sense is needed. So I vote for Keep. ★ Poké95 00:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No original source is needed for reproductions or simple faithful derivatives of DOD MIL works. Googling will turn up matches like this ebay collector's item and this collectors site with a detailed description. --Fæ (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep US Government work - the exact image is at http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10639
- "Emblem. Approved on 2 Nov 1944; new rendition approved on 25 May 2007." Reventtalk 03:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem to be rather pointless and useless time-wasting to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: revoking nomination, on a second look the source for this was good enough. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
My comment: I converted the tag to a DR since two users at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files has questioned Jcb on tagging this file as "no source". IMO, it seems that there's no source needed to prove that this file is an U.S. insignia, common sense is needed. So I vote for Keep. ★ Poké95 00:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem to be rather pointless and useless time-wasting to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: revoking this one, on a second look sufficient source information was present. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Low-quality personal photo, not in use anywhere, the user's only upload; the file has no potential educational uses. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Michael Lington (talk · contribs)
[edit]These pictures depict Michael Lington which means they can't be "own work" of Michael Lington. The copyright of these images belongs to the person who took the photos unless transferred by contract or legal action. Would need proof of that or would need the copyright owner to email OTRS.
- File:Michael Lington, self-owned promotional pic from personal web site.jpg
- File:Michael Lington performs on stage with Barry Manilow.jpg
- File:Michael Lington performs on stage.png
Majora (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:PongaPedia
[edit]- File:ECO photo-luminescent ART by International Artist 'Melissa Sadie Wright'.jpg
- File:'Freedom Feather' Photo-luminescent ECO Art by International Artist 'Melissa Sadie Wright'.jpg
- File:"Young, Green & Sticky" Photo-luminescent ECO Art by International Artist 'Melissa Sadie Wright'.jpg
Advertising: "buy my beautiful art at this website." --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Low-quality personal photo not in use anywhere, the user's only contribution, it has no potential educational uses. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. --GeorgHH • talk 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo, unused, low quality and awkward composition, not useful for any educational purpose; out of Project scope. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Per nomination. --GeorgHH • talk 10:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No educational purpose. Sebari (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Emmex10
[edit]
Personal images for self-promotion, unused on any projects, the images have no potential educational uses; out of Project scope. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photos of non-notable individual. Outside the project scope and better suited to Facebook.
- File:Sleeping Baabale.jpg
- File:Abdirahman Abukar Baabale.jpg
- File:Abdirahman Abukar Mohamed Baabale.jpg
- File:Baabale Al-imra.jpg
- File:Baabale Peace Garden.jpg
- File:Abdirahman Peace Garden.jpg
- File:Baabala Amzing Background.jpg
- File:Abdirahman Baabale sit on chair.jpg
- File:Baabale.jpg
DAJF (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 11:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Interior of Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Kirche (Frankfurt am Main)
[edit]- File:Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Kirche (Frankfurt-Niederursel) Innenraum.JPG
- File:Dietriche-Bonhoeffer-Kirche (Frankfurt-Niederursel) Orgelempore.JPG
_Innenraum.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Orgelempore.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Architect Werner W. Neumann died in 2003 and there's no FoP inside buildings in Germany. --Code (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Artist Gerhard Richter is still alive. No FoP inside buildings in Germany. Code (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
out of project scope DCB (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Г. Змудзінскі. Вокладка зборніка «Досвіткі» М. Гарэцкага. 1926.png
Who is the cover artist and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Taivo, 1938 --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I restored both images, gave correct authors and licenses. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Олимп фк.jpg
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Апр.jpg
There is no freedom of panorama for sculpture neither in Russia nor in Ukraine.
Ни в России, ни в Украине нет свободы панорамы для скульптуры. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No permission after upload the image N-C16 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
author or uploader request deletion N-C16 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Vtv1 2013.png Fanofbfolders (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete personal image. --Lemon tart (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete personal image. --Lemon tart (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete personal image. --Lemon tart (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete personal image. --Lemon tart (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
not in scoope Saqib (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
blurry beyond hope Syced (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie, not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie, not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie, not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Overexposed, unidentifiable Mhohner (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
selfie, not used anywhere Syced (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
self promotion For (;;) (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
-2016-07-26T17:10:00.000Z-File:Qayyum_Ansari.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
self promotion AGAIN User:Zoha Princess is a sockpuppet of User:Qayyum Ansari see en:User talk:Zoha Princess & en:User talk:Qayyum Ansari Cabayi (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
self promotion, unused image, re-uploaded by a different user suggesting sockpuppetry Cabayi (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Cabayi (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: recreation of previously deleted content. --jdx Re: 11:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
reupload of self promotion by new sockpuppet Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Guanaco. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope — Bukhari (Talk!) 03:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Yann. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by سيّدي العلوي (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: low quality photo of food. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in USA for monuments. Installed in 2011.
- File:Side view of the Martin Luther King Memorial.jpg
- File:Front view of the Martin Luther King Memorial.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AtillaMisirlioglu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Altınordu Futbol Kulübü.jpg
- File:Atilla Mısırlıoğlu.jpg
- File:Büyük maç öncesi son hazırlıklar Altınordu Futbol kulübü (Atilla Mısırlıoğlu soldan 2.).jpg
- File:Altınordu Futbol Kulübü 1. lig.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Viktorija Daugirdaitė (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Diplomatas Petras Maciulis.jpg
- File:Stasys Maciulis.jpg
- File:Vytautas Daugirdas aktorius.jpg
- File:Adam Dowgird MD 1936.jpg
- File:Archeologas Tadas Daugirdas.jpg
- File:Geliu vaikai.jpg
- File:Jerzy Dowgird 1936.jpg
- File:1939 Tadas Daugirdas MD.jpg
- File:Tadas Daugirdas Chakasija.jpg
- File:Stasys Daugirdas.jpg
- File:Zofia Dowgird.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope for being used in an promotional article only. Lakokat (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:PDF books in Tamil from TVA in 2015 with English titles available Info-farmer (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Category:PDF books in English from TVA in 2015 available Info-farmer (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Blurry; easily replaced by hundreds of images in Category:Amfleet passenger cars. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akinwaleomotayo (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CantantesCristianos (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused logos of questionable notability : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks for me that this is a file for games to change the skins. So I doubt that this is within the scope. Sanandros (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The sculpture is copyrighted; Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Maria Rimmel (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope Jcb (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no Crown Prince of Hungary. Picture of unidentified person without context. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal file, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an old logo for Smashburger. Jld7736 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Not relevant that it's an old logo, still in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. In scope. -- Geagea (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
We need COM:OTRS permission from the author - Scott Langley (see metadata). --sasha (krassotkin) 21:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Non notableindividual. Outside project scope Mark Marathon (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative from modern artwork? --sasha (krassotkin) 21:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
NoFoP in Ukraine. This terminal was open in 1955, and by some sources it was projected by russian architects Г.Елькин and Ю.Крюков, the same that have projected some terminals in Sheremetyevo International Airport in 1964. By other sources it was projected by ru:Жолтовский, Иван Владиславович, dead in 1959. Andriy.v (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Inferior quality, used nowhere, Commons category "Looped squares" contains several better pictures Karl432 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Should be a logo but nothing seen. not in use. out of scope. -- Geagea (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Mariferk (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except sandbox in es.wiki and uploading 3 personal photos (2 now deleted), which are used nowhere, except in the sandboz. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
For collages source and license of every used image is needed. Taivo (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
ya no me sirve Grupomultimarca (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
español bueno información 181.168.191.99 22:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no razón válido para borrar. --Jcb (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The artist, John Shaw is still alive. Daehan (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I retrieved the image from the Brooklyn museum digital archive. it appears to be an open license https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/112459 - Treebrainiac (talk)
- To me, "© John P. Shaw" does not sound like an open license. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
When the artist Anatoli Tychyna died? Book was published in 1928. Taivo (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Who is artist and when (s)he died= Newspaper was published in 1926. Taivo (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Who is the cover artist and when (s)he died? Book was published in 1943. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
When the artist A. Baranski died He is not pl:Andrzej Barański. Taivo (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The image is a copyright work, represented by Mary Evans Picture Library. The original photograph by a KNOWN creator who died less than 70 years ago is held in a private personal photo collection. This original was scanned, cropped and enhanced and copyright in this new original is held by the owner under UK law. Mary Evans Picture Library represent the work under exclusive contract with the owner/creator and hence this work was lifted by the Wikipedia uploader without permission from a Mary Evans blog post. I request that this image is either a) completely removed from Wikipedia b) correctly identified as a copyright work. I look forward to hearing back from you forthwith. Regards, Tom Gillmor, Head of Content, Mary Evans Picture Library - tom.gillmor@maryevans.com 80.71.13.211 09:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is stated to be 1906. Please state the name of the creator and their date of death. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: although there is no indication at all that Mary Evans Picture Library would be the copyright holder, there is not enough information to determine the real copyright situation. --Jcb (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Cropped one of a previously deleted image. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Well, that's nice, but this one has an OTRS ticket stuck to it. That should be reviewed as a first priority. Samsara (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: the general OTRS permission was determined to be not applicable to this picture (or its crops). --Jcb (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I think that this photo of trainsurfers inappropriate for articles in which a file is used. Vladislavus (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: it's not the task of Wikimedia Commons to answer such a question. --Jcb (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Lower res, no camera EXIF, all other user uploads copyvios (or, by luck, PD-text with bogus self authorship claim) Quack? Эlcobbola talk 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC) This photo was taken by me on my phone.--Donkey335 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This is 1922 photo from Eastbourne, that means, country of origin is probably UK. Evidence is needed, that the photo is anonymous or that the authir is 70 years dead. Taivo (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not "Own work". Screenshot
- Seems to be that the software is released under a free license. Converting to a regular DR. Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Did you put you the Copyviolation because of Firefox logo? In fact GNOME Software is a free software. There is also an other screenshot with Firefox logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GNOME_Software
- All I know is that the screen shows multiple logos, none of which are owned by the uploader who claimed it as their own work. Needs to be better explained, because they may all be free. Who knows? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Most logo's are logo's of freely licened software. The file discription needs to be updated though otherwise it is still a copyright violation. Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- All I know is that the screen shows multiple logos, none of which are owned by the uploader who claimed it as their own work. Needs to be better explained, because they may all be free. Who knows? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Did you put you the Copyviolation because of Firefox logo? In fact GNOME Software is a free software. There is also an other screenshot with Firefox logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GNOME_Software
Kept: source field updated. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Multiple issues:
- Incompatible copyleft licenses, no permission to publish an adapted work of original works under a CC BY-SA license (if taking this screenshot can be considered to be creative enough and eligible for copyright).
- @Jcb's edit (Special:Diff/206997347) from previous deletion request didn't yet address offering the complete corresponding source and installation instructions per GPLv2+ and MPL2 license conditions. This should have been deleted in first place. 2001:2003:54FA:2232:0:0:0:1 19:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR - we allow combined works in which different free licenses apply to different parts of the result - Jcb (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jcb: How about the corresponding source conditions of the licenses? Even so, I am not certain if you can satisfy all license conditions at once without violating one another (not to be confused: adapted works vs aggregated works). 2001:2003:54FA:2232:0:0:0:1 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, you can adapt MPL2-licensed works into a larger work under GPL/MPL2 dual-licensing. You can also adapt CC BY-SA 4.0 works one-way to GPLv3-only. The uploader claimed the reverse however, but I'm not sure if there's sufficient creativity for the author of this screenshot to claim its own copyright. Even so, I don't see the MPL2 and GPLv2+ license requirements to be met yet, wrt. corresponding source and marking MPL2 clearly, so that reusers may extract the MPL2 parts and distribute them only under the MPL2 license. This screenshot as a whole is thus under GPLv2+ & MPL2 dual licensing. But I don't see counter-arguments from you about the license violations. 2001:2003:54FA:2232:0:0:0:1 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC); edited 00:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jcb: How about the corresponding source conditions of the licenses? Even so, I am not certain if you can satisfy all license conditions at once without violating one another (not to be confused: adapted works vs aggregated works). 2001:2003:54FA:2232:0:0:0:1 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Jcb and previous DR above. — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Though I think the CC BY-SA license is, not only, not relevant but also not adequate for this screenshot, as this is not an own work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Jcb et al. Ruthven (msg) 22:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source given is ©2015 NOS Energy Company
- Below com:TOO? Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Could be, but that is not what was claimed so I tagged it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please file a regular DR next time if you have doubts. Saves the admins some time. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Secondarywaltz, 'DR' means 'deletion request', not 'doctor' - Jcb (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please file a regular DR next time if you have doubts. Saves the admins some time. Natuur12 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Could be, but that is not what was claimed so I tagged it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-textlogo. --Jcb (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Richard Jack
[edit]As the warning message on Category:Richard Jack notes, Jack's creations are unlikely to be suitable for upload to Commons at the present time. This is because -- although he moved to Canada late in life -- he was a British artist. As such, while many are now PD in the US, they will not be PD in his home country until 2022/3 (life+70). They could however be moved to the English Wikipedia in the meantime.
- File:International studio (1897) (14596626837).jpg
- File:Love Tunes the Shepherds Reed - Richard Jack.jpg
- File:Portret of Arthur Perkin.jpg
- File:Richard Jack - 1910 - The Spirit of the Stream.png
- File:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg
- File:The Second Battle of Ypres.jpg
- File:The Second Battle of Ypres.png
_(14596626837).jpg){kind=link}
Jarry1250 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm quite certain The Battle of Vimy Ridge and The Second Battle of Ypres are commissioned by Canada and Canadian crown copyright applies, not UK. Reproduction images of the paintings were handled the Medici Modern Art Society on behalf of the Canadian War Records Office, so Canada has been exercising sole copyright (even in the UK) since 1918.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose both The Battle of Vimy Ridge and The Second Battle of Ypres are considered public domain, having been the result of Jack's employ as an official war artist. Canada has declared them PD, per the Library and Archive records for both. Images were registered in the US before 1923 making the PD. -Labattblueboy (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm quite certain The Battle of Vimy Ridge and The Second Battle of Ypres are commissioned by Canada and Canadian crown copyright applies, not UK. Reproduction images of the paintings were handled the Medici Modern Art Society on behalf of the Canadian War Records Office, so Canada has been exercising sole copyright (even in the UK) since 1918.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - if Canadian copyright would apply, we need some evidence of that. Just a user being 'quite certain' is not enough. --Jcb (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
A lot of watermarks/notices on this image. Is it still useful? GeorgHH • talk 19:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep，我的目的是只讓大家在維基百科上看到「馮盈盈」的樣貌，而不是讓其他人印海報和閃卡，以往有太多盜用「維基百科」圖片的情形，所以加「水印」及標明拍攝日期及只供維基百科使用是需要的，我還要待馮盈盈出席港姐宣傳活動時，特地到將軍澳的商場拍攝，時間和金錢的成本也不少。--TYC (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader admits the watermarks have been placed to prevent reuse outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia. This is in conflict with our goals. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not Ray Mears. 109.154.237.240 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: invalid deletion reason, but probably copyvio. --Jcb (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The file has two problems. At first, it is small photo without metadata and the user's last remaining upload, not yet nominated for deletion, maybe not own photo, but copyright violation. At second, the photo is used only in article project without any real sources, maybe depicted person is non-notable. Taivo (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of package design. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Someone know totally original soviet style hematogen package which still awailable in Russia and should be placed here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nootropic dude (talk • contribs) 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- The manufacturer of this packaging is a modern company w:Pharmstandard (w:ru:Фармстандарт - see the label on the top right). --sasha (krassotkin) 05:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
1944 year, not eligible under this license per description Cap1000 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The video of the source don't indicate a free licence. Olivier LPB (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Sure it does. As I wrote next to the {{LicenseReview}} template I added, "Vimeo hides the CC-BY icon and link under the "more" link popup in the middle of the page." Did you click the "more" link popup? When you do, you will see a CC-BY icon. It is linked to the CC-BY 3.0 license. Only a few % of Vimeo videos have a CC license, but that still makes a good number of them. --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry @GRuban: , the site is very hard to find, what we search. Just one thing, it is just mark "attribution" and not "creative commons" of "GNU" licence, is there an expert for the validity of licence indicate by Vimeo ? Olivier LPB (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I'll understand you better in French? (My written French is terrible, but I can read it.) There is no GNU license here. The license is Creative Commons Attribution, sometimes abbreviated as CC-BY. It is linked to from the more popup, so: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0. Is there an expert to vouch for a Vimeo license? No more or less than for Flickr or YouTube. Here are 418 videos from Vimeo. It's a video sharing site. We look at the specific uploader's account, and see if we believe them that this is their video to license. In this case, the uploader is a professional television host, who has been uploading interviews he's had with minor film stars for 8 years, so, yes, I believe him.
- Désolé, je ne comprends pas votre question. Peut-être que je vous comprends mieux en français? (Mon français écrit est terrible, mais je peux le lire.) Il n'y a aucune licence GNU ici. La licence est Creative Commons Attribution, parfois abrégé en CC-BY. C'est liée à de le "more" pop-up, donc: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0. Y at-il un expert pour se porter garant pour une licence Vimeo? Pas plus ou moins de pour Flickr ou pour YouTube. Voici 418 vidéos de Vimeo. C'est un site de partage de vidéos. Nous regardons le compte du téléchargeur spécifique, et voir si nous les croyons que ceci est leur vidéo de licence. Dans ce cas, le téléchargeur est un présentateur de télévision professionnelle, qui a été le téléchargement des entrevues avec des stars de cinéma mineures pendant 8 ans, donc, oui, je le crois. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- En français : Dsl de ne pas avoir vu le bandeau de licence, qui était un peu compliqué je trouve. En fait je me fais du soucis sur la possibilité de passer de ce qui est marqué comme licence "Attribution" à une licence creative commons. Olivier LPB (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is a standard Creative Commons license. Not complicated. It's not some new license that Vimeo made up, they are using Creative Commons Attribution. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry @GRuban: , the site is very hard to find, what we search. Just one thing, it is just mark "attribution" and not "creative commons" of "GNU" licence, is there an expert for the validity of licence indicate by Vimeo ? Olivier LPB (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: license reviewed. --Jcb (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
My comment: I converted the tag to a DR since two users at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files has questioned Jcb on tagging this file as "no source". IMO, it seems that there's no source needed to prove that this file is an U.S. insignia, common sense is needed. So I vote for Keep. ★ Poké95 00:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem to be rather pointless and useless time-wasting to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation - Jcb (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I think Jcb is correct in this instance. A Google search comes up with very few hits for this badge -- and none that are official in any way. We have had frequent trouble with vandals creating fake flags for non-existent places or things, so it would not surprise me at all that a fake Army unit and its badge might be created. Also note that even if the badge is real, the individual representation of a badge has its own copyright, so unless it is proven that the source of this representation is actually the US Army, it cannot be kept. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
My comment: I converted the tag to a DR since two users at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Jcb unproductively tagging up official United States military emblem image files has questioned Jcb on tagging this file as "no source". IMO, it seems that there's no source needed to prove that this file is an U.S. insignia, common sense is needed. So I vote for Keep. ★ Poké95 00:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem to be rather pointless and useless time-wasting to me... AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - No actual source information is given - this is stated to be a UK emblem, why does it have a US PD rationale? - Jcb (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- RAF Molesworth is used by the USAF since 1951, that's why it has a US PD rationale. And this logo is located at the section "USAF use" (subsection "303d Tactical Missile Wing and cruise missiles") on the enwiki article RAF Molesworth, suggesting that this emblem is created by the USAF. ★ Poké95 06:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete But not for the reason given (which is insufficient since there is no reason to doubt the image is a genuine patch displaying a USAF emblem). Image is a duplicate of File:303d Tactical Missile Wing - Emblem.png --Lineagegeek (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then let's mark this file as superseded and replace file usage. This will not affect my original vote ( Keep) however; we will keep this file for archival and reference purposes. I am not opposed though if this file will be deleted as a duplicate. ★ Poké95 11:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then let's mark this file as superseded and replace file usage. This will not affect my original vote (
If u want to clear the case ask in FOIA if this is the empblem of that wing and then u know it.--Sanandros (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Lower resolution and lower quality duplicate of existing file. All project uses have been changed over. --Latebird (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Because of the file being a duplicate. --Basvb (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
