Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/01/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![99 File:Ramón "Papo" Brenes and family.jpg](#File:Ramón_"Papo"_Brenes_and_family.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1672,_aus-_Georg_Matthaeus_Vischer,_Topographia_Austriae_inferioris_1672..jpg){kind=link}
![223 File:Anna Pavlova, in costume for the solo "Christmas", before 1929 - d'Ora (photographer) (8283046628).jpg](#File:Anna_Pavlova,_in_costume_for_the_solo_"Christmas",_before_1929_-_d'Ora_(photographer)_(8283046628).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope: unused personal image Imedeiros (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file - Using VisualFileChange.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope: unused personal image Imedeiros (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Shizhao: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file - Using VisualFileChange.
{{BadSVG}}. Redundant to File:Telif_inceleme.png. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedydeleted: Fake SVG. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File:Telif_inceleme.png. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
False authorship and licensing claims. This is not the uploader's own work. User:Amitie 10g blanked out the {{copyvio}} notice, kept the false authorship information, and changed the license from {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{MIT}}. According to en:Paint.NET#Overview and http://www.getpaint.net/license.html, that's equally wrong. en:File:Paint.net logo.png is clearly marked as non-free. File:Paint.NET 4.0 logo.svg has previously been deleted. This is just a raster copy of that, restored outside of process, so it should be speedily deleted under COM:CSD#G4. Any disagreement should be handled through Commons:Undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
誤って登録してしまった為、削除をお願い致します。 野坂 和之進 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep
Speedy keep Mistake. His hope is to delete his account.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. That being said, accounts cannot be deleted. --De728631 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
duplicate to update Ka04iso10 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, the request to delete own uploaded images. --Y.haruo (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a duplicate of this fileː https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_eastern_firefly_(Photinus_pyralis)_in_USA.webm The Nature Box (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Sourendra Kumar Das giving an interview for BBC World News on Gay Pride Walk Day on Jan 2011 in Mumbai.jpg
[edit]
person featured in photograph requests dissociation of their name from image Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per {{Personality rights}}. --Sreejith K (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fälschlich hochgeladen LordRichter26 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
duplicate file MRSaleem (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
SameAs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_block_for_Al-Maqar_Dawa_college_and_Public_library_at_Darul_Aman_campus.jpg MRSaleem (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unused exact duplicate. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is insufficient information attached to this file to know if it fulfils the terms of its license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Basic informations are there. but its in malayalam. its pdf scan of a malayalam language magazine (Rasikaranjini) Public domain material in india — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 27.97.202.239 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- We need the year of publication to make sure that it is in public domain as per {{Pd-india}} --Sreejith K (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep Data added. Jee 06:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: File is in public domain. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon exvSTRrg-.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon exv-STR+lf.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon exv-STRlg.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon vSTR+rf-.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon vSTRrg-.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon v-STR+lf.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon v-STRlg.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
On governor.sc.gov, I found the following text: "Copyright © 2017 State of South Carolina". Therefore, this photo qualifies to be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --JuTa 10:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As the uploader mentioned in the picture's description in He.wiki (אגודת הכליזמרים ירושלים), the picture was taken by Loulou D'aky. As there's no OTRS release note, it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is a ticket in OTRS about this picture Ticket#2017012510014619. The status now is recieved, because The Request need more clarification. It can be wait until I complete to handle the ticket. Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Finel OTRS ticket was received. @Geagea: can you close this request? Thanks. Hanay (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS ticket #2017012510014619. -- Geagea (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947, or even that this would be a pre-1947 work. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. 1917 work. http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=51159&from=pubindex&dirids=24&lp=548 --Frze > talk 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC) {{PD-1923}}
- A US PD rationale won't do for a non US work. In Poland, copyright last 70 years after the death of the author, see en:List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths. That's why we need to known whether the author died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It is definitely anonymous publication. No author information provided on either side. License changed to {{Anonymous-EU}} And US rationale works in US for non-US wark also. It is required here. Ankry (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- When I nominated the file, I did not notice that the backside was hidden somewhere at the source website. Apparently you are right. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Picture already published on this website. No OTRS authorization from the original author of the photo. Titlutin (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Français : Photo déjà publiée sur le site littleangelrecords.com, qui n'est pas libre de droits. Il faudrait un email d'autorisation de la part de l'auteur de la photo pour que Commons puisse héberger légalement cette image - voir pour cela Aide:Republication/Image --Titlutin (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ce fichier appartient au label Little Angel Records FABIENNE ABELARD (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour @FABIENNE ABELARD:
- Oui, mais le site de Little Angel Records n'est pas sous licence libre, et cela veut donc dire que la photo est protégée par le droit d'auteur. Or le projet Commons (et Wikipédia) ne peut héberger que des fichiers sous licence libre compatible. Héberger des fichiers protégés fait donc tomber Commons dans l'illégalité, d'où cette procédure de suppression par précaution. En effet, même si le photographe et/ou Little Angel Records sont d'accord pour que la photo soit placée sous licence libre et utilisée sur Wikipédia, on ne peut pas être sûr à 100% que cela soit vrai car vous n'êtes qu'un pseudo parmi d'autres ici (je ne dis pas bien sûr que vous mentez, mais on ne peut pas être sûr à 100%). D'où la nécessité pour le photographe et/ou les ayants-droits de la photo d'envoyer un email officiel d'autorisation pour que l'on puisse conserver légalement le fichier. Je remet ici le lien vers le modèle d'email que j'avais déjà placé ci-dessus : Aide:Republication/Image.
- Bien cordialement --Titlutin (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ce fichier appartient au label Little Angel Records FABIENNE ABELARD (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gilmar Martinelli Junior (talk · contribs)
[edit]No EXIF images found elsewhere in the web
- File:Azul Economy Xtra class.jpg
- File:Azul Economy.jpg
- File:Azul Economy class.jpg
- File:Azul Economy Xtra.jpg
- File:Lounge Azul 1.jpg
- File:Azul A330-2.png
- File:Azul A330-2.jpg
- File:Azul Business.jpg
- File:Azul Business Xtra.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gilmar Martinelli Junior (talk · contribs)
[edit]Re-upload of previously deleted files Obviously copyvios.
- File:Azul economy.jpg
- File:Azul economy xtra.jpg
- File:Azul xtra.jpg
- File:Azul Linhas Aéreas.jpg
- File:Lounge Azul.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal content; see Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal content; see Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal content; see Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Muséoparc d'Alésia
[edit]Le site a été inauguré en 2012 et il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. Pareil pour la scénographie intérieure créée spécialement pour le musée
- File:Alesia (7700216246).jpg
- File:Inside the Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc Alésia (7700536942).jpg
- File:Inside the Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc Alésia (7700545054).jpg
- File:Inside the Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc Alésia (7700553028).jpg
- File:Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc, Alésia (7700831786).jpg
- File:Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc, Alésia (7700924178).jpg
- File:Julius Caesar, Interpretation Centre of the Muséo Parc, Alésia (7700559274).jpg
- File:MuséoParc Alésia1.jpg
- File:MuséoParc Alésia2.jpg
- File:Muséoparc d'Alésia 0002.jpg
- File:Muséoparc d'Alésia 0005.jpg
- File:Muséoparc d'Alésia 0010.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thesupermat (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Icesk8terr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploads by blocked user
Ytoyoda (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Chamber of Commerce is not a federal authority or employee Discasto talk 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Image of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable) political candidate, currently used only in an abandoned draft article that's up for MFD. No potential exists to repurpose it elsewhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value. Commons in not a hosting. Красный wanna talk? 19:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file has been already uploaded here: File:Matejko Sigismund Augustus and Barbara.jpg Macesito (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nachomoreno98 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possibly copyvios, looks like it's screengrab from video. Uploader has history of uploading copyrighted images of Real Betis football club.
Dudek1337 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably out of scope. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably private image, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Redundant. Superseded by similar image, which is a bit sharper. Kulmalukko (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Ce fichier appartient au label Little Angel Records FABIENNE ABELARD (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable persons. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable persons. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JMMCTipton (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of non-notable persons. Out of scope.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
GeorgHH • talk 13:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
We are told that these are all the work of Jung Myung Seok. While the source site is CC-BY-SA, it is not clear that the site has the right to freely license the multiple copyrights here -- particularly the images, and the graphic design.
- File:Heaven's Words, My Words Proverbs with Drawings 1.png
- File:Heaven's Words, My Words Proverbs with Drawings 3.png
- File:Heaven's Words, My Words Proverbs with Drawings 2.png
- File:Words of Salvation 3.png
- File:Words of Salvation 1.png
- File:Words of Salvation 2.png
- File:The Message of Life 3.png
- File:The Message of Life 2.png
- File:The Message of Life 1.png
- File:Spiritual Poem 2.png
- File:Spiritual Poem 5 - Happiness Comes.png
- File:Spiritual Poem 1.png
- File:Jung Myung Seok's Poetry Books Spiritual Poem 3 and 4.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Thank you for highlighting the concerns. The website directly works for the book publisher (Myung Publisher) to put up the book covers. May I know what kind of confirmation you will need to know that the site has the right to freely license the multiple copyrights? Avataron (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi (Jameslwoodward), appreciate your soonest reply, thanks. Avataron (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Since the publisher proably owns or has licensed all of the copyrights involved, it is best if an authorized official of the publisher sends a free license using OTRS. Note that in some cases, the book covers contain graphics or photographs. When used on book covers, the license usually allows the publisher to use the image on the book cover, but not to freely license the image to others. Therefore the publisher will also have to declare that it owns the right to freely license all aspects of the book covers. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the license is processed. The images may be deleted in the meantime, but will be restored if and when the license is received and processed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in this gallery appears to have been created by the uploader. Some are from Vietnam War claimed as own work also certificates, court papers, obvious screen caps and so on.
- File:Carlsbad Caverns Natural Entrance.jpg
- File:Court Letters on Kim's fraud charges.jpg
- File:False-reports-1999-and-apology-letter-from-accuser.jpg
- File:Court Papers of 2012's dismissal of charges.jpg
- File:Christian Gospel Mission involved in community service.jpg
- File:CGM (Taiwan) soccer event in 2016.jpg
- File:Christian Gospel Mission (Providence) Giving Glory to God.png
- File:Jung Myung Seok in The Encyclopedia of Korean Poetry.png
- File:Wolmyeong dong.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok Wolmyeongdong.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 7.png
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 2.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 3.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 4.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 6.jpg
- File:Jung Myung Seok in Vietnam War 5.jpg
- File:Citation of Distinguished Services Award Jung Myung Seok.jpg
- File:20160529 Wolmyeongdong Panorama - Banner.jpg
_soccer_event_in_2016.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Giving_Glory_to_God.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aguiladefuego (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text file. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This was a test file, should be deleted indeed. Srjmas (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, superseded by the File:Bonito 2016.png (harmonized with the ohter municipal maps of its province). Dэя-Бøяg 00:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused poor duplicate. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
out of scope: very blurry image not in use Imedeiros (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete --Lemon tart (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete --Lemon tart (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Not useful with current amount of information. Building in unknown place. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. This is the uploader's only contribution. But maybe you want to keep it as stock photo? Depicted person is not mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused file with unknown importance, maybe out of project scope. Modelus is a non-notable software (no mention in en.wiki) and its license is unknown. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused private (promotional?) photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
photoshopped image, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Private image, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. LuisH (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- pdf file which appears to be out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- pdf file which appears to be out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- pdf file which appears to be out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused logo of apparently non-notable entity. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Vector version available, File:Flag of the United Arab Emirates.svg. Fry1989 eh? 19:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
![17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/01/25#c-Ellin_Beltz-2017-01-25T17:46:00.000Z-File:Ramón_"Papo"_Brenes_and_family.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
![09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/01/25#c-George_Chernilevsky-2017-02-01T09:49:00.000Z-File:Ramón_"Papo"_Brenes_and_family.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Promotional images containing derivative works, unattributed collages, photos of logos and so on. Doesn't appear to have educational user, looks like promotionalism.
- File:RASiAcom7.jpg
- File:RASiAcom5.jpg
- File:RASiAcom4.jpg
- File:RASiAcom6.jpg
- File:RASiAcom1.jpg
- File:RASiAcom3.jpg
- File:RASiAcom2.jpg
- File:RASiAcom.png
- File:RASiAcom.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, promotional. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on these tiny promotional images.
- File:FooterTotallyPro.gif
- File:Gdpit com 92017135 231.gif
- File:Supervisor.jpg
- File:Userbar-STAFF.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, promotional. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be a promotional web image, likely from official site. No evidence of permission. Paul_012 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Previously published at http://www.thedandelionpatch.com/meet-our-patch-partners-rodney-bailey/, lacks OTRS verification. Also seems to be an advert. --ghouston (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Given how difficult it is to see or identify the animal pictured, I'm not sure what educational use this photo could have. JesseW (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unclear educational purpose, due to very limited visiblity of snake. If the author or others can present a case for it, I'm glad for it to be kept. JesseW (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The snake would be more visible, if the picture was cropped. (But I'm not sure if it should be kept or not.) --Kulmalukko (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Check files in the Category:Reptiles of Donetsk. Probably just one of them (the best one) might be saved. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, too many similar images. Maybe File:2014._Донецк_189.jpg can be kept (and cropped), because it's the closest view. --Kulmalukko (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I donot think it must be cropped. Just save File:2014._Донецк_189.jpg and delete all other. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, too many similar images. Maybe File:2014._Донецк_189.jpg can be kept (and cropped), because it's the closest view. --Kulmalukko (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Please nominate the other files in Category:Reptiles of Donetsk separately. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This selfie is the uploader's only contribution. In my opinion it is not usable as stock photo, but out of project scope. Depicted person is not mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Prplepassion7 (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except self-promotional userpage in en.wiki and uploading a photo about herself, which is used only on the userpage. All her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Melissa Hall ib not mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality photo. Probably not suited for general use. Better versions available at File:WLANL - Quistnix! - Museum Boijmans van Beuningen - Heilige Hieronymus, Antoon van Dijk, zonder lijst.jpg and File:Anthony van Dyck - Saint Jerome - Google Art Project.jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep good enough, no need to delete it. Just use one of the other photos. Multichill (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Multichill. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
is niet juist weergegeven John eldena (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: self-nomination, courtesy deletion of recent upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Commons has much better photos in category:Nikon F-801. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope. At first, bad quality (blurry). At second, nothing special is depicted (no educational value). Taivo (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Wrong file format; replace with File:BSicon hWHSTae.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – LaSza (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
In my opinion the file has no educational value. But if you think, that it is in scope, that's OK for me. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Is this a google map? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Not entirely sure if its Google, but highly unlikely to be own work. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User image from a user who only made a page for himself and nothing else. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not here to contribute in a meaningful way. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User picture of a user who has done nothing but work on his own page and try to stop other images from being deleted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Own work? really? Looks like a photo of an image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Obvious screenshot, no indication of user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No indication of own work, derivative images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
File:Rashida Willis, middle, poses with Columbus Medical Recruiting Station Recruiters Sgt. 1st Class Brian Krietzer and Staff Sgt. Jason Zedhkeia after her recent commissioning in Columbus, Ga., March 25, 2013 130325-A-ZZ999-001.jpg
[edit]
Despite this being from a government source, it's a standup of three non-notable people and appears to be out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Reason unclear, to be explained by TwoWings - Rama (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unusual deletion request here, bear with me.
I am nominating a self-created image because User:TwoWings tagged it with a "No Permission". The image depicts an electric box with a dilapidated political poster on it. I assume that TwoWings' reasoning is that the image constitutes a reproduction of the political poster and that I need to prove that I am the author of this poster, or have their autorisation. I claim no such thing: my photograph puts the poster in a context and I claim that the overall image constitutes an original work where the political poster is de minimis (it is not even present in its entirety, parts of it being missing or hidden). One is of course free to disagree with my reading, but I think that the assumptions deserve being discussed rather than be taken as face value. Incidentally, I would resent any insinuation that I could in any way be linked to the lunatic fringe far-right-wing groupuscule that the poster promotes.
- Keep The photograph constitutes an original work where the political poster is de minimis and it put in a context that gives way more information that its mere content. The poster is not even present in its entirety, parts of it being missing or hidden. This photograph is thus not a reproduction or mere derivative work, and examples of such treatment are routinely seen in the press. Rama (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete "The political poster is de minimis" ? Is that a joke ? It's the main subject ! Covering at least 80% of the picture, the rest being a grey metallic background with no usefulness (you say it "depicts an electric box" but no, we don't see what it is since it's not the subject, only you know that it's an electric box). "examples of such treatment are routinely seen in the press" > well maybe but Commons is not the press. When a media is using such a picture, it may not use it freely - anyway, press policies are not Commons policies. "The poster is not even present in its entirety, parts of it being missing or hidden" > ah ah ah ! Imagine if we accept such a picture : then we could accept any photograph of a film poster that would be partly cropped and show just a part of a wall. But no, this is a derivative work and a copyvio. There is no doubt about it, that's why I initially tagged it with "permission" instead of launching a useless DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, this is enough. You have attempted to bypass this discussion with a "No permission" tag, you have started this in retaliation for things you dislike on fr.wikipedia, and I have been gracious. You do not "Is that a joke" and "ah ah ah !" me. You tone it down right now. Rama (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't overdramatize and stop taking things personally. Just try to give valid arguments. And I had not tried to "bypass this discussion", it just seemed too obvious to launch a DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, this is enough. You have attempted to bypass this discussion with a "No permission" tag, you have started this in retaliation for things you dislike on fr.wikipedia, and I have been gracious. You do not "Is that a joke" and "ah ah ah !" me. You tone it down right now. Rama (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: I think that this is perhaps the most glaring example of an inappropriate claim of de minimis that I have seen on Commons. The copyrighted poster is almost the whole image and there is nothing else in the image of any interest whatsoever. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lukas Carpelan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Image and video file taken from http://www.travpad.org but uploaded as "own work". Unclear if uploader is indeed the creator/owner of these works. In need of Commons:OTRS.
- File:Skärmavbild 2016-08-03 kl. 10.50.00.png
- File:TravPad - Share your world. Short presentation.webm
Takeaway (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1992. [1] G I Chandor (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1992. [2] G I Chandor (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1992. [3] G I Chandor (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1982. [4] G I Chandor (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1982. [5] G I Chandor (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Suspect copyvio of Text content Oxyman (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2003. [6] G I Chandor (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2003. [7] G I Chandor (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2003. [8] G I Chandor (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2003. [9] G I Chandor (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1987. [10] G I Chandor (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bad non-photographic JPEG, superseded by a PNG, unused. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
possible copyvio 47.150.70.205 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
ഈ പ്രമാണത്തിനൊപ്പം നല്കിയ കുറിപ്പില് ചില പിശകുകള് വന്നു Panavalli (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
it should have been only a test upload. This file does not belongs to this wikipedia-article. Thanks - Chris Ch.walters (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since). I don't see how this needs permission though. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Commons:OTRS section “When Contacting OTRS is unnecessary” statement "I created the file myself. It hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright.” is applicable. I have permission to use the clipart from clipart.org under a CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication License. Most fonts used on the banner are “free for commercial use”, none are CC0 1.0. The most restrictive font is “Personal Use Only”, which I have adhered to. Contributor37952 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: A) It is out of scope -- we do not keep personal art.
B) We do not keep PDFs of images.
C) Material that is "personal use only" is not permitted on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since). I don't see how this needs permission though. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Commons:OTRS section “When Contacting OTRS is unnecessary” statement "I created the file myself. It hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright.” is applicable. I have permission to use the clipart from clipart.org under a CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication License. Most fonts used on the banner are “free for commercial use”, none are CC0 1.0. The most restrictive font is “Personal Use Only”, which I have adhered to. Contributor37952 15:41 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: A) It is out of scope -- we do not keep personal art.
B) We do not keep PDFs of images.
C) Material that is "personal use only" is not permitted on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1969. [11] G I Chandor (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1969. [12] G I Chandor (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I found this image at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/20562339 and it says "all rights reserved". However, the uploader User:Lyg 2001 says it is their "own work". I am not sure what to believe here. If the uploader on commons is the owner of the photo, it would be helpful if they can show some proof that they own it. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
@Lyg 2001: Pinging you so that you are aware of this discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
mass-upload of panoramio streams (taken with Nokia C3) of poor quality, small-sized and obviously randomly taken from car/bus/train etc, hence, doubtful educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons, file not in use at Wikimedia projects - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: not great, but in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Logo, may be copyright violation. Красный wanna talk? 19:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: spam. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
logo of high school, non free fair use material, probably above threshold of originality Bulgu (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I see a copyright symbol on the source page of this picture, probably not free. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Big Bad Wolfowitz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work. Uploader may have cropped this image from a record cover, but since they don't hold copyright to the original, which is presumptively under copyright, their work is self-evidently nonfree. Well, it is not clear weather this is a commissioned work or not but I see comment like "Nikki Phoenix authorized This picture to be uploaded for general use so that it also could be used for her Wikipedia Page. "which suggest that this is likely to be a commissioned work. However, there is no clear evidence that uploader is the original copyright holder of the work. Thus, evidence of ownership or permission should be sent to our support team using this email template. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Wikicology (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Today, [Ticket#: 2017012510017269] was opened which refers to this image. And includes the Signed Model Release, and Sanitized ID shots of Ms. Phoenix ending any speculation on who owns this photo. I have also seen the Follow up email CCed to me by Ms. Phoenix referring to this ticket as well. Further her Lawyer has also sent in an email to this trouble ticket confirming ownership. --Art javier (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)- Comment This is related to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Art javier. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yesterday, ticket:2017012410018939 was opened which refers to this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The above ticket is not adequate in its current form. This image appears here (direct) in a full, uncropped form. The website says:
- "All content and materials available on jetsetmag.com, including but not limited to text, graphics, website name, code, images and logos are the intellectual property of Jetset Magazine, and are protected by applicable copyright and trademark law. Any inappropriate use, including but not limited to the reproduction, distribution, display or transmission of any content on this site is strictly prohibited, unless specifically authorized by Jetset Magazine." (emphasis mine)
- An email from a generic email address (meaning in the ilk of gmail, hotmail, etc. for non-OTRS members) is not "appropriate evidence" (COM:EVID) to override the aforementioned claim by what appears to be the website of a legitimate publication. This should have been, and should be, speedied; images ought not to get special consideration merely because of an atypically hostile and pointy response by the uploader. Эlcobbola talk 16:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is no clear evidence that "jetsetmag.com" is the copyright holder of the image. The copyright holder of the image is the original photographer who took the image and that is probably not jetsetmag.com. Most websites including newspapers usually have copyright notice stating that they owns the copyright of every contents on their website. This is not always correct. The copyright notice on website at times does not determines the copyright status of every contents on the website. If a model receive permission from her photographer to use some of her images on jetset Magazine. Does it mean that jetset Magazine automatically owns the copyright of the work simply because the website copyright notice says ""All content and materials available on jetsetmag.com, including but not limited to text, graphics, website name, code, images and logos are the intellectual property of Jetset Magazine, and are protected by applicable copyright and trademark law"?. The uploader said here that Email sent OTRS as well and CCed to Nikki Phoenix as well. However, I agreed with you that a convincing evidence is required to keep the image here. Hey Art javier, you cannot release an image on behalf of the original photographer without a clear evidence that you are authorized to do so. Ccing Nikki Phoenix makes no difference without attaching a written document stating a transfer has taken place and this document must be signed by the two parties (Nikki Phoenix and her photographer). All the best. Wikicology (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what you think "clear evidence" is, but a statement on a legitimate publication's website is, in fact, exactly that. I do not argue, as seems to be your misapprehension, that their statement is necessarily correct or factual. Perhaps Javier is indeed the photographer, or perhaps Jetset organized a photo shoot and the photograph is indeed theirs as a work-for-hire (not at all uncommon). Neither I nor you know, which is why we do not speculate ("The copyright holder of the image is the original photographer who took the image and that is probably not jetsetmag.com"), but instead gauge the information (evidence) available to us. What we have is an email from a generic domain saying "I'm the author" and a legitimate publication's website claiming ownership - and, by the way, the publication has a more complete copy of the image. In this circumstance, between the two, the publication's statement is better evidence, as OTRS volunteers (which you are not) are aware. Indeed, I prefaced my remarks with "The above ticket is not adequate in its current form." Read and think critically. Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- elcobbola is right. The ticket has just been opened and the initial statement is not sufficient to clarify and verify the copyright status. I've just provided a pointer to the ticket for convenience. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @elcobbola, I don't have to be an OTRS member to know what is acceptable or not. Using an email from a generic domain (such as gmail, hotmail etc) is not forbidden and there is no such policy stating that "people should contact OTRS using an official/customized email address". However, it is not clear why you have decided to misapprehend my comment. In fact, what my previous comment implied was that an insufficient evidence was provided by Art javier. Merely saying "I own the copyright bla bla bla" in an email to OTRS is not an evidence. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- "I don't have to be an OTRS member to know what is acceptable or not."
- I did not claim one does.
- "Using an email from a generic domain (such as gmail, hotmail etc) is not forbidden"
- I did not claim it was.
- "There is no such policy that 'people should contact OTRS using an official/customized email address.' "
- I did not claim it must. For your reference: "The email you send should come from an email address that we can recognize as somehow associated with the content being released. For instance, if you are releasing images shown on a website, your email address should be associated with the website or listed on the contact page of the website" (COM:OTRS, emphasis mine), to say nothing of OTRS guidance elsewhere.
- "it is not clear why you have decided to misapprehend my comment."
- I understood it perfectly well. I explained why certain of your commentary was unresponsive nonsense; I saw no reason to waste additional time on content in which we are in agreement. Read and think critically. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is this your comment "certain of your commentary was unresponsive nonsense; Read and think critically." that is unrespnsive nonsense. Please, comment on content and stop directing personal attack to me. Wikicology (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understood it perfectly well. I explained why certain of your commentary was unresponsive nonsense; I saw no reason to waste additional time on content in which we are in agreement. Read and think critically. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- "I don't have to be an OTRS member to know what is acceptable or not."
- I don't know what you think "clear evidence" is, but a statement on a legitimate publication's website is, in fact, exactly that. I do not argue, as seems to be your misapprehension, that their statement is necessarily correct or factual. Perhaps Javier is indeed the photographer, or perhaps Jetset organized a photo shoot and the photograph is indeed theirs as a work-for-hire (not at all uncommon). Neither I nor you know, which is why we do not speculate ("The copyright holder of the image is the original photographer who took the image and that is probably not jetsetmag.com"), but instead gauge the information (evidence) available to us. What we have is an email from a generic domain saying "I'm the author" and a legitimate publication's website claiming ownership - and, by the way, the publication has a more complete copy of the image. In this circumstance, between the two, the publication's statement is better evidence, as OTRS volunteers (which you are not) are aware. Indeed, I prefaced my remarks with "The above ticket is not adequate in its current form." Read and think critically. Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is no clear evidence that "jetsetmag.com" is the copyright holder of the image. The copyright holder of the image is the original photographer who took the image and that is probably not jetsetmag.com. Most websites including newspapers usually have copyright notice stating that they owns the copyright of every contents on their website. This is not always correct. The copyright notice on website at times does not determines the copyright status of every contents on the website. If a model receive permission from her photographer to use some of her images on jetset Magazine. Does it mean that jetset Magazine automatically owns the copyright of the work simply because the website copyright notice says ""All content and materials available on jetsetmag.com, including but not limited to text, graphics, website name, code, images and logos are the intellectual property of Jetset Magazine, and are protected by applicable copyright and trademark law"?. The uploader said here that Email sent OTRS as well and CCed to Nikki Phoenix as well. However, I agreed with you that a convincing evidence is required to keep the image here. Hey Art javier, you cannot release an image on behalf of the original photographer without a clear evidence that you are authorized to do so. Ccing Nikki Phoenix makes no difference without attaching a written document stating a transfer has taken place and this document must be signed by the two parties (Nikki Phoenix and her photographer). All the best. Wikicology (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It will please everyone to know, that I have sent in the original Model Release, and Sanitized ID photos that Ms. Phoenix took for this shoot to Permissions at Wikipedia, effectively ending any pundits or their assertions, that I do not own rights to this photo, or that I can use it as I see fit, and have the blessing of Ms. Phoenix as well. In addition, I enclosed the Billboard for the Nightclub for which this photo was taken as well.
I have been assured by Ms. Phoenix that she also will be sending something in to Permissions.
To Whom it may concern,
For some reason, pundits on Wikipedia seem to doubt the legitimacy of my taking this Photo. Enclosed in the original Model release Ms Phoenix Signed as well as her Sanitized ID shot from the shoot.
Apparently, Ms. Phoenix has said she will respond with a sign stating what we all already know is true (with the exception of apparently some pundits on wikipedia who seem to think they know more than anyone involved with the shoot.) Also note this photo was used for the Billboard for the event she did at Colony Nightclub, and they also DO NOT own the rights to the photo.
Here again is the release along with her sanitized ID shot. This effectively ends ANY question about whether I took the photo, or who owns it.
Along with the response from Ms. Phoenix that settles any possibility of who has ownership of this photo.
Thanks to whoever reads this that will actually look at this in an unbiased manner, instead of continuing to deny what IDs and original releases verify.
I am also CCing her Record Label, as they should be brought into the loop as well. They may also choose to issue a statement directly to you if this is not resolved by this email.
I hereby affirm that I, Art Javier, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RT_SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Art Javier 2017-01-25
I encourage whoever is the OTRS person reading the emails sent from Myself and anyone else including Ms. Phoenix, and perhaps her Label, to post here that they in fact READ THE SIGNED MODEL RELEASE AND SANITIZED ID SHOTS I HAVE SENT IN EFFECTIVELY ENDING RANDOM SPECULATION ON WHO OWNS THIS PHOTO. There is NO room for speculation here as to who owns and what they can do with this photo, or any other photo I took in that Photo set.
Thanks everyone for keeping an open mind and waiting for ACTUAL facts to come in rather than making speculation on something they know nothing about. --Art javier (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: As far as I can see, we have no evidence that the subject of the image has the right to freely license it. That right usually belongs to the photographer. The OTRS message is from a generic address and gives no evidence of anything -- it includes a photo of an unknown person holding what purports to be a model release from Ms. Phoenix and the subject image showing on a screen. Note that Ms. Phoenix owns www.nikkiphoenixxx.com, so the fact that the OTRS e-mail comes from a generic site is itself suspicious behavior. Lastly, the OTRS e-mail has come in recently and has not yet reached the head of the queue, so the image must be deleted until the OTRS message can be acted upon.
Given the questions here, in order to restore this image, we will need an OTRS e-mail from an address at nikkiphoenixxx.com that includes a free license from the photographer or a copy of the written agreement between the photographer and Ms Phoenix that allows her to freely license the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- All this was already sent in on the ticket listed. Original Release, ID shots, as well as her email and her lawyers email, on the 2nd ticket listed.--Art javier (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Blatantly false, therefore out of scope. The planned extension of the airport has three runways. This image shows four. Paul_012 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The image is in use on four different WPs and therefore cannot be deleted for this reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. They are derivative works of photographs by unknown authors from a family archive. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This doesn't seem to respect FoP laws in Germany. See COM:FOP : "Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59 UrhG due to a lack of permanent display; advertisements on advertising columns are not considered permanent by most of the literature" TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: It's not even in a shop window -- it is being held up (hand in lower right) at a protest. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
DW of this picture by Alfred Steffen. His permission is necessary. BrightRaven (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This statue is located in Haapsalu, Estonia. There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia (Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia). Author's permission is missing. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The photo is published on the website of the Danish Foreign Policy Society (Det Udenrigspolitiske Selskab in Danish), but I don't see any indication on the website of the cc-by-sa-4.0 license which claimed by the uploader. In fact the website says "Copyright 2015 Det Udenrigspolitiske Selskab | All Rights Reserved |" Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file is unused and does not contain any important information. it was uploaded by my fault. This part of record was merged with File:Ru-Russian_language_part_5_1_1_vowel.ogg Sergei.podkopaev (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file is unused and does not contain any important information. it was uploaded by my fault. This part of record was merged with File:Ru-Russian_language_part_5_1_1_vowel.ogg and now does not used anywhere. Sergei.podkopaev (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I cannot review the license, because the photo is behind password. Not sure, that the license was ever valid. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: unfree architecture; work by Giovanni Greppi (1884-1960) and Giannino Castiglioni (1884-1971). Eleassar (t/p) 10:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: unfree architecture. Work by Giovanni Greppi (1884-1960) and Giannino Castiglioni (1884-1971). Eleassar (t/p) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete the subject died in 1974, so it is most unlikely the uploader is the author of the painting as claimed. Some smaller resolution images are found online but I can't find an artist or date of creation. Most likely this is still in copyright and without more information PCP should apply. Ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
derivative work of copyrighted character [13] Darklanlan (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- 削除される理由は無い（Delete No!）と考えています。--根川孝太郎 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Faso as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Apparent copyright violation. Copyright violation is not apparent, should be compared with threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- well ,in Japan Trademark registration[14].Japan Trademark low violation.--faso (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Commons does not care about trademark registration. Threshold of originality is what matters. The file is used, so in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I found the photo at the website of Society for the National Achief at http://www.gahetna.nl/en/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/0/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/Per%20Federspiel/q/commentaar/1. It is not marked as under CC-BY-SA license there. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Found the photo at University of Copenhagen at http://image.ku.dk/lightbox/107/view/23636/. It is marked as "Fri brug i KU-publikationer på print og online" (Free use in University of Copenhagen publications in print and online). There is no CC-SA-BY license. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No permission from the photographer, nor evidence of how title was transferred. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: architecture by J. Plečnik (d. 1957).
- File:Bogojina (11).jpg
- File:Bogojina (16).jpg
- File:Bogojina (17).jpg
- File:Bogojina (2).jpg
- File:Bogojina (6).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Non-free work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957). Undelete in 2028.
- File:Bogojina, altar of the church of the Ascension of Christ.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 01.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 02.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 03.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 04.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 05.jpg
- File:Bogojina, Ascension of Christ parish church 06.jpg
- File:Gradnja Plečnikove cerkve v Bogojini.jpg
TadejM (t/p) 00:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daneshvapooyesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Many copyvios, small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:تشان تشون.JPG
- File:تشان.JPG
- File:تشان محمود طیب.jpg
- File:تشان آبلش محمود طیب شهر تشان آبلش بهبهان.JPG
- File:محمود طیّب، تاریخ عکس 1390.JPG
- File:Mahmoud tayyeb..JPG
Yann (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daneshvapooyesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private images, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Very probably some of these images are not "own work". Note the six different cameras!
- File:محمود طیب. تشان.JPG
- File:سید صدرالله فروزنده.JPG
- File:سید صدرالله فروزنده و محمود طیب.JPG
- File:بهمن پورمسیری و سید صدرالله فروزنده.JPG
- File:محمود طیب و آقای نصیریان شهردار شهر تشان.JPG
- File:نصیریان شهردار شهر تشان.JPG
- File:آقای نصیریان شهردار شهر تشان.JPG
- File:آقای نصیریان شهردار تشان و بهمن پورمسیری رییس شورای شهر تشان.JPG
- File:محمود طیب و آقای نصیریان شهردار تشان.JPG
- File:آقای نصیریان شهردار تشان.JPG
- File:بهمن پورمسیری رییس شورای شهر تشان.JPG
- File:بهمن پورمسیری رییس شورای شهری تشان.jpg
- File:نصیریان شهردار تشان و محمود طیب.JPG
- File:میر لطیف تقوی مشهد تشان.JPG
- File:آقای نصیریان شهردار تشان و بهمن پورمسیری.JPG
- File:محمود طیب و میر لطیف تقوی.JPG
- File:میر لطیف تقوی.JPG
- File:میر لطیف تقوی و محمود طیب.JPG
- File:تشان تشان.jpg
- File:محمدمرادی ناصرآباد.jpg
- File:محمد مرادی ناصر آباد.jpg
- File:اکبر دهبان نژادیان.jpg
- File:اکبر دهبان نژادیان.JPG
- File:محمد مرادی ناصرآباد.JPG
- File:محمود طیب و محمد مرادی ناصرآباد.JPG
- File:محمود طیب تشان.jpg
- File:محمودطیب تشان محمود طیب.jpg
- File:محمود طیب آبلش.jpg
- File:تشان محمود طیب آبلش.jpg
- File:تشان محمود طیب آبلش.JPG
- File:محمود طی ، شهر تشان آبلش.JPG
Ies (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daneshvapooyesh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted work by Henri Matisse (d. 1954), missiong permission.
- File:مدرنیزم و پست مدرنیزم در غزل امروز ایران، محمود طیب.jpg
- File:مدرنیزم و پست مدرنیزم در غزل ایران، محمود طیب.jpg
- File:مدرنیزم و پست مدرنیزم غزل ایران. تشان آبلش محمود طیب بهبهان ablesh mahmoud tayyen tashan behbahan. Modernism-postmodernism.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo of copyrighted photos Stolbovsky (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern sculpture, no FoP for sculptures in Russia Stolbovsky (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pp.vk.me/c636930/v636930259/3fddc/VqBr8NEYGCk.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Use Garrisons in Sweden Saftgurka (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images, http://static.wixstatic.com/media/c9229b_40b7a88dcf0e440bb41a418decfc29bb~mv2_d_4257_6378_s_4_2.jpg_srz_510_762_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz.
- File:Emily Duggan, Series X3 NSW Enduro winner.jpg
- File:Emily Duggan - Series X3 NSW Enduro winner.jpg
- File:Highres0001.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AbdulSamadAlKarim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://render.fineartamerica.com/images/images-profile-flow/350/images/artworkimages/medium/1/port-of-spain-reflections-marcus-gonzales.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
File:Georg Matthaeus Vischer, Statt Marchegg (von Westen), 1672, aus- Georg Matthaeus Vischer, Topographia Austriae inferioris 1672..jpg
[edit],_1672,_aus-_Georg_Matthaeus_Vischer,_Topographia_Austriae_inferioris_1672..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1672,_aus-_Georg_Matthaeus_Vischer,_Topographia_Austriae_inferioris_1672..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the image seems to be very incomplete, displays nothing relevant. In addition, datum, source and author are stated clearly wrong in the template. ŠJů (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Georg Matthaeus Vischer, Statt Marchegg (od západu), 1672, z- Georg Matthaeus Vischer, Topographia Austriae inferioris 1672..jpg seems to be a correct variant of the image. --ŠJů (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
,_1672,_z-_Georg_Matthaeus_Vischer,_Topographia_Austriae_inferioris_1672..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
FOP in Thailand covers only artistic works, which doesn't include text/works of literature. Paul_012 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the photographer and I wasn't aware of that, so if that's the case then it needs to go. And File:Leng buai ia shrine sign.jpg is the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yuen Kay Shan was born in 1889. This cannot be 1910 photo, because depicted person is much older than 21. The photo is made in 1920s or 1930s. Chinese photos are protected with copyright 50 years from publishing or if unpublished, then 50 years from creation. Evidence for free license is needed. Note "source – unknown, author – unknown". Taivo (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC) ::: The subject died 66 years ago lmfao (Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC))
- Taivo Read what you have written.. 50 years from creation The person has died 60 years ago so unless the photo was taken 10 years after his death its clear how old it is (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC))
- So you claim, that the photo was unpublished 50 years after creation. Can you give evidence for that? Taivo (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, the photo is way over 60 years old I don't understand what you're reason or logic is (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC))
- Please read license again. There are three ways, how a Chinese photo can be in public domain. Is it published more than 50 years ago? Was it unpublished 50 years after creation? Both cases need first publishing data. Publishing data is not needed only if the photo is created more than 100 years ago. Taivo (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC) ::: This photo has been published in newspapers in China countless times and is all over the internet, just look for your self the bureaucratic means can have anything deleted.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC))
- No, the photo is way over 60 years old I don't understand what you're reason or logic is (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC))
- So you claim, that the photo was unpublished 50 years after creation. Can you give evidence for that? Taivo (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: No proof of publication during the required period. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Chinese photographs are protected with copyright 50 years from first publishing or if unpublished, then 50 years from creation. Evidence for free license is needed. Note "Source – unknown, author – unknown". Taivo (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The subject was born 1923 and is not in his 40's in this photo makes it much older than 50 years old (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC))
Deleted: No proof of publication during the required period. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
very low-quality drawing, not useful for nothing, there are much better life restorations, see Namacalathus.svg + Namacalathus hermanastes.jpg Gretarsson (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was used for eight months in w:Namacalathus so not completely useless. But I agree it is not useful any more due to poor quality. I was surprised that two other low quality drawings I did at the same time are in use: File:Cyclomedusa.png and File:Palaeopascichnus.png (via derivative), Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO all three images/drawings are clearly of non-publishable quality (the more rediculous it is, that the Palaeopacichnus.png has even been converted to SVG format). Remember that Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, so drawings should meet a minimum quality standard. --Gretarsson (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Palaeopascichnus.png has also been used off wiki so I would want to keep it around. But for Namacalathus.png I am happy for it to go or stay, so that is a neutral. The conversion to .svg was probably a bit of overenthusiasm from two other better drawings on a similar topic that I did, that have now been used by National Geographic and Discovery Magazine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO all three images/drawings are clearly of non-publishable quality (the more rediculous it is, that the Palaeopacichnus.png has even been converted to SVG format). Remember that Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, so drawings should meet a minimum quality standard. --Gretarsson (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
While this was bot reviewed, looking at the gallery from which it came suggests that the flickr user is collecting photos from many sources, not taking their own. This casts into doubt the license here as we cannot be sure the flickr account is the photographer. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
While this was bot reviewed, looking at the gallery from which it came suggests that the flickr user is collecting photos from many sources, not taking their own. This casts into doubt the license here as we cannot be sure the flickr account is the photographer. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
While this was bot reviewed, looking at the gallery from which it came suggests that the flickr user is collecting photos from many sources, not taking their own. This casts into doubt the license here as we cannot be sure the flickr account is the photographer. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a Philippine text of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature Discasto talk 17:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not text in the literal sense. The copyright tag states "the expressed work is or is derived from a public document". This seems to be the case. -FASTILY 05:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which "public document"? --Discasto talk 09:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright tag used is wrong. Philippine copyright law says that all works by the government are in the public domain (which means no copyright) unless otherwise stated. The website of the Philippine Supreme Court says that it is copyrighted, so we can't assume that the image is in the public domain, since to say so, there must be no copyright present on it. OTRS permission is needed from the supreme court. --★ Poké95 11:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work of another photograpy with unknown copyright status Discasto talk 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader could have photographed their own photograph. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? -FASTILY 05:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your 'could' says it. Please, stop using such kind of pointless arguments. --Discasto talk 13:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The only reason to photo through the glass is when you don't own either the picture or the print. If you owned it, you could take it out of the frame. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the symbol of a university department would have been created by the uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not create the symbol, I made photo of this symbols which was available for public. BiOBER (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: "Available for the public" and freely licensed are two very differrent things. Please red COM:L. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No source of basemap which looks like it came from book or other printed source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No reliable publication date provided Discasto talk 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely own work "Source Fotografia de un museo. Author Trabajo propio". Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The picture does not seem to come for the Redistricting Commission Discasto talk 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work, appears to be rephotographed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work, appears to be rephotographed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No indication of own work, small size, not high quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Newspaper scan: unclear copyright status. Educational value unclear. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny image which appears copied from a newspaper due to the halftoning and fading. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny poor quality image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
File:Anna Pavlova, in costume for the solo "Christmas", before 1929 - d'Ora (photographer) (8283046628).jpg
[edit]_(8283046628).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(8283046628).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fotographer Madame d'Ora died in 1963 Goesseln (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Undelete in 2034. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This fuzzy picture looks like a screenshot, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we actually know whether it was published withoug a copyright notice? The source does not state anything Discasto talk 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the user who had changed the licensing. I'm not sure if they published it with or without a copyright notice. I favor for deletion and I'll upload a seal to the English Wikipedia. File:University of Notre Dame seal.svg should probably be deleted, as well. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: This seal has been affixed to all Notre Dame diplomas since 1931 and is (as it says at the source) widely used around campus. It is hard to imagine that all ND diplomas from 1931-1963 had a copyright notice and renewal. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a given description of a coat of arms is in the public domain does not make any realization be in the public domain as well. Nobody prevents any author to create its own realization, but this specific realization needn't be in the public domain Discasto talk 16:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep File is sourced by age, and this image is the same except for being colourised. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment No, this file is neither sourced by age (sourced by age is not an argument, but publication without copyright notice, something no evidence has been provided about) nor being colorized. This is a derivative work of a presumed public domain coat of arms (no original design shown, but a 2011 recreation) and, as any realization of a public domain coa, keeps its own rights. --Discasto talk 07:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Did you even click on the 2 sources at all? They are there, and the only difference is the colourisation. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As I noted in closing the first DR on this image, the design of the seal is clearly PD-no notice because it appeared on every Notre Dame diploma without a copyright notice during the period when notice was required. The question here must be where this particular SVG realization came from. It is not present on either the web site or the PDF document which are sited as the source. Even that is only relevant if we were to assume that creating an SVG from a PD representation creates a new copyright -- I don't think it does if the two are essentially identical. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Fry1989 and Jim. Ruthven (msg) 13:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not verifiable as a present or former GWEN tower. Identification and location given does not conform to reliable sources, making this file not realistically useful for an educational purpose. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is this in the public domain? Discasto talk 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It's a 3D model that was created by the uploader at en.wikipedia. -FASTILY 05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader provides a source outside wikipedia, isn't it? Have you verified the relationship? --Discasto talk 09:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The source site shows Wikideas -- the uploader -- as an alternate name. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is this in the public domain? Discasto talk 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It's a 3D model that was created by the uploader at en.wikipedia. -FASTILY 05:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader provides a source outside wikipedia, isn't it? Have you verified the relationship? --Discasto talk 09:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is this in the public domain? Discasto talk 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It's a 3D model that was created by the uploader at en.wikipedia. -FASTILY 05:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader provides a source outside wikipedia, isn't it? Have you verified the relationship? --Discasto talk 09:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep on reasonable good faith. If anyone is worried enough they can identify the image and leave a comment asking for confirmation at the creator's blog https://wikideasblog.wordpress.com/. --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
image inverted Jm.mir3 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Only the top line is mirrored, presumably in the original. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
image inverted Jm.mir3 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Only the top line is mirrored, presumably in the original. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer? Discasto talk 18:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: The California Universities are exempt from the general state PD rule. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a sculpture in Paris. There is no FOP in France and according to Dimboukas on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dimboukas, this was designed by a still living architect, which means it is not in the public domain. Elisfkc (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This large quotation is possibly under copyright Discasto talk 21:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of release of copyright at source. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: This was painted by Cyd Wicker, who started painting professionally around 1980. It is possible that this is PD-no notice, but we don't know when it was painted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DerBorg as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: This picture, that should be a locator map of Naples within its province, is blank -it shows nothing- (and unused). Note: feel free to revert my request if this blank image is only a problem of my computer (sorry in this case). SVG is not blank but bad exported. Also, DerBorg didn't left a message to the uploader. Amitie 10g (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete The SVG source code does not contain any shapes and is technically blank. My previous vote could have sense if there is some hidden content in the image and/or there are MediaWiki rendering issues. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and fix. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Rezonansowy, Dэя, Amitie 10g, I don't understand. The image is indeed blank, so there is nothing to keep. Also, why isn't File:Map of comune of Naples (Metropolitan city of Naples, region Campania, Italy).svg the same as this image? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: Well, indeed the SVG source code does not contain any shapes but only link to some raster GIF image located on the author's computer. I'm going to correct my words above. --Rezonansowy (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Does not look like own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Utterly no indication of user's own work on this whatsit. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This doesn't appear to be own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Logo for an Italian school football team. The page on it.wiki has been repeatedly deleted for spam. BohemianRhapsody (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The user who uploaded the image was blocked infinitely on it.wiki (see here.) --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No source provided to authenticate licensing of {{PD-USGov}}. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:George H. W. Bush - portrait by Herbert Abrams (1994).jpg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if Mr. Shanks relinquished the copyright, the National Portrait Gallery does not (http://si.edu/Termsofuse). — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The guide map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The guide board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1987. [15] G I Chandor (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The figure on the left side is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Photos and figures are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. The statue is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. The statue is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep They are two benches. furniture. --Benzoyl (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: The sculpture of the man has a copyright as does the painting on the right hand bench. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2002. [16] G I Chandor (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 1988. [17] G I Chandor (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan. It was created in 2007. [18] G I Chandor (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FDMS4 as no permission, but I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 00:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JuTa: I was batch-tagging uploads by that user; those I checked were previously published elsewhere which should raise doubts about the others even if reverse image searches can't find anything. In this case, specifically, the filename should raise quite some red flags. FDMS 4 04:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: random filename, small size, no EXIF, other uploads were deleted because of problems, this smells like a copyvio. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by the this file (harmonized with the ohter municipal maps of its province)... and an exact duplicate of this file. Dэя-Бøяg 01:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This logo is not below the threshold of originality. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest image does not correspond to the given source. Leyo 09:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: version deleted per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is not longer [User:Azetina|Azetina]] (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon exvSTR+rf-.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, +redir. --Wdwd (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A SVG Version is created. (ref. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carrie_Lam_2017_CE_Logo.svg) Momocalbee (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
(A) We don't keep images as PDF's.
(B) There is no evidence that the organization has given permission for freely licensing this logo. An authorized official of the organization must send a free lciense using OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost certainly a copyright violation. (see [19]) Sussexpeople (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unused logo. Out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-trivial logo Jorge Barrios (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This image does not have any indication of souce at source given which is obviously not a government site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, wrong source/license. --Wdwd (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No source information provided to assert it's from the 15th century. It does not seem so Discasto talk 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Subject died in 1441. Pretty sure this is PD-old. -FASTILY 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, whatever creative drawing of a subject old enough becomes old enough? Interesting --Discasto talk 09:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Art. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Who is the author...? When he died...??? - How this image is in PD (Where is the proof of authors death+100 years) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete IMHO, it looks like a contemporary recreation. --Discasto talk 11:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The previous discussion is good enough. --E4024 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete Hmm. This image appears in many places on the Web in several different crops, but nowhere can I find where the original painting is housed. That seems unlikely for a work of this purported antiquity, so I am inclined to agree with Dicasto. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Please don't be so iconoclastic, Jim and Discasto (or Dicasto :); I guess Jean Hey, Master of Moulins, of late 15th century could be artist. --E4024 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Yann closed the previous discussion. What does s/he has to say? --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This seems obviously old. Jim's reasoning doesn't work to me. If it were contemporary recreation, there would be more information about the painter, etc. It is justly because it is old that we don't have much information. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- All the questions to be answered to keep it as a free file..-...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- This image seems to be a fake. It is a photoshopped pastiche of this image and something else. While the linked image is supposedly by Bernardino Luini, even that is kind of doubtful, as the number of online hits is quite low. Here and here are two other, slightly different version of that painting. In summary: A fake with unknown sources. The PRP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Per my explanation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
No evidence the author is dead 70 years. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This photograph looks to have been taken in 1910-1920s (age of person and style of dress); and for photographs taken prior to 1956 Copyright Act in the United Kingdom the 1911 copyright legislation prescribed 50 years copyright to the owner of the negatives of the photograph, nothing about the photographer. After 1956 the term on photographs to the author was 50 years post death. This should be kept and labelled {{PD-UK-unknown}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: as per billinghurst. --Yann (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that this is actually "own work" as claimed. Also, why does this group meet our requirement for notability. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(A) It is not clear that this group meets our requirement for notability.
(B) I suspect that the uploader is in the picture -- one of the group is named "Wes". If that is the case, then this is a copyvio. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The following is copied from my talk page -- Jim
- "Hi James, could you please explain your specific concern about a potential copyright issue with the photo The Bare Facts Boys?
- Sincerely Wesley England Wesrelips (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)"
- The following is copied from Commons:UnDR -- Jim
- "I am Wes England and would like to understand how a photo containing the author might be considered a violation?
- Sincerely, Wes England"
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesrelips (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- You are in the picture. Therefore, you are probably not the author. The actual photographer is the author and copyright holder and only he or she can freely license the image here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following is copied from my talk page -- JLW
- "Good morning James,
- Thank you for taking my question. I recently proposed a Wiki page on the Band, The Bare Facts.
- You had two questions that you had addressed with me concerning deletion.
- 1.) I had posted two photos. One of which contained my name. You had mentioned that because I am in the photo, I could not be the one to approve the use of the photo. May I ask how I would go about verifying that this photo is mine, taken with my camera, at my request? The second photo was taken in 1968, and there is no copyright of this photo.
- 2.) The second question that you proposed was why this band is notable? I would refer you to two things. One, there is another band, already on Wiki, with the same name as ours. Their background and experience is very similar. However, unlike this other band, we have been recognized in print, The Secret History of Chicago Music, as a significant influence in Chicago music. The band has been interviewed on Radio and Video many, many times, as recently as 2016. I had added a link to the publication on the Wiki page I had created.
- I am an honest and sincere contributor to Wiki and I would like to have these issues resolved, to your satisfaction. :I do believe that we should be given the exact same consideration as the other band, mentioned above.
- Sincerely, Wes England" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesrelips (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Again, the copyright belongs to the actual photographer. It does not belong to the camera owner. It belongs to the person requesting or paying for the photo only if there is a written agreement with the photographer transferring or licensing the copyright. So, unless the image is a selfie (which you say this is not) then the author cannot be in the photo.
- There is a copyright for the 1968 image unless you can show that it was published before 3/1/1989 with the copyright holder's written permission and without the required copyright notice. If it was published with notice in 1968, then it will be copyrighted until 12/31/2062. If it was unpublished until recently, it will be under copyright for 95 years after publication
- As for notability, ultimately that question is up to our colleagues at WP:EN. However, it is highly unlikely that they will keep an article on a band written entirely by a member of that band. As for the other article you mention, please read the article Other Stuff Exists. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Jameslwoodward here on the not-selfie thing, except besides a selfie, another OK thing would be shutter-delay that you set up, but I take it that isn't what we have here, either.
- The right thing to do is to contact the photographer (or possibly for the 1968 image the photographer's heir) & go through the process outlined at COM:OTRS to clarify permission.
- I think mention in a book is enough to address the issue of notability. Maybe not for a Wikipedia article, but certainly for Commons, which has a lower threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have assumed that "selfie" describes any image taken by one of the subjects. That would include hand held, selfie stick held, and those taken with the camera at a distance with the shutter fired by a self timer or any remote control, including the new voice operated shutters. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- As for notability, ultimately that question is up to our colleagues at WP:EN. However, it is highly unlikely that they will keep an article on a band written entirely by a member of that band. As for the other article you mention, please read the article Other Stuff Exists. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Macassar as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: quality??? Yann (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Moheen Reeyad as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader request. Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; unused personal image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Macassar as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: quality??? Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Fake authorship, depicted person stated as a photo author. MaxBioHazard (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Same problem on
- File:А.Н.Рудой на леднике Фернагтфернер.jpg
- File:Alexei Rudoy in Altai Taiga.jpg
- File:Копаю близковики.jpg
- File:Russian Geographical Sosity.jpg
- File:Я34 12 ноября 2010.jpg
- File:С камазом в иогаче.jpg
- File:Рудой Алексей Николаевич.jpg
- File:Руковожу процессом. Авгут 2008.JPG
- File:Гросвальд-бейкер.jpg
- and other files in Category:Alexey Rudoy MaxBioHazard (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Alexey Rudoy probably is not the author of these personal photos, but he may be the copyright holder. I saw on his en.wp user page and his Commons talk page an OTRS ticket number (
2010012410016275) - maybe this ticket covers legally all these files. Also on his talk page are some responses and explanations regarding file tagging for possible problems. Pinging OTRS agents @Sealle and Dogad75: can you check please the status of this ticket? This is a complex and interesting case: more than 100 files uploaded by this user in ru.wp (~all of them are transferable to Commons), several files on Commons, and few on en.wp. --XXN, 12:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)- This ticket does not help. We still need photographers' permissions. Sealle (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, If you say so... For the photos where appear Rudoy himself, if there is no permission for them, I'm neutral regarding deletion (though I think, perhaps this is some kind of wiki-over-bureaucracy, but maybe needed).
- But this DR with the current nomination rationale IMO does not cover all other pictures in Category:Alexey Rudoy in which Rudoy is not seen, like this, this, this, this or this - assuming good-faith, if Rudoy stated he is the author, we can trust him, unless there exists an evidence that one or another photo is not (or can't be) taken by him. --XXN, 14:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- This ticket does not help. We still need photographers' permissions. Sealle (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, in Category:Personal_images are many photos which obviously are not taken by their uploaders - the depicted persons. We should be consistent in handling this problem. --XXN, 01:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
File:Premier dr. Cerar in general Gorenc za ohranitev enotnosti severnoatlantskega zavezništva 1.JPG
[edit]
No evidence that this object is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would think official orders fall under {{PD-Slovenia-exempt}}. --Sporti (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure because the tag states: "official legislative, administrative and judicial texts;" and we treat money as copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Are images created by "Google deep dream" free? Yann (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I asked myself the same question. I think a computer or a software cannot pretend to be an author (just like an animal cannot). I also do not think the creators of the software could pretend to own a copyright on this picture. If yes, this would mean all the images processed by Photoshop would be considered as co-authored by the Photoshop developpers. BrightRaven (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: I am keeping this, because usually products of algorithms don't cause a copyright. How would a court rule? Who knows. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The first of these is a 1914 image and obviously not "own work" as claimed. The third shows up in the same size at the web site of the Cleveland Sun. While the second does not show up with Google, given that it is small and lacks EXIF, and the uploader's record on the other two, I doubt that it is actually "own work".
File:E.105th and Euclid Avenue.jpgfound published in 1914, hence PD-1923File:The Hebrew Academy.jpgDR already open- File:-5fa22602d1f4585e.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The first two files in this nomination already have individual deletion requests open. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:E.105th and Euclid Avenue.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Hebrew Academy.jpg. We should avoid forking deletion discussions. - Eureka Lott 14:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unfortunately, VFC gives no indication of that, so there is no way of knowing, short of bringing up each of the images in a VFC DR. That could be done for three, but gets impractical rapidly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. Should we remove the duplicate {{Delete}} boxes from the image pages? Also, it looks like the third file was moved to File:Yeleseyevsky Deli in Mayfield Heights, Cleveland.jpg. - Eureka Lott 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted the third file due to the lack of EXIF, the random filename, and the uploader's history as a likely copyvio. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own works : small/middle sizes without EXIFs. The uplaoder already uploaded copyvios.
- File:Yeleseyevsky Deli.jpg
- File:54d0f15422286.image.jpg
- File:David Berger AZA -1823.jpg
- File:Ohio northern region12921312312412.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
District: BRD RUssia RomÄnia 2003:8E:6D03:4339:D813:60F2:2BA0:A363 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: unintelligible DR. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Desislava Panteleeva is the most beautiful Bulgarian girl – at least in her own opinion. She has done nothing in Wikipedia except self-promotional userpage in en.wiki and uploading a self-portrait, which is used nowhere except the userpage. All her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The photo itself is good and I added 6 categories. Then I saw, that the photo is not big and it has no metadata. The photographer and uploader are different persons, so this can be copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Ok for this one. Yann (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Per OTRS (ticket:2017012510010695) from the subject in the photo, this was not uploaded by her and not authorized. Sphilbrick (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yann: It was in use, but only on a user page, which the subject of the photo claims is not her. That user page which was user page disguised as an article, has now been deleted.
- The claim that it is her own work is contradicted by the subject. At a minimum, we should require OTRS proof.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per Sphilbrick. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As the uploader mentioned in the picture's description in He.wiki (אברהם לייב בורשטיין), "Avrum Burstein. Photo by Loulou D'aky". As there's no OTRS release note, it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No information about the status of the objects being photographed Discasto talk 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:OldMJWilds.jpg Discasto talk 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:OldMJWilds.jpg Discasto talk 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
At source given is no indication of true source of this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
the description references an OTRS ticket, is this right? Could someone with OTRS access please verify? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
the description references an OTRS ticket, is this right? Could someone with OTRS access please verify? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult to assess whether a painting fulfill the requirements: "It was published on territory of the Russian Empire (Russian Republic) except for territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland before 7 November 1917 and wasn't re-published for 30 days following initial publications on the territory of Soviet Russia or any other states." Discasto talk 22:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Portrait is from 1916, according to the description. Seems to fulfill the criteria. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
complex logo above COM:TOO. No permission for CC license, not own work. Wdwd (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Applies also to (same logo/style):
- File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg
- File:Volkswagen Logo.png
- File:Volkswagen logo.svg - DR from 2010: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volkswagen logo.svg
- File:Volkswagen-logo.svg
- File:Logo VW.jpg
Remark: Threshold of originality was lowered in germany in recent years (see Geburtstagszugentscheidung - in german). DR started to estimate new threshold here on commons for logos from germany.--Wdwd (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm unhappy with this at all, as it is a case of only "ordinary shadow and glare" makes the TOO. But as the TOO situation is also very unclear now for all, I'm also ordinary passive.
- Conclusion: Bad copyright or no clear rules, so delete them all. (However most pictures seems user made and not really ...). ↔ User: Perhelion 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. There are also the following logos to be considered:
De728631 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
