Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/02/15

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive February 15th, 2017
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

© Gretel Herrera. Con la tecnología de Blogger. Jos1950 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this © Gretel Herrera. I have seen the picture somewhere else and with better quality, but also ©. --Jos1950 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can use that the next opportunity. --Jos1950 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Amitie 10g: PD image (BTW, I uploaded a better resolution version). Ruthven (msg) 09:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logotipo del Ministerio de las Patatas Fritas con Kétchup.png

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

This file was initially tagged by Gage as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: A larger version of this same photo has been deleted from Commons three times already, as it is work of the Alabama government and not public domain. I did not find the larger, deleted resolution. Taivo (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Luther_Strange.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 Correction, twice. Gage (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, now I agree to delete the file speedily. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Pleclown as no permission (No permission since) Autorisation en cours. Yann (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently explaining to the author the OTRS procedure. The author is not connected this week end, but I should get an answer within a week. --Nattes à chat (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no authorization received speedy deletion please (artist does not agree with terms of CCBYSA) Nattes à chat (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Pleclown as no permission (No permission since) Autorisation en cours. Yann (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion please artist did not agree with terms of CCBYSA Nattes à chat (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Pleclown as no permission (No permission since) Autorisation en cours. Yann (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion please artist did not agree with terms of CCBYSA Nattes à chat (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Pleclown as no permission (No permission since) Autorisation en cours. Yann (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion please artist did not agree with terms of CCBYSA Nattes à chat (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by SouthamptonFan123 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Seems to be a screenshot from TV, see COM:DW.

Poké95 03:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image taken from Flickr, uploaded by blocked user Ytoyoda (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of project scope ~ Nahid Talk 12:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Wikitanvir: Out of project scope

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

I created this by mistake, instead of creating a category. Pititnatole (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: housekeeping. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Matanya: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julia and Dairn, 7 Oct. 2010 - Flickr - PhillipC.jpg: Private photo, not used.

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

holiday snap of non-notable individual; out of scope DCB (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted. Oversaturated and blurry. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not free Logo / Logo non libre Supertoff (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Taivo: Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons: surpasses threshold of originality

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

This image contains a derivative image which is clearly labeled "H/HISTORY" like the History Channel from Television. I suggest that the US worker was using the other Image from History Channel as an example and despite it being in a NARA photo, that the contained image is not able to be freely licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jasonanaggie - Using VisualFileChange.

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

Copyright violation (see http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/2734/Sporting-Lokeren/article/detail/2837197/2016/08/23/De-Ridder-na-20-jaar-weer-bij-Lokeren-Dit-voelt-als-thuiskomen.dhtml) Sussexpeople (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyright violation Theroadislong (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF states: Australian Defence Force photo by ADF Cpl. Janine Fabre. The US govt can't make this available under any licence, or even into public domain, without approval from the ADF. Something they refuse to do Mungoola (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Krd: Broken redirect

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

This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images taken from https://www.championat.com/hockey/news-2231797-vratar-salavata-niklas-svedberg-predstavil-novyj-shlem.html Ytoyoda (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Santornet (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.pressworks.com.br/upload/clientes/resultados/gde/296-MAC_0758%20RGB.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. -- Darwin Ahoy! 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:DW of artwork.

LGA talkedits 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all public graffiti or mural works, not in a museum or other place, I believe there are free from copyrightVgrigas (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, it will explain that murals are copyrighted and as the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks these are not free for use on commons. LGA talkedits 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. With the PDM license, the copyright owner still owns full rights over the image.

Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep out of process, make a new DR every year or so. metadata does not trump explicit license. how do you copyright a photo taken in 2017 in 2013? i.e. the wrong date tends to undermine the claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This has to do with the flickr license which is Public Domain Mark. The metadata is just a warning that the copyright owner retains copyright over the images...unless he/she changes the flickr license. A Public Domain Mark (PDM) license on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies because the flickr copyright owner retains full copyright over the images. Please see this Deletion Request for the Admin's clarification: the Public Domain Mark license can be revoked at any time. That's why Commons cannot accept this license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith is not sufficient when the copyright owner has a copyright notice clearly posted in the camera metadata for each photo. There was never any COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner and so she can launch legal action against Commons at any time. As Admin Woodward stresses, the Public Domain Mark flickr 'license' can be revoked at any time and that Commons cannot accept this license due to this problem. COM:PRP should apply here. The other Admins rejected this license at present so as a non-Admin trusted user I have to follow their decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: This image is PD (under US law) despite the PDM license since it is a US government image but the images under DR are by a private individual. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • good faith is sufficient. these are low risk items. there is a far higher chance of copyright vio with an false "own" or "PD-USGov" or FOP germany, than PD uploader. what is the number of DMCA take downs of PD items? is it less than FOP germany? the other admins did not have a consensus, they and you only have your strongly held views unsupported by facts, only an ideology of license purity. we have 300000 items with no metadata, maybe we should improve those licenses and sources, and the existing files with PD, before increasing the standard for new uploads.
    • why don't you cleanup the metadata of the USGS image rather than persist using the the broken use of information template? "Photos were taken with a system developed by Dr. Anthony G Gutierrez (Tony.Gutierrez@us.army.mil) and taken by Brooke Alexander, Sue Boo, Heagan Ahmed and Sierra Williams." what makes you think all those people were works for hire? were not some of them contractors? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: That's been discussed before.... Alexander and the others were interns, and so 'employees' under US law. - Reventtalk 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: When these images are sourced to a US government site, they would be PD if the metadata says US Navy, US Air Force, USGS, etc or generally sourced to a US government site. But when when an account linked to an individual person has a PDM license, it was the Admins who decided to delete the image, not me. I am not an Admin. In this image it says you can contact someone at usgs.gov at the bottom. So its certainly US Government..as in US Geological Survey. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you realize how many thousand images have been deleted from NASA website as "contractor"? or even ESA [1]: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons" - and some have been deleted and put back [2]. maybe we need an OTRS to USGS to establish who is an employee and who is not?
do not evade responsibility for your deletion nominations. the blithe assumption of US website = US Government is equivalent to flickr uploader used PD tag = PD own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, unless the Flickr account owner licenses the images. The public domain mark, and it's use on Flickr, has been discussed repeatedly, multiple places. There is a clear community consensus that we cannot accept it, because it is not a license, and we cannot 'pretend' that people who apply it to their own works are granting a license. - Reventtalk 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: In this case, the credit line in the camera metadata was given to NASA and the images are sourced to a NASAHQ Photos account. The copyright owner is explicitly named as '(NASA/Bill Ingalls)' which implies that Ingalls did the photography for NASA or NASA gave credit to Ingalls. In the undeletion request, it is clearly stated that "However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA." So, Ingalls work is PD.

If you wish to change Common's policies on a completely different issue like Public Domain Mark, this is not the right forum. PDM just Cannot be accepted from a private person's flickr account because the copyright owner, Linda Rae Duchaine here who states a claim of copyright over her images in the camera metadata, can Revoke permission at any time. How can Commons use these images? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

(tJosve05a (c) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - obvious case. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files are on Flickr with the 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license for Commons, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark since they can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time. As long as the license is not changed at source, we cannot keep these images.

Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment these have a category - use visual file change right or not at all. how many times will you append this page confusing the issue?
keep intent of flickr user was public domain. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: PD Mark images are not accepted on Commons since the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time. This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators to protect Commons from any legal problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you do not have a consensus for "This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators". your "revocable" is a theory only, there is no case where it has been here. there is no DMCA of a PDM. you are making up legal problems where none exist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: The matter was the subject of a six-month long RFC in 2015, as well as several discussions on VP/C since. The consensus of the wider community has always been that the PDM is not acceptable. - Reventtalk 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a bad close is not a consensus - what wider community? i see a clique of deletionist admins who rule by fiat. you dare call it community? this is why commons is hated and you are hated. come to wikimania - then you will see a community, if you dare. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • vk The is no doubt that the original photographer is the one putting these on Flickr, nor is there doubt that they intend them to be public domain. I have sent an advisory Flickrmail as below. With regard to the claim that a decision was made to "protect Commons from any legal problems", I find this an odd statement as there literally can be no legal problem for either Commons or volunteers who make the upload in good faith. @Leoboudv: could you link to where you have seen this stated? Thanks -- (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to  Delete based on a Flickrmail received to my account this morning - (extract) "I do not want my photos on Wikimedia Commons at this time. I have removed them from Flickr to prevent further confusion." If the links given as sources on these images are followed, they are now '404' pages. -- (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It was mentioned in this Deletion Request here and I believe that Jcb and Josve05a have the same understanding. I will be away on Thursday for a seminar. I am following Common's rules by filing this DR and I did not determine the rules on PD Mark. I too was warned not to pass such images some time ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced DR, PDM was mentioned, but nobody described it as a legal problem for Commons. Though we may gain a consensus for policies to handle the uncertainties, my understanding still is that uploads in good faith pose no tangible legal risk to the uploader, nor to the WMF or Wikimedia Commons project. Simply put, if the Photographer is the Flickrstream owner and they wish to change the license, then there will be an issue of whether the license is revocable or ever meaningful when applied to the photographer's own works. As it would be the copyright holder changing their mind, they would be free to request take-down or deletion, however there never has been a case of a claim of damages going to court for a verifiable PDM license being used to rehost an image, nor is it really conceivable that there ever will be, so long as reusing parties are doing so in good faith. Consequently, we could, say, wait for an indefinite period to see if the Flickrstream owner replies to my email, and evidence of that effort to determine copyright would be sufficient legal protection against future claims; so deleting these files within 7 days may be precautionary but logically and legally is not a necessity. -- (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The basic issue is if a license on flickr is revocable as other Commons Admins state then it would be a legal problem for Commons to use it. That is why the other Admins decided not to use PD Mark licensed photos. Of course, you are invited to flickrmail the copyright owner to change the license if you wish to CC BY (Attribution), CC BY SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)or CC zero (public domain dedication) if you wish. I saved some images in the past but there are hundreds of anti-Trump protest images on Commons already. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you mean it is revocable like a flickr user can change their CC-BY license? gosh i guess we can confirm the status at upload and move on. why should PDM be any different? there is a higher legal risk of a "FoP Germany", since there has been a case of a DMCA takedown there - unlike PDM. you are arguing about risk with no data whatsoever.
"other Admins decided" - are you saying admins are the deciders, and we just report on what they do? do admins trump consensus? maybe we should revise the process page. maybe the admins should discuss this on a locked page and just inform us what images to keep and delete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Once an image passes review with a generic CC-BY, CC BY SA or CC zero license, the image is considered passed for life no matter if the copyright owner changes the license at a later date...unless it is a copyright violation or if there are COM:FOP issues. So, Commons can keep the image forever. This image was definitely CC BY at upload even though it is now CC BY NC SA today at the flickr source in 2017 because it was uploaded in 2005 with a FlickLickr bot...that could only upload freely licensed CC BY images at upload. Hence it is not revocable today and Commons can keep it despite the copyright owners change of license with a NC (Non-Commercial) restriction. With PDM, the license is revocable, so its not really a license--more like a label. The copyright owner can remove the use of that image with a PDM license at any time simply by changing the license to say 'All Rights Reserved.' A PDM license has no legal effect. I think most normal Admins have the same understanding of the problems of using PDM labelled/licensed photos. Thank You and I will be away on most of Thursday in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
its a funny thing, the flickr bot also approves PDM such as this one File:Library of congress panel 2140020.jpg. i guess it is not revocable. you have no example where an uploader has changed the "label" - why make stuff up? we have no case law about changing CC-BY licenses, so we do not know the "legal effect" of insisting they are irrevocable. all you have is some tl;dr boilerplate. hey- take all year off, you will not be missed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You would have to ask the flickrbot designer this, not me. Stop being a troll. I won't nominate your image for a DR since its clearly your own image. The flickreview bot never marked your image since you uploaded it with Upload Wizard Extension So, the Upload Wizard Extension bot programmer hasn't clued in that PDM images shouldn't just be passed without review. Lucky for you. As for me, I am a volunteer and I am doing my duty as a marker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is just as much PD as the current case. apparently the admins who decided, have not decided to inform the wizard devs at the WMF to change their allowed licenses, but they screwed up the flickr2commons since that is java. lol. don't leave the barn door unlocked. "duty as a marker" = troll - have you ever taken a picture? why are you here if you have not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the closing Admin who decides this case will decide to send a message to the Upload Wizard Extension programmer about PDM. Or Admin Revent who knows about the PDM issue will close down this 'loophole' as you correctly note. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158352 - Reventtalk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Thanks for your reply here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: According to Fae who flickrmailed the copyright owner, Jillian Sallaway has rejected the use of her PD Mark images on WikiCommons and deleted all of them on her flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We can them nicely if they agree to change the license. But the problem is this set of images is very replacable as there are hundreds of women protesting Trump. If the copyright owner says no and doesn't change a license and make it free, then we cannot use the photo. I have had other people agree to change licenses for their images here Some of these images were taken in the Cairo Museum before this Museum banned all photography in their museum so they are not replacable today. The Egyptians also ban all photography in the tombs of the Valley of the kings today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, the problem is, commons is not a safe space that honors personality rights, and people might well doubt good faith reuse. emailing people on a one on one basis is not a way to run an image repository, it is bush league. yeah "very replacable" = "once you're seen one protesting woman you've seen them all. so let's just clean out the category of all shots not in use. and we can always farm flickr for more" you have a somewhat smaller vision of commons, i.e. a walled garden necessary to support wikipedia only. i'm beginning to agree with you, maybe i should take all my uploads to english, and "do not transfer to commons" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It was the Admins that decided that Public Domain Mark is too risky. I didn't even know about this decision until I was warned not to mark PDM images. So, I'm just following their decision here. An image doesn't have to be in use on wikipedia to remain on Commons forever. Thanks for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it was the admins who closed a discussion against consensus. i'm just not following their corrupt practices here. and you should expect images to go elsewhere forever. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The King Trump ones are high-quality caricatures with quite some meaning. This is in contrast to this "caricature of Donald Trump" that people here are seemingly desperate to keep and which is entirely inappropriate, not a caricature, and not useful or educational but out of scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Personal art and AI art is deemed out of scope. --P 1 9 9   14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. PDM is revocable by the copyright owner at any time. Leoboudv (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful picture, but sadly yeah it should be deleted. Too bad. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to McLaren. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 08:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, DELETE, as it is ambiguous and looks rendered and not photographed; something only the manufacturer could produce with Maya. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Mercedes. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 08:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this is a photo or a rendering, but either way it wasn't made by the energy department, good catch. DELETE Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Honda. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 08:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, DELETE this one, no doubt about this with the fake skyline in the background. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Audi. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 08:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no doubt that this one was a screw up by the energy department. That is not the work of an energy department staffer, not to denigrate those working in the energy department. DELETE Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Nissan. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would have to agree when comparing this one to the others that this photo is likely provided by Ford; as judged from the highly retouched city scene around the car vs. the car show style photos that seem questionable. I agree that this one should be deleted as a safe precaution. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Ford. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it had some exif data, as it does not look like the quality that a car manufacturer would produce, but more along the lines of what an energy department intern might produce at a car show, taking a rapid approach to get all the cars at an event, but I won't protest it if you want to err on the side of caution. I honestly did not see that little part of the descriptions when I initiated the uploads. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that some images in this set are indeed produced by the Dept of Energy, File:Toyota Mirai (29414863042).jpg for example. In these cases, the author is "Simon Edelman, Energy Department". Badzil (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not actually the work of a DOE employee, the photo is even credited to Hyundai. This photo has already been deleted once. 70.67.179.167 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyrighted:
千葉県
(Chiba Prefectural Government)
総合企画部報道広報課千葉の魅力発信戦略室

Not free enough to share on commons for:

  1. official prohibitions on color/shape modifications : [3](pdf ja)
  2. need of permission : [4](ja)
  3. this photo is hardly judged as "De minimis".

(see also similar cases : Commons:Deletion requests/Files under Category:Guribū) --Tokorokoko (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted character. Not free. [5]

G I Chandor (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 2015. [6] G I Chandor (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The monument was erected in 2012. [7] G I Chandor (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 2001. [8] G I Chandor (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 1985. [9]

G I Chandor (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 2013. [10] G I Chandor (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 1993. [11] G I Chandor (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


copy rights Aoisora be (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly out of scope. Supernino (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a document only for User:Gazouya. Out of scope. G I Chandor (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal item Pippobuono (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MaxiCarruega (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal photos and logo. Out of scope. User did nothing for Wikipedia apart from creating a user page in 2014.

Castillo blanco (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Ruzwana Bashir is a notable person. --Érico (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope (COM:PENIS) Sascha GPD (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope (COM:PENIS) Sascha GPD (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe a Facebook screenshot of a private person. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 2005. [12] [13]

G I Chandor (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Qurren (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan, photos of art works situated in public locations in Japan cannot be uploaded to Commons. (Tarō Okamoto died in 1996.)

DAJF (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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


No FOP in Japan. It was created by Tarō Okamoto (1911-1996).

G I Chandor (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. These are art works by Tarō Okamoto (1911-1996).

G I Chandor (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. It was created by Tarō Okamoto (1911-1996).

G I Chandor (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

NoFoP-Japan. This work was created in 1969 and is therefore under copyright protection.

Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: work by Taro Okamoto († 1996). --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Painted by Josef Frühmesser, not "own work". See W:Josef Frühmesser. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Own work" was referring to the photography of the painting of course, I will correct it. Ritter von Schönherring (talk)
Do you have permission from the copyright holder? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, the painter must also send a permission to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

clearly it's copyrighted as there's a copyright watermark in it, plus the source is a mainstream news outlet, so the likelihood this is CC released is slim to none Joeyconnick (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The guide map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The guide map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The guide map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9   17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is personal artwork by non-notable artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IgnisKat (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Artwork by non-notable artist, more suitable for website "deviant art" or similar.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9   18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Érico (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Érico (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Érico (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Érico (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No encyclopedic value TJH2018talk 19:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9   20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9   20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sabbir Rahman Khan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope. Unused personal images.

Érico (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uncategorized, and not used. DavidIvar (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

False caption, image uploaded purely to support Wiki vandalism General Ization (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files are not from the Federal Government. According to {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}} "Filings by parties are copyrighted (except for filings by the United States government, which should be tagged with {{PD-USgov}}"

Elisfkc (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the pertinent discussion on this issue:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DARWEESH_V._TRUMP_1-_complaint.pdf -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But to sum up the crux of the issue is that the courts have not found that Court filings once in the publicly available system, are still under copyright. There is not a single case on this issue in any United States courts. The only case that comes close is regarding publicly available filings on EDGAR with the SEC: https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/072010-EDGAR-copyright-infringement.html
Here I would make the corollary that if you want to maintain confidentiality and copyright protection of public domain legal filings, it must be agreed to by the judge and be filed under seal. This is just the fundamental nature of our legal system; it is open for anyone to see, we don't have secret trials, or secret filings unless one can prove the need for confidentiality and probable damage caused by making court filings open to the public to read, sell or do whatever with. It is one of the very cornerstones of the American Judicial System. You cannot copyright something that will be filed with the court because in the very act of having a court clerk; it moves into the Public domain. This is why you can get copies of any court filing for free and can reproduce these and sell them as many websites do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going with what seems to be the rule according to the template I mentioned. It also brings up the issue then of copyrighted images and logos filled inside of amicus curiae briefs. Are they then in the public domain, or will they still be copyrighted? Elisfkc (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Filings such as this are most definitely public records, and copyright fair use would cover most reasonable cases of copying. Certainly, any copying in relation to discussing the court case would be fine. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire scope of possible uses protected by copyright is OK -- the case you link is someone directly using the content in a filing to aid a competing service (the use having nothing to do with the reasons they were filed). Or, things like derivative works may not be covered by fair use. I'm pretty sure that in cases like this, it's just that the fair use grounds are greatly expanded as compared to normal works, not that copyright is completely extinguished. And while most real-life uses and copying in relation to the court case would therefore be OK, it's still not really the same thing as "public domain" (i.e. complete lack of copyright), and therefore not the same thing as "free". It's frustrating, no doubt, as they are very pertinent for educating about the case, but... it may still be at odds with our charter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The fact that there may be a solid fair use case for the verbatim reproduction of court filings (or an implied license for verbatim reproduction) is no answer to the fact that the court filings are presumptively copyrightable and non-free, and is inconsistent with our license allowing for free usage of files on Commons, including for derivative works and commercial purposes, and our policy on the unacceptability of "fair use" files. (Full disclosure: I was responsible for the change to the language in {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}}.) RJaguar3 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious; can you cite even a single case brought in court in which someone claimed a copyright violation by people who sell court filings or give away court filings. I have done quite a bit of WestLaw searching and I could not find a single case. This is very odd if your contention that there is a copyrightable claim to a court filing after it is filed with a clerk of the court. Let me give you an example, let's say that a certain attorney contends that their particular wording of a prenuptial agreement is so special that nobody should be able to reproduce it without license given to the original attorney. I would expect to find a case citing this, however, when you think about the very nature of how case law is used and how precedents are set, someone would be commended for finding the wording that stands up best in all courts of law and reproducing it word for word without citation as it is unnecessary in a court of law, unless you also want to cite the case to cite it for precedent before the court you are filing with. If something is copyrighted and could not be reproduced even being done so in a for-profit venture, there should be at least one case you can point to showing this. But as I see it that would undermine the independence of the judiciary from the legislature; because if copyright laws which are made by the legislature could limit the judiciary, the legislature would be overstepping their Article I powers of the constitution in their forcing the judiciary (which only is governed by Article III of constitution) to abide by any regulation that the legislature would want to place to limit the judiciary. Any such statute applying to the judiciary would be unconstitutional on its face because the judiciary is a coequal branch of government with the legislature and the executive. None of the three can encroach on any of the other's duties. Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
White v. West Publishing Corp. and Reed Elsevier Inc. (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2014) (finding legal database republication of court filing to be fair use, noting that plaintiff registered copyrights in briefs). RJaguar3 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM The complaint in the case states that the two briefs had copyright registration numbers TX0007259439 and TX0007417300, which I verified using the Copyright Office catalog. RJaguar3 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you; this is a truly awesome find! Here is a good summary of the case for anyone not interested in reading a court order: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/07/republishing-litigation-brief-is-fair-use-white-v-westlaw.htm
I searched the case to see if it had been appealed any higher, as a circuit court decision would be more definitive, but yes, this seems to be one of those few cases that died at the district court level, and I haven't even seen something that went this far. Nevertheless it confirms what I thought about how the court felt about the issue, but they squarely used the Fair Use factors to decide the case. I wonder if the district court used the fair use test because of the novelty of the case that was before it, as the court seems to dislike the idea of copyrighting something that you intend to file in court too. I did like how much latitude the court gave WestLaw and LexusNexus. The difference I see between this case and the filings that are being discussed above is that there was a copyright registered relating to the documents being contested. There is no copyright registration in place for any of the documents being discussed for deletion, which then would be using them as Fair Use, but without the copyright registration, I think it's closer to Public Domain. Anyone else think the same way? Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The docket does add some basis on my thinking above (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2012cv01340/392336) Docket at 32. The court dismissed the case before the plaintiffs actually filed for registration of their copyrights. They then moved for leave to refile after gaining the copyrights registered. Then the ruling that User:RJaguar3 was ultimately found in favor of the defendants. This is the only case of its kind filed in any court across the country. Which makes it a great find! Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, since they are from the State of Washington.

Elisfkc (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Jcb, As closer, I also not that I don;t think Commons scope covers keeping publicly available court documents. closed by. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flag files uploaded by User:Radiodjerikstonehvny

[edit]

User:Radiodjerikstonehvny has uploaded a quite a number of files of flags of US cities as "own work" or PD when it is not clear that either is really the case. It's highly unlikely that files such as File:Flag of Greenwich, Connecticut.jpg and File:Flag of Stamford, Connecticut.jpg were created by the uploader, and unlike the States of California and Florida, I don't believe en:Connecticut, en:New Jersey have similar copyright rules when it comes to governmental works. In addition to licensing things as "own work", there is also PD claims for File:Flag of Bergen County, New Jersey.jpg, File:Flag of Essex County, NJ.jpg and File:Flag of Warren County, New Jersey.jpg which seem to indicate that this particular user is not familiar at all with COM:PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - also small, poor quality. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cropped from this image, no evidence that the uploader is the original author of the image. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hosting file. Commons is not a share resource for images. ← Alex Great talkrus? 02:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: What about File:Screenshot 125.png? ← Alex Great talkrus? 11:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence of licence, needs OTRS permission Mungoola (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: very poor quality -- unusable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info says: "Australian Defence Force photo by Cpl Matthew Bickerton". US govt contractors can't do anything with licencing. ADF refuses to CC licence other than CC-BY-NC-ND. Mungoola (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images released to the U.S. Department of Defense as a courtesy by contractors, allies and coalition partners are public domain within the United States per Ticket#2016052110008897. This grant of license may not apply outside the United States as noted by {{PD-US}}. – Maliepa (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The OTRS ticket is a special case and has no general applicability. The copyright to contractor courtesy images remains with the contractor unless there are special circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info states: "Australian Defence Force photo by Cpl. Matthew Bickerton". US govt contractors can't place this into PD. ADF refuses to CC licence properly. Mungoola (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images released to the U.S. Department of Defense as a courtesy by contractors, allies and coalition partners are public domain within the United States per Ticket#2016052110008897. This grant of license may not apply outside the United States as noted by {{PD-US}}. – Maliepa (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The OTRS ticket is a special case and has no general applicability. The copyright to contractor courtesy images remains with the contractor unless there are special circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info states: "Australian Defence Force photo by Cpl. David Said". US govt contractors can't place this into PD. ADF refuses to CC licence properly. Mungoola (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images released to the U.S. Department of Defense as a courtesy by contractors, allies and coalition partners are public domain within the United States per Ticket#2016052110008897. This grant of license may not apply outside the United States as noted by {{PD-US}}. – Maliepa (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The OTRS ticket is a special case and has no general applicability. The copyright to contractor courtesy images remains with the contractor unless there are special circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Peterandfrankie (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Missing or questionable authorship and source information. The uploader claims that photos taken in 1910 (File:SPC AT 1910.jpg, File:OPENING OF WU TING FANG.jpg) are his/her own work, which seems unlikely. The uploader also claims to personally be the copyright holder of photos from vaguely identified sources ("St Paul's College," "Wayfarer," "Wayfarer Bk", "St Paul's College Wayfarer" or some variation thereof), but there is no explanation as to why this would be the case. Apparently, Wayfarer is a school magazine of St. Paul's College in Hong Kong, established in 1958. Some of these photos may be in the public domain due to age, but a proper rationale, correct publication date and verifiable source information is needed for each.

LX (talk, contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photos with the exception of Principals' Photos are taken through the College magazine, Wayfarer, which has entitled for free use. {{Copyrighted free use}}
Whilst the photos of the principal is taken from the website of St. Paul's College. - http://spc.edu.hk/content.php?id=58&mid=1-15
These photos are used in
|lang1=en|wiki1=wikipedia|article1=St._Paul's_College,_Hong_Kong
|lang2=zh|wiki2=wikipedia|article2=聖保羅書院
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterandfrankie (talk • contribs)
I'm afraid that doesn't really help much. I see that you've changed the source and licensing information for File:Joseph Charles Hoare.jpg, File:Gerald Heath Lander.jpg, File:Speak.jpg, File:Howe.jpg, File:HAWINGHO.jpg and File:Vincent Stanton.jpg, pointing to http://spc.edu.hk/content.php?id=58&mid=1-15 and claiming that the content is covered by {{Copyrighted free use}}. However, the source site contains a copyright notice and an "All rights reserved" statement. That means that they reserve the right to control how their work is used and by whom – the exact opposite of {{Copyrighted free use}}. And you're still claiming that you are the photographer of File:SPC AT 1910.jpg and File:OPENING OF WU TING FANG.jpg and that you're the copyright holder of the rest of the photos... LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 07:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Peterandfrankie (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Very unlikely to be own work, especially given the user's upload history.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

no permission for background painting Krd 06:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - also poor quality. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Web-sized painting uploaded by mobile device, unlikely to be uploader's "own work" as stated czar 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

дубль https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coke_Sign_-_panoramio.jpg Alexandronikos (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

дубль https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cojoba_rufescens_(10150212353).jpg Alexandronikos (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of focus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obvious scanned image, no source LMLM (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suica's Penguin is a copyrighted character. [14]

G I Chandor (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plates are copyrighted works.

G I Chandor (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The text on the description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The photo and map on the description plate are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The guide boards are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope (copied table) Eternal optimist (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, à supprimer (ok). MerveillePédia (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. This monument was erected in 2004. G I Chandor (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. The statue was erected in 2000. [15]

G I Chandor (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Japan. Tokumeigakarinoaoshima (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is a copyrighted character of Tomakomai City. [16]

G I Chandor (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a copyrighted character of Otaki Town. [17] G I Chandor (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The advertisement is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

screenshot of Twitter, free license? Furthermore, educational purpose of the screenshot? Ezarateesteban 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable youtube, Out of Scope. Kkairri (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file is used his user page on English Wikipedia, but he hasn't edit yet. In addition, it can be considered as advertisement.--Kkairri (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paintings are copyrighted works.

G I Chandor (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small photo without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a scanned personal photo. There is metadata which is when the scan happened. I'm in favor of keeping this photograph. Badzil (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - also unidentified person -- out of scope personal image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

wrong licence Pippobuono (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private dark photo. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no freedom of panorama in France. Who is architect of depicted building and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Complex logo. Not a public domain. Texniths (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

no proper licence Eingangskontrolle (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Complex logo. It doesn't seem as a public domain Texniths (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exif data : Auteur : Bernard Thibodeau Détenteur du droit d'auteur : CdC-HoC, le détenteur des droits doit donner son accord voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia. Sculptor's copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of project scope ~ Nahid Talk 12:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scop Mjrmtg (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very small picture. Likely copyvio. Badzil (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to the other files from this contributor. Badzil (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused photo, no educational. Out of scope. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope.

Castillo blanco (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work. No proof of free license nor permission. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work. No proof of free license nor permission. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Magocross (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal photo album. Out of scope.

Castillo blanco (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image clearly states non-commercial use only. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please, remove copyrighted artwork. Otherwise, remove the whole picture Discasto talk 14:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: cropped to eliminate problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same image is already available elsewhere online such as on campaign posters and at her Twitter account. An OTRS ticket is required. Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Julesvandam (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Dubious own works, small sizes, no exif

/St1995 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Camilapobletem (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Dubious own works, small sizes, no exif

/St1995 14:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by SGershon (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal photos. Out of scope.

Castillo blanco (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Tobías Rubilar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Dubious own works, small sizes, no exif

/St1995 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzcyNGVjNDItNDI3OC00OTM5LWJmNWQtYWJmYzM1NGRjNDAwL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDcxODM3OTI@._V1_UY1200_CR206,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: What is still missing in existing collection of explicit images? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Rikazinfo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

From http://www.hakagroup.co/TheTeam.aspx?cms=iQRpheuphYtJ6pyXUGiNqro6mMRwUUrE

Ytoyoda (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Gibsoncenia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

poor quality, no educational purpose apparent Joschi71 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9F_%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_(%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9_%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8) Tomtom (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per discussion. --Sealle (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Danielhbordeleau (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photos, drawings and newspapers. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "File:Time-Balbo.jpg" as public domain per PD-US-not renewed-TIME, if the uploader withdraws his claim of being the author and copyright owner of this image. Delete "File:Balbo-arrivée.jpg" for insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to these articles of the New York Times. Delete "File:Balbo-préparatifs.jpg" for insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this text by Arnaldo Cortesi. Delete "File:Balbo-Shetiac.jpg" for suspect statement of own work as the source. Keep "File:Balbo-Longueuil-depart.jpg" as public domain per PD-1996, PD-Canada (photographs created before 1949) and PD-Canada-anon (texts published anonymously more than 50 years ago), if the uploader withdraws his claim of being the author and copyright owner of this image. Both the texts and the photographs are attributed specifically to this newspaper, without individual names. Delete "File:Balbo-promotion.jpg" for insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this text by Arnaldo Cortesi. Delete "File:Balbo-radio.jpg" for insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this article published in the New York Times. Delete "File:Balbo-preparation.jpg" for insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this text by Arnaldo Cortesi. Keep "File:Lemay-oct37.tif" as public domain per PD-1996 and PD-Canada (the artist died in 1944), if the uploader withdraws his claim of being the author and copyright owner of this image. Keep "File:Lemay-sept39.jpg" idem. Keep "File:Lemay-jan39.jpg" idem. Keep "File:Lemay-juin39B.jpg" idem. Keep "File:Lemay-juin39.jpg" idem. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: and Kept"" per nomination and Asclepias. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://g3.delphi.lv/images/pix/995x521/-IvK2NWrxfc/gobzins-roberts-47690491.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The data use policy of the source website states that […] materials are protected by United States copyright law or in some cases under a Creative Commons 3.0 license. […]. The sub page presenting this image does not seem to include any indication that this file is available under a CC license, however. Unless I've missed something, this should probably be moved to en.wp – shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a fair use rationale for it. El Grafo (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: The source page is clearly marked ARR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Phil49260 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photos and advertisement. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some files restored. License, date, source, and author fixed. Yann (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ali Akbar Saiidikia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in France. Thesupermat (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Noideawhatiamdoing (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photo and book. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:The Tarankaki question.pdf. The author Jamie Busby died before 1947 and the work was published before 1923 as per PD-old-1923 and the work is also public domain in New Zealand! --47.150.92.85 20:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Buddle holding shark.jpg. On http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/collections-research/collections/record/am_library-photography-67226 under Availability it says "No known copyright restrictions  (Copyright)" --47.150.92.85 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep keep both no copyright restrictions exist on both images! --47.150.92.85 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Clearly PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. The advertisement is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Advertisements are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-6374128-200-cPROjmO5FOONlRQ2RSzJXpZH2DfVUOjc.jpeg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is "all rights reserved" on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/144700784@N07/32161754201/ Ytoyoda (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taken from Twitter profile: https://twitter.com/tahsan_sj?lang=en Ytoyoda (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not CC-BY : Owner of the camera but not author of the picture Irønie (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Gdoneil

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "out of Common:Project scope". I created the media myself using information from a source that I cited. I believe this would allow me to contribute the media to the page.gdoneil(talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better to use w:en:Help:Table for such purposes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the person before me used a table to present the information, and that table was large and uninviting to read. By using a photo, I think it creates an inviting form of media that attracts readers primarily through the presentation of the chart.gdoneil(talk) 13:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: the second, kept the first for being in use. --Jcb (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Gdoneil

[edit]

Submitter claims this as their own work, but it's a close copyedit of the table on page 2 of this document published by Montgomery County Public Schoolsː http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/techlit/docs/Levels%20of%20Use.pdf

Is there a fair use rationale in this case? Ringbang (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted No, fair use is not allowed on Commons. Clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation unless Valentin712 is Christian Schenkel, the author: http://www.dtoday.de/regionen/lokal-panorama_artikel,-Schweden-fordert-Deutschland-heraus-_arid,151433.html. jdx Re: 16:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i asked him now there if he is the same person: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Valentin712 --2003:6A:6B05:AD00:9CA6:4DD7:F898:AF84 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

permisiom? BDaniel (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

permision? BDaniel (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Likely copyvio. Not found elsewhere on the internet but credit in EXIF data doesn't match uploader. P 1 9 9   17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately this file is copyrighted and only hosted by ESO. Szczureq (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately this file is copyrighted and only hosted by ESO. Szczureq (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately this file is copyrighted and only hosted by ESO. Szczureq (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9   18:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe not educationally useful. Low resolution and a bit unclear. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently cropped from the photo in this person's Linked In profile. No evidence that the uploader created the original image. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User almost definitely lied about copyright. Logo is from http://www.cardozohigh.com/. Mets501 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User almost definitely lied about copyright. Logo is from http://www.cardozohigh.com/. Mets501 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User almost definitely lied about copyright. Logo is from http://www.cardozohigh.com/. Mets501 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not from the US Government as tagged, but from the Connecticut State Senate; there is copyright information on the website. Also the image has in the metadata: Author and copyright holder Derek Dudek "All rights reserved." Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better evidence is needed for the claim that the uploader is the author and copyright owner of this logo, especially given that it was used by the municipality before 2015 [18]. Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better evidence is needed that the uploader is the author and copyright owner of this artwork, given that it is said to be from another source. Asclepias (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sloan Digital Sky Survey images are non-commercial use only Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work Triplecaña (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is blurry and of little interest or use. I propose deleting it. SecretName101 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is dark, blurry, and of little interest. It has relatively no potential uses. SecretName101 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is dark blurry, and has no apparent uses. SecretName101 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copivio of logo Stolbovsky (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This contributor has several deletion requests. Exif data of File:Anastasia Mcqueen junto con Lindsay Mcqueen.jpg say that the author and copyright owner is Tobias Oelgart. Exif data of this image say that author and copyright owner is Mohamed Chendri. Both images are uploaded as own work. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Sealle, closed by. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work: painting from sq:Fatmir Haxhiu (year 2000), see https://www.facebook.com/GegTosk/photos/a.439306782794541.99594.439285259463360/975746885817192/?type=3 Albinfo (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

another image that was grabbed from the web by this user – popular on the web (e.g. http://www.tourplanning.eu/it/traditional-costumes/ ), probably from Pinterest Albinfo (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buste d'Abraham Duquesne, réalisé en 1949 par Marius Petit, né en 1913 décédé en 2009 ( https://e-monumen.net/patrimoine-monumental/petit-marius/ ) 82.121.151.41 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

> Compris. Il me semble difficile de joindre les héritiers de l'auteur pour solliciter leur autorisation. Je vais donc attendre 2159. --Blanchoyeur 09:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

German stamps are no longer PD, due to a court decision. The author of the original (this version is a DW) stamp, Leo Haas, died in 1983. This will not be PD before 2054. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

German stamps are no longer PD, due to a court decision. The author of the original (this version is a DW) stamp, Leo Haas, died in 1983. This will not be PD before 2054. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright infringement. The Little Mermaid is still copyrighted Pugilist (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible copyright infringement (see this page) Andycyca (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

looks like a website screenshot, dubious self-work claim FastilyClone (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

poor quality, apparently no educational purpose DCB (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unusable blurry photo with little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9   17:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Licensing is invalid/无效的授权协议 Shwangtianyuan (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: deleted by User:Jcb as Copyvio. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsche 918 Spyder (28898945984).jpg. Badzil (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is arguably deletable on lack of quality arguments, it looks horrible when I blow it up. I wish the energy department would get their act together and only post their photos. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe not educationally useful due to the low quality. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe private photo. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion, person now idenified and notable per COM:SCOPE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

poor quality, apparently no educational purpose DCB (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

poor quality, apparently no educational purpose DCB (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation claimed by Herzogin Amalie Bibliothek Weimar. Es liegt eine schriftlliche Auskunft der Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar vom 13.2. vor, dass Digitalisate aus deren Bestand und damit auch das Journal des Luxus und der Moden nicht außerhalb des Bibliotheksservers genutzt werden dürfen. Das Digitalisat wurde von Studierenden im Rahmen einer Seminararbeit eingestellt. Zum Schutz der Studierenden bitte ich als deren Lehrender um Entfernung des Digitalisats Jürgen Nemitz (HSP) (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Herzogin Amalia Library in Weimar claims, that the digitized text must not be used outside the library's servers.--137.248.1.31 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a scan of a text published in 1790. Is there any doubt in that and its copyright status? Please note that usage restrictions like those enumerated on the title page are not of concern for Wikimedia Commons as they are non-copyright restrictions. In principle we can consider deletions out of courtesy on request by the uploader, Ziemer&Perl, in case of accidental uploads. But this does not appear to be accidental as it has been transcribed at Wikisource, hence COM:INUSE applies. (But it appears pretty strange that the usage restrictions have been transcribed as well.) --AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the issues with the text "Ah, ca ira!" we prefer the deletion of that document because we do not want to get any legal problems with the Herzogin Amalie Bibliothek Weimar. We both would be delighted if there would be an agreement about the deletion by an admin or whoever is able to delete it.--Ziemer&Perl (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion out of courtesy has to be postponed until at least the corresponding pages at Wikisource are deleted, i.e. s:de:Ah, ca ira!, s:de:Index:Ah, ca ira!.pdf, and the page-wise transcriptions. A deletion request has been filed and I think that we should wait for its closure. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The title page has been removed, the rest of the file is in the public domain. The other concerns have been resolved. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Involved all the uploads of Talleres Adultos Mayores

Several problems as photos without metadata and taked in several places and cities (a lot of kilometers of distance between places), a collague without sources provided (File:Teatro Argentino de La Plata (Argentina).jpg) and a copyvio deleted. Or we applied COM:PRP or we apply an analysys to all the pictures uploaded by the user Ezarateesteban 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: Its usually customary to list down all the files under discussion. I have done that for you now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most, per nomination -- small size, poor quality in some cases, no EXIF, no useful categories. Kept several large images with Samsung EXIF. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. (tJosve05a (c) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no such thing as a 'piecewise function' in mathematics. The definition of a function may use a case distinction (this is the meaning employed at en:piecewise), but every function can be written in that form. Whether a function can be defined without case distinction depends on the available set of basic operations; mathematics doesn't fix this set to be the "usual" operations +, -, *, /, sin, cos, log, ... from physics and engineering. Therefore, this category should be deleted in order not to convey wrong mathematical concepts. — A function may be such that pieces of it have particular properties, e.g. Category:piecewise linear functions does make sense. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Achim (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: empty & per nomination. --Achim (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a duplicate of File:Blokkerlogo.png. JurgenNL (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Merged duplicates per {{Dupe}}. (tJosve05a (c) 06:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild ist mit falschem Text unterlegt und nicht signifikant, da nur ein anderer Maßstab verwendet wurde Werkstoffler1234 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, request by uploader due to incorrect scale being used. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

(shifted) duplicate of File:Surface plot on matlab.svg Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove my duplicate? --Opisthofulax (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, ordinary editors like you and me don't have access rights to do that. If you agree, some privileged administrator will perform the deletion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a duplicate, it should be removed. --Opisthofulax (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work, taken without OTRS from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=134917289#post134917289 Triplecaña (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

evdo kartal hakında bilgileri Evdocan (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete: Uploader requesting deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. It would also be subject to deletion for being an unused low-quality personal photo of a subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. LX (talk, contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-free, www.fotograftina.se is hte photographer not the person on the picture Yger (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be from https://twitter.com/rafiath_rashid/status/759461506983440384 Ytoyoda (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

duplicate of File:Socata TBM-700, Private JP6351502.jpg Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake name and description. Actual output see here. Nut1917 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

кривое название, смысла не несёт Barbariandeagle (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Spain Discasto talk 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zustimmung der Urhebers (Fotograf Wolfgang Günzel) fehlt. „Quelle:Eigenes Werk“ ist fehlerhaft. OTRS-Ticket ist notwendig. Artmax (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zustimmung der Urhebers (Fotograf Wolfgang Günzel) fehlt. „Quelle:Eigenes Werk“ ist fehlerhaft. OTRS-Ticket ist notwendig. Artmax (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This flag did not exist and is out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://colombia.jairobernal.com does not clarify if it uses free licenses. Hence. it is assumed copyright Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This flag did not exist and is out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Coat of arms of Pakistan.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taken from https://twitter.com/Martinez_Maxi10/status/707404816193077249 Ytoyoda (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low resolution. Maybe private image. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

not own work, see File:Dupre-Salona-1821.jpg Albinfo (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a duplicate; the flag has been changed, and I’ve removed the tag. The “own work” claim might apply to the alteration of the painting, but it could have come from anywhere. The intent is unclear, but could be seen as excessively nationalistic, and it‘s not good that there‘s nothing to say it’s a DW or identify the source. I‘m not sure these defects in themselves are criteria for deletion, but I‘m inclined to say  Delete.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

chybně nahraná verze souboru Harmcz (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one and File:Seznam stanic letecké záchranné služby v ČR.png seem to be mistaken versions replaced by the newest version File:SEZNAM STANIC LZS ČR HEMS.png. --ŠJů (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

chybně nahraná verze souboru Harmcz (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination & note that it had pile of logos across the bottom. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

chybně nahraná verze souboru Harmcz (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

chybně nahraná verze souboru Harmcz (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one and File:Seznam stanic letecké záchranné 2017.png seem to be mistaken versions replaced by the newest version File:SEZNAM STANIC LZS ČR HEMS.png. --ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

probably not own work Tomas62 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a logo how else can I get on the page. Thanks Harmz (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no evidence of any permission for the use of the painting. The FOP tag is not applicable to this work -- it is neither outdoors nor permanently on dsiplay to the public. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Making a cropped version should solve the issue. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite true, but "somebody" must do the crop now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I cloned out the painting and I deleted the former version. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I downloaded a better version of this document HotaniKG (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: I disagree this version is better contrasted with good details. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely own work, looks previously published. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persönlichkeitsrechte sind nicht gewahrt 9EkieraM1 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: courtesy deletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This looks to be a DVD cover and not an original film poster. We hope (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: pre 1923. Ruthven (msg) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]