Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/08/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_Oil_Factory_of_Najafabad.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal image that adds nothing to image title "Salt Lake City, United States. Kalbbes (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: A DR for a DR?. --JuTa 02:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
it was selected by mistake 88.105.204.178 14:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: speedily, no valid reason for deletion. --Storkk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no 'show more' option to indicate the copyright of this youtube clip. it is not licensed as CC BY. Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I realized Tell Rifaat youtube images are not free after I rechecked them. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)- Comment: In contrast this youtube clip is free because under the "show more" option, the youtube license is mentioned and it is
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) or CC BY which is accepted on Wikimedia Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Correct. This specific video was under Creative Commons. Some videos by the Tell Rifaat council are under the Standard Youtube License, but as you said, this one and several others that I uploaded are under the Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Editor abcdef (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep as the nominator. After using the youtube filter option, I discovered the image is indeed licensed as 'Creative Commons'. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn and LR passed: CC BY. --Storkk (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no 'show more' option to indicate the copyright of this youtube clip. it is not licensed as CC BY. Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: This specific video was under Creative Commons. Some videos by the Tell Rifaat council are under the Standard Youtube License, but this one and several others that I uploaded are under the Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Editor abcdef (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)- Well I hope that an Admin can find the license as I could not. An Admin will decide this DR, not me. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as the nominator. After using the youtube filter option, I discovered the image is indeed licensed as 'Creative Commons'. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn and LR passed: CC BY. --Storkk (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no 'show more' option to indicate the copyright of this youtube clip. it is not licensed as CC BY. Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I realized Tell Rifaat youtube images are not free after I rechecked them.--Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: In contrast this youtube clip is free because under the "show more" option, the youtube license is mentioned and it is
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) or CC BY which is accepted on Wikimedia Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Correct. This specific video was under Creative Commons. Some videos by the Tell Rifaat council are under the Standard Youtube License, but as you said, this one and several others that I uploaded are under the Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Editor abcdef (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as the nominator. After using the youtube filter option, I discovered the image is indeed licensed as 'Creative Commons'. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn and LR passed: CC BY. --Storkk (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No source for the 7 source images. Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: on a second look it's a recreation of a file that has been deleted 3 days ago --> speedy. --Jcb (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Violation of the copyright in the pub sign. The sign is the main subject of the picture, and FoP doesn't apply. bjh21 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily, per nomination; copyvio. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Mistakenly created Tdorante10 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Non-notable person, doesn't need own Gallery page, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guy lebegue.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Bios have been deleted on both the en and fr wikis. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty gallery. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guy lebegue.jpg. --Achim (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Only usage seems to be for vandalism at enwiki by a sockpuppet - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Create_Account_Dude&diff=prev&oldid=798098883 Home Lander (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Has now been blacklisted at enwiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ABad_image_list&type=revision&diff=798099497&oldid=797576443
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrassy66 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files appear to have been uploaded by indefblocked globally locked puppetmaster User:A3cb1.
- File:Inaugurazione della XXVII Legislatura.png
- File:Mantova - Via Portazzolo.jpg
- File:Ritratto di Giangastone de' Medici.jpg
- File:Ciceruacchio.jpg
- File:Camillo da Correggio.jpg
- File:King George V and King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.jpg
- File:Leopold Joseph Graf von Daun.png
- File:Porträt des KönigsWilhelm III von Grossbritannien.png
- File:Pallade Tributaria.png
- File:Ritratto di Benedetta Gonzaga Nevers.png
- File:Ritratto di Costanzo Patrizi marchese di Castel Giuliano.png
- File:Cavaliere02.png
- File:Cavaliere01.png
- File:Ritratto di carlo Emanuele III di Savoia con la famiglia.png
- File:Trinità in Gloria tra Angeli e Santi.png
- File:Ritratto di luisa Francesca di Borbone.png
- File:Il Carosello Mantovano.png
- File:Vinciguerra d’Arco.jpg
- File:Nicolò d’Arco.jpg
- File:Ritratto di Roberto Castiglioni.png
- File:Ritratto di un Personaggio della nobile famiglia Castiglione.png
- File:Villa Malboni.jpg
- File:Miracolo di S. Mauro.png
- File:Ritratto di Gerolamo Martinengo.png
- File:Stemma dei Marchesi Cavriani.png
- File:Luigi Gonzaga di Sabbioneta.jpg
- File:Tarquina Molza.jpg
— Jeff G. ツ 02:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Salve, first of all, I do not know who this A3cb1 is. Since not the hop files that are uploaded, and because the files that I want to restore are completely excluded from copyright protection, being portraits, and vintage photographs ,,,, you can not and should not ignore these requests, Just because if you restore them the date won to the sock or the puppet, "I find that this behavior is not right" I did in time to see some of this busy user's bargains, and I have to say that hundreds of images are PD license So much and certainly with very high probability, excluding copyright protection,,,, I'm not a puppetmaster, do not confuse water with oil for courtesy--Andrassy66 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrassy66 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files appear to have been uploaded by indefblocked globally locked puppetmaster User:A3cb1.
- File:Sigismondo d' arco.jpg
- File:Tarquinia Molza.jpg
- File:Portrait of Vincenzo I Gonzaga.jpg
- File:Vinciguerra d’Arco.jpg
- File:Albert Edward, Prince of Wales and Frederick, Crown Prince of Denmark.jpg
- File:Christening of Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg at Balmoral.jpg
- File:Reception for the Emperor of Russia and the King of Saxony in the Saloon at Buckingham Palace.jpg
— Jeff G. ツ 03:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- File:Vinciguerra d’Arco.jpg was reuploaded. — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not own work Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 13:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Well-Informed Optimist: Out of project scope: promotional content
This was tagged {{Copyvio|external source, no license, no permission.}}, but I'm converting that to a DR. It seems to me that this should qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in use, {{PD-textlogo}}. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Imagen con copyright. SuZumiya (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - image found all over the Internet already, very much doubt own work claim. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb, speedily. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Two cousins: "Tamos A Curtir Numa Wela" ? 141.196.211.149 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: clear case: out o scope, no source, no author, no license. --JuTa 08:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I made it by mistake. M-sho-gun (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: A DR for a DR?. --JuTa 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
File uploaded by Fouadadan prepare it for Halal. 209.249.5.130 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work. Appeared in May 2017, with attribution to a named photographer, at http://missnews2100.blogspot.com/2017/05/meet-miss-universe-ph-2017-rachel.html . Also appears in the 'assets' folder of the photographer's publisher, at https://assets.rappler.com/7588FCB52B2C4533A1C9A0D347B29FB5/img/887AB203E6324000ACFFAE824F4D0C2E/Binibining-Pilipinas-Rachel-Peters-funfacts.jpg . NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy delete as copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work. Image appeared, credited to a named photographer, at https://indianandworldpageant.com/2017/08/12/yana-krasnikova-who-speaks-8-languages-is-miss-universe-ukraine-2017/ NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work. Image has already appeared at http://hanoimoi.com.vn/Tin-tuc/Giai-tri/876490/nhan-sac-hoa-hau-hoan-vu-dau-tien-cua-lao and http://hanoimoi.com.vn/Tin-tuc/Giai-tri/876490/nhan-sac-hoa-hau-hoan-vu-dau-tien-cua-lao NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work. Image has already appeared, with photo credit, at https://celebrityrave.com/article/i-still-get-anxiety-but-i-know-how-to-cope-with-it-newly-crowned-miss/ . NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work. Image appears in the Assets folder at http://missnamibia.com.na/assets/images/sune-january-2000x3000.jpg . A cropped version appeared at https://southernafrican.news/2017/07/07/a-moment-with-miss-nam-2017/ , in a posting that is dated earlier than the date given by the uploader. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Self promotion Apocheir (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Tiny unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, unused personal photo. User's other uploads have been deleted for copyvio. Apocheir (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dustywaffles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
copyvio (realexclusive.com) Vysotsky (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
copyvio (no own work, image w. realexclusive.com ) Vysotsky (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faizan Ali Fazi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
--ghouston (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be own work. It's Kong of Lazers talk to me 01:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Upgraded to Copyvio, see nl.rosler.com/nl-nl/. Wikiwerner (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pls discuss it anyway 7 days as it is a logo.--Sanandros (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the logo is above ToO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely tiny (just 1215 pixels!) and essentially useless, plus a tiny image suggests a possible copy from some other site. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 03:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright statut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 03:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: this is a scan with unclear copyright statut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 03:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright statut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, not in use, uploaded by a sock
— Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright statut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright statut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
All of these files have unclear authorship and educational use.
- File:(บทนำ) คู่มือการพัฒนาประสิทธิภาพการจัดการศาสนสถานทางพุทธศาสนา.pdf
- File:ปกคู่มือการพัฒนา สมบูรณ์.jpg
- File:หลวงพ่อสัมฤทธิ์ วัดเขาสมอคอน.png
- File:กำหนดการกฐินสามัคคี วัดเขาสมอคอน วันอาทิตย์ที่ 8 ตุลาคม 2560 ตั้งแต่เวลา 9.00 น. เป็นต้นไป.jpg
- File:12การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:11การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:10การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:9การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:8การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:7การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:6การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:5การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:4การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
- File:3การบริหารการศึกษาในปัจจุบัน MCU 4.0.jpg
Guanaco (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:สื่อการศึกษาการวิจัยเพื่อการจัดการด้านศึกษาสงเคราะห์.pdf
- File:รายงาน การวิจัยเพื่อการจัดการ ในด้านการศึกษาสงเคราะห์.pdf
- File:สื่อวิชาการวิจัยการจัดการด้านการศึกษาคณะสงฆ์ ส่ง.pdf
- File:การสาธารณะสงเคราะห์.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable. — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, questionable notability. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently from http://www.kraysport.ru/press-center/affiche?id=424 Ytoyoda (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Likely to be from http://www.kraysport.ru/press-center/news?id=3160 Ytoyoda (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope, copyright violation is possible too. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by QUERALT-LORTZING (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images - out of scope
Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe Commons cannot keep images from KurdWatch. This video clip doers not have a 'show more' option to indicate the license while another video clip from this site indicates the license it uses is 'Standard YouTube License' which is not acceptable for Commons. KurdWatch only has 4 video clips. Leoboudv (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Correction: KurdWatch has more than 4 video clips but like this other clip the license, when known, is 'Standard YouTube License' which is not acceptable for Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose While some KurdWatch videos may be licensed under the Standard Youtube License, this specific video in question is under Creative Commons. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: From the youtube filter, I discovered, this video clip has a Creative Commons license. So, I passed it and withdraw this nomination. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
TimedText:CCD - The heart of a digital camera (how a charge-coupled device works).webm.zh-hans.srt
[edit]Out of scope It's Kong of Lazers talk to me 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- How is this out of scope? They're subtitles. MennasDosbin (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
unsharp and bad quality, no educational value and lots of better pics on fellatio - out of scope Achim Raschka (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Quality seems ok. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - the relevant portions seem to be sufficiently in focus for this to have a realistic educational use, meaning the image is within scope. We don't have many fellatio images shown from this angle. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No medical or academic value. Pornographic material. If needed for legitimate records of male sexual activities, should be removed from medical sections and those relating purely to the human penis itself. 49.197.107.232 12:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Please explain how things have even slightly changed since this was last kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Being used only for vandalism at en:wiki General Ization (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No non-pornographic potential uses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep General Ization, if a file is being used for vandalism on enwp, you can take it to en:MediaWiki:Bad image list and get it blacklisted. Overwriting the file is not appropriate. Beyond that nothing has changed since the last two DRs which kept this. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as no valid reason for deletion - We shouldn't delete useful images just because they're being used for vandalism..., FWIW these sort of images are added on articles all the time but as I said that's no reason to delete it, If someone's vandalising any article then that article should be protected. –Davey2010Talk 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion and previous DR's. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
author request Pietroaretino (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Poor image, blurring of participants makes the image difficult to comprehend (except for the penis and mouth), better pix of fellatio are available. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Gbawden. --Minoraxtalk 09:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be from http://m.sport-express.ru/rugby/reviews/1004569/ Ytoyoda (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 04:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 04:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 04:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, not in use, uploaded by a sock — Jeff G. ツ 04:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Flavia Farias (talk · contribs)
[edit]the logo is above ToO IMO
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Panakotaoffical (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image or no quite notable persons : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unknown street in Paris. Fairly low quality, and without more information this doesn't have an educational purpose. Guanaco (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Historical photo, own work is under doubt. Who is the real photographer? When it was made and published? Taivo (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://epicenter.bg/images/news/112015/pics/1447249852.jpg.
- File:2000 MWB.jpg
- File:Miss World Bulgaria 2015 Veneta Krasteva jpg.jpg
- File:Miss Universe Bulgaria 2013 Veneta Krasteva jpg.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 00:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, most of these images can be found on Google images.
- File:МисСофия2017.jpg
- File:Мис Свят България 2016.jpg
- File:Мис Свят България 2002 Десислава Гулеваjpg.jpg
- File:Конкурса мис свят българия 2000.jpg
- File:Miss Bulgaria World Veneta Krasteva.jpg
Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal images - out of scope
Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
unused logo, which seems to be out of scope. E. Primavesi (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
SEO / out of scope. E. Primavesi (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SeymourOmnis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:SeymourOmnis (file cropper and watermark remover.) and logs (+60 files deleted regarding metro /tranmsport of São Paulo) Probadly all grabbed from Youtube like File:Frota H - Interior.jpg (08.2016) = screenshotted, cropped and watermark removed from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiv-KP5cbuE&t=143 (03.2016, © by "Lucas Sousa")
- File:Frota P - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota L - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota J - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota F - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota H - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota G - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota D - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota E - Interior.jpg
- File:Frota A - Interior.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Susan Slater (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:44 - IMG 20150813 180736.jpg
- File:43 - IMG 20150813 180558.jpg
- File:42 - IMG 20150813 180410.jpg
- File:41 - IMG 20150813 180217.jpg
- File:40 - IMG 20150813 180035.jpg
- File:39 - IMG 20150813 175355.jpg
- File:38 - IMG 20150813 181027.jpg
- File:29 - IMG 20151010 181342.jpg
- File:25 - IMG 20150809 184253.jpg
- File:23 - IMG 20150706 155251.jpg
- File:2 - IMG 20150901 200550.jpg
- File:49 - IMG 20150904 212304.jpg
Yann (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid it passes the Threshold of originality, as the font is unusual and unique. Wanted (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: definitely {{PD-textlogo}}, but it's an unused promotional logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Youtube profile can be found here: [1]. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: not an active participant. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (potential private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Youtube profile can be found here: [2]. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files of User:Abo.qutami
[edit]- File:ابو احمد القطامي.png
- File:صورة لمدونة ابو احمد القطامي.PNG
- File:المدون ابو احمد القطامي شخصية.jpg
- File:ابو احمد القطام صورة شخصية.jpg
Low-quality unused personal photos --Apocheir (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused, very low quality (appears to be a still from a VHS recording) Apocheir (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no context, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo / bad joke Apocheir (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal (badly photoshopped) photo. Apocheir (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, with bad jokes in name and description Apocheir (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused blurry personal photo Apocheir (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused selfie Apocheir (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused photo of user who uploaded it Apocheir (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, in my opinion the photo is out of project scope due to bad quality. Blurry tree and black car spoil the picture. Taivo (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, plenty of alternatives available. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 18:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: no meaningful contributions, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Spam for apparently non-notable company. (Doesn't appear to have its own website, this video also gives that impression)_. Ubcule (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alti.lacor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope spam for some random company whose website doesn't even appear to exist any more. (Now holds domain squatter's holding page).
Ubcule (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image; out of scope Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image; out of scope Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 19:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to put it on wikipedia article, but the deleted the article so this picture is useles Borivojgrujicic (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
because is unusefull in article that I wrote Borivojgrujicic (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The image is not on the given source link. This image has no source. Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: This video is a screenshot of the linked Youtube video which is under Creative Commons. Can you please check this as an actual person instead of using an automated computer program? Editor abcdef (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment:
This screenshot never came from the video clip you gave. I played it 4 or 5 times already. So, the video link has to be corrected or the screenshot will be deleted....for not having a source.--Leoboudv (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, the screenshot was not from the length of the video Itself. However, it is the exact same image as the thumbnail of the video (second row, second from the left). All parts of the video were licensed under Creative Commons, as was the thumbnail. I don't think it's possible to separately license different segments of the video. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep That makes sense. I withdraw this nomination and passed the image. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons. (It's quite obvious, take a look at file description) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Can't find profile anywhere. Search result page here: [3]. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused documents of questionable notability.
- File:SOU uměleckořemeslná 2010.pdf
- File:REFERENCE SOU 2010.pdf
- File:Dantik - reference z Pražského Hradu.pdf
- File:Reference UPM 2013.pdf
- File:Reference z národní galerie.jpg
- File:Dantik reference Národní Galerie 2013.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, out of scope - reference letters --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused, low-quality personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused low-quality photo without meaningful description Apocheir (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files of User:Malik7210
[edit]
Unused personal photos --Apocheir (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused photo without meaningful filename or description Apocheir (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, disparaging filename and description. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused blurry selfie Apocheir (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused small personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal photo Apocheir (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Files of User:Hossam el aamed
[edit]
Low-quality unused selfies and personal photos --Apocheir (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Useless with the current amount of information. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Useless with the current amount of information. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Someone will identify it eventually. It may be the only nighttime shot we have of these cooling towers. --Fæ (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- How is someone supposed to "identify it eventually" if nobody will ever see it, because it's uncategorized and the description reveals nothing? Castillo blanco (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not having categories, is definitely not a reason to delete anything. It's a wiki, you can add categories with less effort than it took to create this DR. Categories now added. I also find an interesting use at here, which pragmatically demonstrates illustrative usage. --Fæ (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- How is someone supposed to "identify it eventually" if nobody will ever see it, because it's uncategorized and the description reveals nothing? Castillo blanco (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. We have Category:Unidentified locations. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Useless with the current amount of information. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Please avoid nominating FWS photographs for the sake of it. All FWS photographs illustrate key preservation areas in the USA, someone will be able to identify this with a bit of searching; you may be able to track it down yourself at https://digitalmedia.fws.gov. It's in use in other places to illustrate pollution. --Fæ (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope; useful enough as per User:Fae. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I, the author need to enforce my moral right to remove this image from the market after a request from one of the models. Really apreciate your cooperation and really sorry for the inconveniences. Oneras (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Useless with the current amount of information. Castillo blanco (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting wall dots = illustrative use. Could be used to illustrate blue dots, wall hooks, old walls, horse ties etc. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: disagree with User:Fae but (s)he sees a use for it. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 47.9.171.95 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: incorrect family tree. This is hand written falsified information, please find the correct family tree here http://www.royalfamilyofindia.com/mundota/ , request to remove incorrect photo Y.haruo (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image; out of project scope Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 13:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused low-quality photo of unidentified person Apocheir (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Self promotion Apocheir (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Very small unused photo, possible self-promotion based on user's other upload Apocheir (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused, low-quality personal photo Apocheir (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Selfie uploaded by user that has uploaded a number of other pictures of himself. Not used and out of scope Pugilist (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused, likely spam based on the description Apocheir (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Blurry, unused personal photo Apocheir (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused photo of user who uploaded it Apocheir (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused photo of user who uploaded it Apocheir (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
copyright violation Brgesto (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emre Mor.jpg: copyright violation
How can image very clearly containing a Getty watermark be own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better version is found at File:Royal Oak tube station Entrance.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zhangj1079 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://plus.google.com/+DeepakGupta/posts/YPFz8sGT1Fx
It says in the upload comments that it is a cross wiki upload so maybe ours is the original one. Sanandros (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: The post on Google+ was posted on 8 August 2017, while this image was uploaded on 28 August 2017. Last I checked, after someone posts something, you can't replace, add or delete images to the post. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 22:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just said that maybe ours is the original one. Because It could be uploaded on en wp before 8th August.--Sanandros (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright statut. + out of scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diannaa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free album cover
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Many album covers go under Fair use, why isn't the case with this cover?--TudorTulok (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fair use contents is not allowed on Commons. You may be thinking of English Wikipedia, which has different rules. --bjh21 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Many album covers go under Fair use, why isn't the case with this cover?--TudorTulok (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, creative enough to have a copyright. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{BadJPEG}}, orphaned/1:1 replaced by File:Rigi logo.svg. Leyo 22:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission from Marta Sobrinha. Uploaders name is Daniel Staiger according to their PT user page. Jcb (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission from the Lakes Grammar School Jcb (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skbcmba2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are composites of other images to which the uploader most likely does not have rights to transfer.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skbcmba2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Bangunan SKBC.jpg
- File:Sudut warisan skbc.jpg
- File:MakmalSKBC.jpg
- File:WakafTheHut.jpg
- File:Padang sukan skbc.jpg
- File:DataranSekolah.jpg
- File:Taman PRA.jpg
- File:Pak21.jpg
- File:Kantin .jpg
- File:Bengkel KH.jpg
- File:Pintu gerbang.jpg
- File:Warga SKBC.jpg
- File:Kenangan.jpg
- File:Aidilfitri skbc.jpg
- File:Bendera merdeka.jpg
- File:CeriaMerdeka.png
- File:Pelancaran3K.jpg
- File:Gerbang SKBC.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Images out of COM:SCOPE. Pictures of people should include all their face, not just foreheads. No indication of user's own work, three photos, three styles, one camera, otherwise no metadata.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Images without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works. May also be out of scope.
- File:Female Forehead.jpg
- File:Kristan.jpg
- File:BrittanyC.jpg
- File:AmandaV.jpg
- File:Alison B.jpg
- File:TerraY2.jpg
- File:Adrianna.jpg
- File:TerraY.jpg
Yann (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be own works. See also uploads by sock Yoshi3620.
- File:Female Eyes 17.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 16.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 15.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 14.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 13.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 12.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 11.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 10.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 9.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 8.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 7.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 6.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 5.jpg
- File:Female Eyes 4.jpg
- File:Female Eyes2.jpg
- File:Female Eyes3.jpg
- File:Female Eyes4.jpg
- File:Female Eyes5.jpg
- File:Female Eyes6.jpg
- File:Female Eyes7.jpg
- File:Female Eyes.jpg
Yann (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Actually already warned before, so account blocked. Also socking. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kamrul hasan chowdhury (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copied from several copyrighted content, like scanned, and unused personal photo. Out of project scope.
- File:Sonjit roy sir.jpg
- File:Rabar terakota.jpg
- File:Biju nritto.jpg
- File:Cha konna.jpg
- File:Terakota.jpg
- File:Memorial of Rajuk Uttora model collage.jpg
- File:Sonjit roy.jpg
- File:Mini art.jpg
- File:Exhebition.jpg
- File:Human scolpture.jpg
- File:Scolpture.jpg
- File:Charutotto.jpg
~Moheen (keep talking) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Milovokovitch (talk · contribs)
[edit]All copyright violations!
- File:Article Le Journal de Saône et Loire - 2016.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon interview Mme Saint-Aubin sur France 3.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon - Chevalier des Palmes Académiques - 2003.jpg
- File:Le nouveau Studio de Charles Révon à Roanne en 1950 .jpg
- File:2016 CONFERENCE JACQUES REVON CONFERENCE AU MUSEE NIEPCE A CHALON photo Patrice JOSSERAND Musée00018.jpg
- File:Plateau de l'émission Vecteur Jeunes - France 3 Bourgogne présenté par Jacques Revon.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon et l'Abbé Pierre lors d'un tournage à Saint-Wandrille en 1986.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon en reportage à la frontière de l'Afghanistan et du Pakistan.jpg
- File:Plateau de télévision de l'émission Vecteurs Jeunes.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon sur le plateau du Journal télévisé de France 3.jpg
- File:Robert Doisneau dans son laboratoire de Montrouge en 1978.jpg
- File:Robert Doisneau et Jacques Revon à la Fondation de la Photo à Lyon.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon en direct devant le Fort d'Ivry pour France 3.pdf
- File:Jacques Revon JRI pour France 3 Rhône-Alpes.jpg
- File:Jacques Revon - photographe et journaliste.pdf
- File:1971 - Jacques Revon - Photographe pour Citroën.jpg
Ras67 (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC) --- Bonjour Ras67 , je possède les droits d'auteur pour les photos de Jacques Revon. Je me suis proposée pour créer sa page et il m'a transmis les fichiers qu'il voulait utiliser. Comment puis-je vous prouver cela? Merci Milovokovitch (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ras67 , i'm ok for the deletion of my pictures, can you just leave the "autoportrait of Jacques Revon" in the infobox it's a free licensed file. Is everything ok on my page? Thanx a lot Milovokovitch (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
性的な題名のついたビデオカセットが写っており、スパム画像であるため。 Ariga (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: The nominator is claiming that the suggestive (adult-themed) video titles and possible spamming are a reason for deletion, but neither are supported by any valid Commons deletion criteria. --DAJF (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep And, The picture shows no "personal information" of the (tapes) previous owner. --Benzoyl (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yasu (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
83.50.230.191 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep — speedy, some kind of informed vandalism on four pages, maybe block the IP if you feel that it could help in this case. I fear the next we'll see is a delete on wheels for the harmless Help:Contents page. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
A wrong file has been uploaded Sarosh Lodhi (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, DR created erroneously. --Achim (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
pdxfkldxcssgjslvslsvslkpgsxskcjslsvs 104.251.44.25 22:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Guanaco as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Standard YouTube license. The uploader commented saying it's their own work, so giving them time to change the license on YouTube. Guanaco (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's also Commons:Derivative works from music. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Orphan, JCB 141.196.211.149 16:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
According to Munzinger.de, author died in 1952. Text is copyrighted is source country. Mainländer42 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Bogus license. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a 1916 book, which is before the 1923 date for US public domain, no matter who the author. It is a very well known book and was certainly published in the US at this time (although I'm still waiting on an English translation). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It was first published in Bordeaux. You may be unaware that Bordeaux is located in France rather than in the US. French copyright regulations apply, which is PMA+70. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It was published worldwide in 1916. This is still the only language edition I'm aware of.
- And of course I know where Bordeaux is, so lose the patronising abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Country of origin is France. No evidence of compatible copyright situation in country of origin, which is mandatory. You know that, you just like to have ridiculous discussions. Jcb (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The servers are in the USA. As is demonstrated by any number of URAA deletions, at the end of the day, it's the USA position that matters. And do not describe other editors as, " ridiculous discussions with nonsense arguments." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently you need to reread COM:L. Jcb (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The servers are in the USA. As is demonstrated by any number of URAA deletions, at the end of the day, it's the USA position that matters. And do not describe other editors as, " ridiculous discussions with nonsense arguments." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Country of origin is France. No evidence of compatible copyright situation in country of origin, which is mandatory. You know that, you just like to have ridiculous discussions. Jcb (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: As both George and Robert Stephenson were dead by 1859 and this French journal printed a annotated line drawing in English. There is no way (under EU copyright laws that I have come across) that a Foreign country or publisher can usurp UK copyright. Done by a jobbing artist, other wise a 'artists' monogram or something would have been included. Artists can't make a living by doing technical sketches and hope for some remittance unless they are commissioned to do so, in which case they don't own the copyright. So, out of UK copyright and thus also French copyright. P.g.champion (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Was George or Robert Stephenson the author of this drawing? The "unless they are commissioned to do so, in which case they don't own the copyright" part of your argument is simply not true. Many professional artists retain the copyright on their work, although commissioned. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not in 1916 France they don't. They retain the moral right (which France has been historically strong on), but the copyright status would be similar to how it is in Europe today: it resides with the commercial publisher commissioning the work, except in exceptional circumstances. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not in the Europe where I live. Your assumptions are not in line with copyright regulations. Jcb (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is France, so look specifically at "collective works". I see this book, where individual authors are uncredited and unidentified as very much a collective work, under the narrow French definition. That means that copyright dates from the publication, not the author's life. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not in the Europe where I live. Your assumptions are not in line with copyright regulations. Jcb (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not in 1916 France they don't. They retain the moral right (which France has been historically strong on), but the copyright status would be similar to how it is in Europe today: it resides with the commercial publisher commissioning the work, except in exceptional circumstances. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: This image should never have been posted for deletion. This is where EU copyright has become a mess for many editors. The proposer might be right on most things but not historic copyright. I've had some of my copyrighted images reproduced thousands of times and I am interest historic images also, so I am hot on this. For instance, the descendants of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once thought that they could claim copyright over all his works when the copyright terms in the EU got extended – but it turns out that even if he had be cryogenically frozen then thawed out and been declared alive by a doctor in 2013 (date of the court case) – his works before 1923 still fell outside the extension as they were published prior to 1923. It-is-the-Law! The proposer does much good work at getting rid of the crud from WC and I support him in that endeavor. Yet : Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. P.g.champion (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- At Wikimedia Commons it's mandatory that the file is Public Domain in the source country. You can read that at COM:L. So no, for works from Europe the year 1923 means nothing. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: This image should never have been posted for deletion. This is where EU copyright has become a mess for many editors. The proposer might be right on most things but not historic copyright. I've had some of my copyrighted images reproduced thousands of times and I am interest historic images also, so I am hot on this. For instance, the descendants of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once thought that they could claim copyright over all his works when the copyright terms in the EU got extended – but it turns out that even if he had be cryogenically frozen then thawed out and been declared alive by a doctor in 2013 (date of the court case) – his works before 1923 still fell outside the extension as they were published prior to 1923. It-is-the-Law! The proposer does much good work at getting rid of the crud from WC and I support him in that endeavor. Yet : Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. P.g.champion (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Lets go back to basics. This French railway company produced a very popular and widely read publication on choo-choo puffs (trains to you and me). Today, we would call it an w:house organ publication. A company I worked for ran one and we could print anything under editorial freedom. Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Why, oh why should a French company ask an artist to create a technical sketch and then annotate it , not French but English? Even if they did, it would still be PD as the artist would just retain moral rights. Just happens that the up-loader found a French copy of a British PD source. Even law courts go by the the 'balance of probabilities' and on balance this was a copy from a UK source. To reiterate: A foreign publication can not usurp UK copyright however much some individuals keep suggesting they can, despite the Berne Convention going against them. There are many other images on WC that are accept as being 'PD' on this bases. To do otherwise, would open the door for descendants to keep publish images in different EU countries and thus achieve w:perpetual copyright. I have a terabyte drive with some backups of some of my unpublished images in the hope that my descendants may be able to play a trick or two and profit from them but not on my watch here on WC ! So far, I haven't seen neither one jot or iota that under law, that this journal has any influence on this PD image whats-so-ever. Andy Dingley has a good grasp of pre 1923 EU copyright law as well and appears to have come to the same conclusion as most other WC editors regarding images of this vintage. If the proposer has been deleting similar images on this bases – we will need to look at them all! P.g.champion (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- UK is still Europe (although they may wish to swim over to the US after the brexit) and has a PMA+70 copyright length as well, so it doesn't matter for this case whether this is a work from France or from the UK, we still need to know when the author died. And no, if you use your "editorial freedom" to include a copyrighted work into what you mistakenly call a 'collective work', that does not affect the original copyright. Please take a look at COM:DW. Jcb (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Lets go back to basics. This French railway company produced a very popular and widely read publication on choo-choo puffs (trains to you and me). Today, we would call it an w:house organ publication. A company I worked for ran one and we could print anything under editorial freedom. Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Why, oh why should a French company ask an artist to create a technical sketch and then annotate it , not French but English? Even if they did, it would still be PD as the artist would just retain moral rights. Just happens that the up-loader found a French copy of a British PD source. Even law courts go by the the 'balance of probabilities' and on balance this was a copy from a UK source. To reiterate: A foreign publication can not usurp UK copyright however much some individuals keep suggesting they can, despite the Berne Convention going against them. There are many other images on WC that are accept as being 'PD' on this bases. To do otherwise, would open the door for descendants to keep publish images in different EU countries and thus achieve w:perpetual copyright. I have a terabyte drive with some backups of some of my unpublished images in the hope that my descendants may be able to play a trick or two and profit from them but not on my watch here on WC ! So far, I haven't seen neither one jot or iota that under law, that this journal has any influence on this PD image whats-so-ever. Andy Dingley has a good grasp of pre 1923 EU copyright law as well and appears to have come to the same conclusion as most other WC editors regarding images of this vintage. If the proposer has been deleting similar images on this bases – we will need to look at them all! P.g.champion (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we do have PMA+70 but applies after 1923 – which is the whole ruddy point. Read [2] for a better understanding of historic copyright. You seem to have got Andy and I playing tennis with you but your balls are all landing out of court, yet you go on and on serving new balls which curve so much that you have us running back and forth to try on intercept them before they go out of court. – which other editors may agree is not cricket. No more very short replies on your part -to keep us running back and forth - fully explain reasons for the premise of your arguments from now on . Also, can you please list all the pre 1923 images you have previously nominated because you may have in good faith been deleting many legitimate PD images. P.g.champion (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- "we do have PMA+70 but applies after 1923" - this is simply not true. We demand that files are PD in the source country. Are you questioning COM:L? Please be aware that this is official policy. Works from most European countries are only free if the author died before 1947 (for Spain even before 1937), even if they were first published before 1923. This is what it is. If you have difficulties understanding this, you may ask for help in the Village pump, maybe somebody can explain it better. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep - date author died: Henri Albert HERDNER (1853-1939). It has been 78 years - schematic is public domain. Atsme 📞 16:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! That makes sense. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't seems to be an own work but a scan Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I changed the source Saiwerd (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: unfree. Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
According to metadata the photograph is copyrighted by Ксюша. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This photo may be made by the uploader, but it's unlikely the creator of this derived work owns the copyright to all the used photos. Mbch331 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: by Wdwd. Ruthven (msg) 09:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot from a 1983 film Guanaco (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
User has uploaded multiple apparent copyvios. Lacks EXIF data, possibly not own work. Guanaco (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unnecessary and it replaced by File:Flag of British Guiana (1955–1966).svg Tcfc2349 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: we can keep both. Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Copyvio image. Greenbörg (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: My search on the net shows that it is the oldest & the highest resolution image there. So, I can't figure out how it is a copyio. Greenbörg, please show the link from where it is copied. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per NitinMlk. @Greenbörg: feel free to put the file in SD when you've the link. Ruthven (msg) 10:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
_Oil_Factory_of_Najafabad.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Oil_Factory_of_Najafabad.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copy righted Diyarenoon (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
_Oil_Factory_of_Najafabad.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio from [3]. Ruthven (msg) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
_Oil_Factory_of_Najafabad.jpg){kind=link}
The licensing info states that the image is of "Australian origin". This is apparently contradicted by the image description that states: "standing in front of his Messerschmitt Me 109E in Sicily, Italy, whilst being assisted by two ground crew personnel" -- i.e. the image is of German origin, and its copyright status is unclear to say the least. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Taken in Italy, so Italian law applies. I have added PD-old-70. Keep unless there are other issues. --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- German law applies if it was made by a german in Italy, overriding any exception based on italian law. Author may still be alive or died recently. --Denniss (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- How does that work? Copyright law of the country the photograph is taken in applies, there's no global exception to this stated in COM:CRT. If this were not the case, then professional photographers would get around almost all copyright and privacy laws by paying for a post box in say, Turkmenistan, and use that as their working address.
- Anyway, this is a tangent, as there is no evidence that the photographer was German, in fact the ground crew are far more likely to have been provided by the Regia Aeronautica Italiana as part of Axis forces. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- German law applies if it was made by a german in Italy, overriding any exception based on italian law. Author may still be alive or died recently. --Denniss (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Fæ. Ruthven (msg) 10:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
file uploader stated that it is not his work Ата (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Cross-wiki upload from uk.wikipedia.org. Ruthven (msg) 10:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
at the request of a single author Максим Огородник (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, we need it. Too late. Keep. E4024 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Image is already in use. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Contemporary photo of a possibly unknown author, without permission Максим Огородник (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Dear administrators, I suggest deleting this file quickly and without discussion. It doesn't belong to me, it's an old mistake of mine that I want to fix now. Thank you--Максим Огородник (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- And last time the user wrote that his photo - «at the request of a single author Максим Огородник». Can I believe that user? --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know which template to put, because I don't know English well. I apologize for the erroneous template.--Максим Огородник (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Krd 10:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: No evidence to support the claim that this photograph is in public domain via {{Attribution}}, as indicated by uploader. Checking waybacks of the source link and the main site (before and after) reveals no copyright notice, presuming that the whole site is copyrighted. Gunnex (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- See also similar cases via Commons:Deletion requests/File:HEROILMA foto 1 edited-1 945 1417.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:André Soares.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely "own work": web resolution, no EXIF Wcam (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- No web resolution or EXIF does not equal "unlikely own work".--Elmond (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Availbale on the web from 11 June 2013 and 12 June 2013. The image has been uploaded to Commons on 6 July 2013. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Serge Guillou (1932-2016). Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Serge Guillou (1932-2016). Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Serge Guillou (1932-2016). Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Serge Guillou (1932-2016). Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:MatinKarimli.jpg
- File:Picture IT.jpg
- File:Xocali yurush (2).JPG
- File:Yeni il (1)s.JPG
- File:Qish mektebi.jpg
- File:Yaya mektebis.jpg
- File:20 yanvar yuruss.jpg
- File:Gənclər Günü.jpeg
- File:YAPGBXEYRİYƏ.jpg
- File:Ufuk Budak.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
s.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: we need at least the coutry the photo was shot and the date. Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
copyright violation Vysotsky (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This image fails COM:DM as the advertisement illustrates the subject of the picture. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Very slightly cropped version of File:Kostel sv. Stanislava.JPG. Harold (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Image is a low quality image but an accurate copy is found at File:Ladbroke Grove tube station 1.jpg. Therefore, this image can safely be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete but {{Duplicate}} would have been appropriate too. --bjh21 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a low quality image but a better quality image can be found at File:Ladbroke Grove tube station 5.jpg and both of these images are duplicates. This image has the lowest quality so it can be deleted as there is already a replacement. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from Velvet Magazine. The page clearly states its CR. 141.196.211.149 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; OTRS needed. Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You delete, Marika puts it again. 141.196.219.201 20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Marika Polskyh (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Marika Polskyh I've put this image again because I am the official representative of Tatiana and has all the rights to use her pictures and media in Internet, including articles in the magazines and others press releases
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Prasutagus was a 1st century Celtic king, so I doubt any photographs of him exist. This is just an unused picture of some guy with nonsense in the description. Apocheir (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Possible Joke. Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Royal Oak tube island platform.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, but you could just have used {{Duplicate}} for that. --bjh21 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rodelar as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyright
Pls explain why it is copyrighted. Sanandros (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don´t have the permission from the author, so I think the best is delete the file. --Rodelar (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per Rodelar. Ruthven (msg) 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
photo from the web 191.85.28.29 20:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Huntster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from https://www.facebook.com/RocketLabUSA/photos/a.1518704015009409.1073741828.1513941712152306/1876275782585562/?type=3&theater or third-party redistributor. Not own work. Sanandros (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: own assumed; the file has EXIF information. Ruthven (msg) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept:
|
According to Brazilian copyright law (Law 9.610 of February 19, 1998; see translation):
 You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.
|
 |
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. (private image of uploader; non-notable Youtube personality/actor) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Youtube profile can be found here: [4]. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 21:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: YouTubers might be in scope. Ruthven (msg) 10:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Focused on recent architecture. No FoP in France. Can be transfered to French WP where fair use is accepted for architecture. Same case for File:Mairie Villefontaine 1.JPG (from the same uploader). TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour, en effet, j'avais oublié que ce monument récent nécessitait l'accord de son architecte pour son transfert sur Commons. Une vue un peu + éloignée permettrait de contourner le problème? Cependant, que dire des photos, par ex. de la gare de l'Isle d'Abeau et de l' éolienne de Carré Sénart? Leurs architectes respectifs ont-il donné leur accord? Fandepanda (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ces deux images posent également problème. Ce n'est pas parce qu'il y a d'autres images qui sont pour l'instant passé à la trappe qu'on peut se permettre d'en garder d'autres. Je vais lancer une DR pour ces deux autres. En tout cas, oui, un plan plus large peut être accepté si cela respecte Commons:De minimis. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No source. Not own work, rather COM:DW (placing a red dot doesn't mean you are the copyright holder of the base map). Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No source. Not own work, rather COM:DW (placing a red dot doesn't mean you are the copyright holder of the base map). Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
© Peter D. Carew incompatible with CC unless identity of the user Westwoodla has been verified via OTRS ticket (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:OTRS). Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; OTRS needed. Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a OTRS authorization (not present in the file description), I don't see how this picture could be CCBYSA 4.0 Rhadamante (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, @JACVAN-EVENTS. Ruthven (msg) 10:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be a professional photograph. I don't think the uploader has the authorization to upload this image. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from [ https://www.google.com/search?source=lnt&tbs=sbi%3AAMhZZityuXhod9oP7jm1524AuT1_11vYaqkCbv68k0CdoVSKLtf497Id-UjDg9WSbpd349jq0RmDRaQkaMZlBP_1g9bvknSBkWdzMzB9NvdlU18exwqWLO1cumu94DU2_1drwFtMjx5aydUaZWZuN5FR3rD0l52_12j8AMx8dTsaEdstGDAMm9rkc8m-e4NSFgT8Gr9OdJpdsRDvia4b284Kfpxuk_1a-zl6D4OMJhBRQ3CfzSKhCQb_1cZozolMJV9rUmM5Vl9zlConqP3wMYTmyTAacdLEGi5SJhpGN0mG79pvSCuCy2z4TVI8q7XVixbJeEYfyqZJpz45DiBFJ5Zy_1ALIXNffFY7RH2yw%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F27%2F2015&tbm=]. Ruthven (msg) 10:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal image that shows nothing about Salt Lake City. Kalbbes (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Generally, Commons is short of modern illustrative portraits of men, and most of the Unsplash collection are high quality. --Fæ (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: fine as portrait of a man with hat. Ruthven (msg) 10:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Again. This video file from VOA is not a product of VOA other than the voice over. It uses video files from other sources, such as KTRK, KHOU, KTVT as well as people who have recorded the video on their cell phones. This is NOT a copyright free video file. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Mayor of Galveston James Yarbrough comments on evacuation as Hurricane Harvey approaches Texas.webm
[edit]This is not an original/copyright free VOA file. Originally from http://abc13.com/weather/galveston-braces-for-harveys-impact/2340194/. There were three cameras there: KTRK, KPRC and Swagit, VOA was not there. Said footage is pulled from KTRK. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in the US for this kind of artwork. Guanaco (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Image is a logo of Community of Christ: an example of bronze plaques, from a master mold once held by the headquarters of the religious denomination, and used historically on its buildings, e.g.: on this building from a Nauvoo, IL historical site, on this church in Independence, MO link), on this church in Modesto, CA (photo of bronze seal is superimposed as background on photo of chapel) etc. Notice that the bronze reliefs are all exactly identical.This plaque from the church in Grand Valley, Ontario, built in 1924, is identical except the photo is taken from directly from the front rather than from slightly angled to one side. (Plaque from Comm. of Christ church in Toronto.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm convinced that such a plaque was published before 1923. Guanaco (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Copyright protection may be available if the artwork of the symbol in question contains sufficient creativity nevertheless this specific design has been reproduced any number times rendering it very common (on steeples and exterior church walls, church legal documents, baptismal and evangelist blessings, often on headstones and lapel pins, jewellery, books, bookends, plush toys, bumper stickers, and so on); and, in any case (in agreement with the !voter immediately above), its specific arrangement of the-lamb-&-the-lion-along-with-a-human-child design has been used by the denomination to identify itself since 1917: citations: http://www.ijmsonline.org/archives/3342
https://saintsherald.com/2013/11/29/how-blessed-the-day-when-the-lamb-and-the-lion/ .)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per guanaco, 1917 plaque. Ruthven (msg) 10:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not the sole work of VOA. Pulled copyright footage from AirluxeStudios.com, a private-for profit company. Even the Thumbnail/Preview image has it plastered on the screen. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Although the YouTube video has a right license, the image is, in fact, a derivative work of a Santiago Maldonado picture. Such picture has an unknown copyright status and cannot be regarded as de minimis. Discasto talk 06:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- You mean the photograh of Maldonado used for the searching of Maldonado? The goal of the photograph is to disseminate his face--Roblespepe (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
- Sure, but the photograph has a copyright, the Argentinean laws state a term and, unless the owner of the copyright (the original photographer) releases the rights, the copyright status or the original picture remains. --Discasto talk 07:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Derivate works are not allowed. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per Banfield. Ruthven (msg) 10:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Replaced by TeX Nothingserious (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Replaced by TeX Nothingserious (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
AHK Ahsan Hassan Khan (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage and talkpage in en.wiki and uploading two photos, which are not used outside userspace. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + COM:ADVERT Ruthven (msg) 11:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Image of copyrighted cartoon character Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 12:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
copyright violation Vysotsky (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.facebook.com/176622604449/photos/a.10155525146669450.1073741833.176622604449/10155525146469450/?type=1&theater. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.budoshin.com/images/GKBBmag1207headSmWeb.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Pinner tube station.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The colours are rather better in the low-resolution picture. --bjh21 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per bjh21. Ruthven (msg) 11:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Uploader and the portrayee seem to be the same and it's not a selfie, so uploader probably doesn't own the copyright Mbch331 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
fake license Leokand (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Work from French Ministry of Women Rights (1981-2017) depicting Henrielle Alquier (1898-1995). Seems not belonging to public domain. PS : any mention that the picture has been taken in 1917 and 8 March as "Journée internationale des femmes" has been officialized in France in 1982. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It seems to be a 1983 work, and although this is likely a derivative work of a work maybe in PD, we currently don't know if this derivative is creative enough to have a new copyright or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Too original to be in the Public Domain. The shape of Texas, unless manually drawn by the uploaded, is non-free. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Koreaseo
[edit]- File:찜갈비.jpg
- File:야끼우동.jpg
- File:대구막창.jpg
- File:복어불고기.png
- File:뭉티기.jpg
- File:무침회.jpg
- File:대구육개장.jpg
- File:누른국수.jpg
- File:논메기매운탕.png
- File:납작만두.jpg
These are definitely copyrighted. Source: Daegu City. Author: Daegu City Official. They have no evidence or proof that the "Daegu City Official" shared the rights to User:Koreaseo. --It's Kong of Lazers talk to me 04:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This is South Korea Daegu City SEO project team associating with Digital Chosun Daily. These uploaded files are approved and distributed by our team through Digital Chosun Daily. If you are to insist these uploaded files are illegal, make official claim toward Daegu City, South Korea User talk:Koreaseo
- @Koreaseo: Would you please send an email confirming this to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org, using your work email address? For situations like these, we require permission through OTRS. Guanaco (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Bilanzsumme und Ergebnis der normalen Geschäftstätigkeit eines ungenannten Unternehmens. Ohne zu wissen, um welches Unternehmen es geht, ist diese Grafik nicht hilfreich. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - out of scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The uploader had a similiarly named file deleted on his talkpage and this is his/her only image on Commons. Is this own work? There is no camera metadata. Leoboudv (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Could have been a test. @PRVerify22p: Please clarify; otherwise I would say Keep --Ruthven (msg) 10:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio : can be found in the web. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This looks like copyrighted material and not "own work". Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
PNG available. Uploader request Falconaumanni...llámame Carlos 09:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: No evidence to support the claim that this photograph is in {{Cc-by-2.5}}, as indicated by uploader. Checking waybacks of the source link (before and after) reveals the copyright notice "Copyright", presuming that the source is copyrighted. Gunnex (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination+other previous copyrighted publication available in the web. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: No evidence to support the claim that this photograph is in {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} per "Site Oficial sem direitos reservados." (official site without copyrights reserved), as indicated by uploader. Checking waybacks of the source link (before and after) reveals the no related copyright notice, presuming that the source is copyrighted. The photo was also published before upload date via http://www.serradasaudade.mg.gov.br/pg.php?id=47 = http://serradasaudade.mg.gov.br/sistema/img_up/images/igreja.jpg (last modified: 2010), which needs, per "(...) perante notificação prévia no e-mail", permission via COM:OTRS. Gunnex (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SydneyNSWAus (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works, please correct the source, the date, the author, and the license.
Yann (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Missing permission, no metadata. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - likely a screenshot. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Juanjoconcabosch (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage and user talkpage in es.wiki and uploading a personal logo, which is not used outside userspace. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a copyright-protected Youtube video. PCock (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Lustig, aber mit Sicherheit URV. Xocolatl (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an obviously professionally done promotional image. It's available all over the internet, when doesn't necessarily mean anything since it was uploaded in 2016, but even the author information in the summary and the copyright holder in the meta data don't match one another. So it's not even internally consistent. No reason I can see to expect it to be externally so. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The image is actually made by a photographer but it belongs to me because I bought it. Zwerschke 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the photographer must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no srt file for this video. I made it by accident. Apologies. 85jesse (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, source likely doesn't state license Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 13:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted software, needs license Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nDjyjwXd0KM/maxresdefault.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deletion contest
[edit]
I believe that this file should not be deleted because this is not a copyrighted image, AND...I had permission from the owner of the image to use this image.
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
from Puro Mula Trailer on Vimeo 141.196.211.149 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Copy of http://ftp.muvdb.com/photos/OZMA/OZMA2_Bartosch_Salmanski.jpg. Copyright holder : Bartosch Salmanski Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi this picture is OZMA's property bought to Bartosch Salmanski for the cover of it's 6th album. This way OZMA is able to put it on several sites (the label, Cristal Records) or it's own site (www.ozma.fr), I'm part of the band...--Falcor21 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- This image is © Bartosch Salmanski so you're obviously not the copyright holder since you're stating you're not Bartosch Salmanski. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- ok, so if I ask Bartosch to put it himself on Commons, it is ok? --Falcor21 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- This image is © Bartosch Salmanski so you're obviously not the copyright holder since you're stating you're not Bartosch Salmanski. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan, The art museum which owned this statue was built in 2000.[4] Probably this statue was erected in the same year also. Y.haruo (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan, The art museum which owned this statue was built in 2000.[5] Probably this statue was erected in the same year also. Y.haruo (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better version is provided at File:Pinner tube southbound platform.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Google+ image 141.196.211.149 18:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Pinner tube northbound platform.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Comment You should be aware there is a project afoot to replace all low-q Geograph images with higher-resolution versions. Here, Oxyman has uploaded his own higher-quality version so I'm not sure if this would be caught by this project. But in any event it's a duplicate in the broad sense, so could go without loss to Commons. I'm not familiar with Pinner station, so I can't tell which platform this actually is. It's obviously not both! Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Must have made a typo when naming this file, I've now changed it Oxyman (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete My bot, Geograph Update Bot is only uploading higher-resolution pictures from Geograph. Oxyman hasn't uploaded these higher-resolution versions to Geograph, so the bot won't do anything about them. --bjh21 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - better image is provided at File:Rickmansworth station 1.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Rickmansworth station 136.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better image is provided at File:Rickmansworth station 5.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Rickmansworth station 3.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - a better quality image is provided at File:Rickmansworth station 4.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 37.162.223.227 as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: copyright violation, no sign of permission
Pls provide a deep link. Sanandros (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - "It may have an author and a source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license.". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyright violation is not own work
Irain has very short copyright protections on its photographs. Pls discuss that first. Sanandros (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work and unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Timothyjosephwood as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Apparently copyrighted image taken from pintrest
But it's pretty old could be anyway PD. Sanandros (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well.... Sanandros... the file name seems to indicate it's from the 50s. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- There exists some thing like no notice.--Sanandros (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sanandros "No notice"? Maybe I'm mistaken, but... My understanding is that in the presence of inconclusive confirmatory evidence, and the absence of contradictory evidence, Commons takes the more conservative of the two. TimothyJosephWood 22:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I mean it doesen't have to be "no notice" but there exists the possibility that's why I decided that this file needs discussion before deleting it.--Sanandros (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sanandros "No notice"? Maybe I'm mistaken, but... My understanding is that in the presence of inconclusive confirmatory evidence, and the absence of contradictory evidence, Commons takes the more conservative of the two. TimothyJosephWood 22:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- There exists some thing like no notice.--Sanandros (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Timothyjosephwood as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Apparently copyrighted image taken from online
Maybe they have a free license if the are already called freepik. Sanandros (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well Sanandros, the source includes a copyright notice, and appears to require attribution (which at the very least is not compatible with CC BY SA 4.0), unless (you're in luck) you can use the images without attribution for only $9.99. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Huntster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from https://www.space.com/35876-how-spacex-moon-flight-will-work.html, slide #4.
Not elighable for speedy. Discuss 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - source is not free. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Huntster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No source, no evidence of permission that copyright holder has released this image under the stated license.
Not a speedy case. Discuss 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyright law infringment Macesito (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This picture was altered and placed without authorisation by the owner of this picture. 2A02:1811:B03B:C500:E5D1:F608:2781:6691 09:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Can you clarify? Who's the owner of the original picture? --Ruthven (msg) 10:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination http://profileengine.com/large/158490865/kathelijn.vervarcke. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
mit Sicherheit eine URV, die Kirche wurde in den 60er Jahren gebaut und das Kunstwerk dürfte ein entsprechendes Alter haben Xocolatl (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
dieses Kunstwerk ist zu jung, um gemeinfrei zu sein, und die Kirche wurde erst in den 60ern gebaut Xocolatl (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
URV, Kirche wurde in den 60ern gebaut, Ausstattung entsprechend jung Xocolatl (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
URV, die Kirche wurde in den 60ern gebaut und das Kunstwerk ist sicher entsprechend jung Xocolatl (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: no valid reason for deletion: de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 06:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Promo photo. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep the file is owned 100% by the user ajakang and is free and clear for use, it was personally uploaded by the inventor himself and is not used in any promotion anywhere worldwide. comment added by Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs)
Keep I personally uploaded this picture and it is free and clear for use, it not a promotional photo and is not used in any promotions. comment added by Ajakang (talk • contribs)
- So Ajakang, you took the photo? License and copyright is held by the person who originally takes or creates an image, not who uploads it. If you are not the photographer, but you have the photographer's permission to upload it, check out Commons:OTRS on how to forward evidence of permission. Animalparty (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per Animalparty. Ruthven (msg) 06:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Promo photo. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 06:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Spartacus (film)
[edit]Why do the uploader say that Startacus (the film) was published without copyright? My copy says otherwise
- File:Espartaco (Stanley Kubrick 1960) Alcalá de Henares.png
- File:Espartaco (Stanley Kubrick 1960) Puerta de Madrid.png
_Alcal%C3%A1_de_Henares.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Puerta_de_Madrid.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Discasto talk 22:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- He puesto el mismo permiso que en esta otra imagen de la misma película: File:Kubrick - Douglas - Spartacus - 1960.JPG. Porque lleva desde el año 2012 sin problemas en Commons, con licencia PD-Pre1978. Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- No son lo mismo. Unos son fotogramas de la película y otro fotos del rodaje. --Discasto talk 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- En el trailer File:Spartcus (1960) - Trailer.webm usan fotogramas de la película y no tiene aviso de borrado. ¿Cuál es el criterio para publicar fotogramas de películas?. Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- El criterio tú mismo lo has señalado. Publicado sin o con nota de copyright. --Discasto talk 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Los trailers normalmente no tienen nota de copyright; las peliculas si. Ruthven (msg) 06:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lindsay1000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear scope, incubator wiki only, page pending deletion
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A copyrighted photo from "World Meteorological Organization". The redistribution under a CC license by Turkiki64 is dubious. The photo's owner should provide an authorization. ContributorQ (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a photo and below the threshold of originality (the data itself isn't copyrightable). But this file is unused and lacks context needed to be useful. --Guanaco (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A copyrighted photo from "World Meteorological Organization". The redistribution under a CC license by Turkiki64 is dubious. The photo's owner should provide an authorization. ContributorQ (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a photo and below the threshold of originality (the data itself isn't copyrightable). But this file is unused and lacks context needed to be useful. --Guanaco (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A copyrighted logo. The redistribution under a CC license by Turkiki64 is dubious. The photo's owner should provide an authorization. ContributorQ (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably below TOO but not used and not useful. --Guanaco (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This image fails COM:DM as the camera is directly aimed at the poster. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Retain COM:DM does not apply on two grounds- the subject is the steps and these could not be illustrated with including something in the background. The large fragment of the poster is still only a partial view of the work of art. ClemRutter (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: de minimis. --Guanaco (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be a photograph by Russell James, here it is (in a different crop) clearly labeled as such, and here is the Business Journals article that's attached to (it's much harder to see the name Russell James there, in the lower right corner of the photo, it is very faint, but it is there as well). Russell James is a professional photographer who worked with Sharon Jester Turney for quite a while, here she is endorsing his book. I guess it's theoretically possible Business Journals made a mistake, but I tend to believe them. GRuban (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permission is required. --Guanaco (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: likely non-free under life+50, life+70, URAA, etc. --Guanaco (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ted Striker 2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]What is copyrights status of Portuguese Timor currency? Will be good idea to update Commons:Currency.
- File:Portuguese Timor twenty Escudo BNU banknote 1967 Page 1.jpg
- File:Portuguese Timor twenty Escudo BNU banknote 1967.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably nonfree by common copyright standards. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show this is free. --Guanaco (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am the poster/uploader of this file. It was my understanding that the Wiki Commons was the centralized place desired for all media displayed at Wikipedia, and that efforts are underway to move all media to that centralized location. I read that at the Wiki Commons upload page. This file is referenced at a Wikipedia page and shown there in thumbnail image format for folks to click on to go to the main page for that file. Because the file is shown as a 5 page image, it is faded and hard to read. I have included instructions at the Wikipedia page where the file is referenced to instruct viewers/visitors to mouse click on the "Original file" link to view the PDF file with the PDF file viewer provided. They can download the PDF file if they wish should they desire to build a database and test the Perl program source code provided which demonstrates the Joint Database Technology concept. This is not a well documented concept (i.e. using Flat File and SDBM databases together jointly, although individually the two are documented fairly extensively) other than what I have provided at Wikipedia and the link I provide to an outside user's group discussion at www.Perlmonks.org (the most popular site for Perl users to go for answers to their questions). KJV Bible SDBM.pdf is referenced at Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbm
This PDF file is also linked to from several outside locations including Facebook, Perlmonks, and Stack Exchange.
I believe that the Perl software source code I have written (I own it, but provide it to the public domain for educational purposes), falls within the scope of Wikimedia Commons as stated below:
The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
- First of all, this is support material for a whole section that is currently being deleted as spam (see the discussion on the WP Dbm talk page). Now, if you say that you provide this "for educational purpose", I'm afraid you are missing the fact that, as a CC-by-SA program posted here, it can be used without your consent for any purpose, including a commercial one. — Xavier, 22:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170514/186350d0aee3890f7b15df760e7a4c6d.jpg.
- File:Panorámica parque de las Flores Yopal.png
- File:Nororiente de la ciudad de Yopal.png
- File:Panoramica area de Yopal desde un avion.jpg.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in USA for sculptures. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The photo is not of a sculpture but of a building and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States states that "However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations" of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may paint, draw, or photograph buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The creator holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." --TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: The sculpture is attached to the building, but it is clearly an independent sculpture. --Guanaco (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in USA for sculptures. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The photo is not of a sculpture but of a building and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States states that "However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations" of copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may paint, draw, or photograph buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The creator holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures." --TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The photo is of a building, covered by FoP in the US. The artistic effort that went into this does not change the fact that it's part of the building. --Guanaco (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Photo of the user who uploaded it, probable self-promotion from description Apocheir (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947, depicted person died in 1960. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jcb: File:Kardinal Alojzije Stepinac.jpg is the same photo. Does the info there can be of use for the license? (candid smile) --Ruthven (msg) 11:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- That file was deleted for the same reason, but later undeleted against consensus without proper reasoning and without adding the necessary information. Jcb (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Fæ's rationale at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#File:Kardinal_Alojzije_Stepinac.jpg. --Guanaco (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No source to support that this would be a work from the federal US government. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is a duplicate of File:North Greenwich tube station Interior.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Low quality image - better quality replacement at File:Northwood Hills tube station.jpg. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the cover of book published in 2005. No proofs for the uploader's copyright are provided. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
uploaded under incorrect license Jacobfrid (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: change the license then. Ruthven (msg) 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RA0808 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F2
Seven days for discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- JoshuaErrett I agree it should be deleted. —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyrighted logo which cannot be licensed under a Commons-compatible license, I have already uploaded a local version to EN Wiki to replace it. RA0808 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per RA0808. Ruthven (msg) 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AFBorchert as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Has been previously published at http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/120760831.jpg by Uwe Häntsch
Panoramio has also free licenses. Sanandros (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It is all rights reserved in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Diese hier genannte Datei wurde von mir Uwe Häntsch persönlich erstellt,bearbeitet und freigegeben.Die Behauptung das dieses Bild eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellt ist nicht korrekt und ich erhebe Einspruch dagegen. Die selbe Datei habe ich bereits unter Panoramio veröffentlicht.Partschinser Wasserfall. Ich bitte hiermit dem löschen der Datei nicht statt zu geben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwelino (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für die Stellungnahme, Uwelino. Dies genügt jedoch nicht. Das Problem lässt sich lösen, indem entweder das Bild bei Panoramio unter eine freie Lizenz gestellt wird (falls das noch geht) oder indem das Support-Team über permissions-de@wikimedia.org kontaktiert wird. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Uwelino: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ geht am schnellsten. Danke fuer Deine Uploads! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
OK Danke für die Hinweise. Ich habe jetzt folgende Mail an das Support Team geschickt: Anmerken möchte ich noch das ein editieren der Lizenzrechte unter Panoramio nicht mehr möglich ist da Panoramio im November 2017 eingestellt und abgeschaltet wird.
Hiermit bestätige ich, dass ich, Uwe Häntsch, der Schöpfer und / oder Alleininhaber des ausschließlichen Urheberrechts der Medienarbeit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Partschinser_Wasserfall.jpg . Ich bin damit einverstanden, die oben genannte Arbeit unter dem Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International zu veröffentlichen. Ich erkenne an, dass ich Ihnen damit das Recht gewähre, die Arbeit auch in einem kommerziellen Produkt oder auf andere Weise zu nutzen und sie nach ihren Bedürfnissen zu ändern, vorausgesetzt, dass sie die Lizenzbestimmungen und sonstige anwendbare Gesetze einhalten. Ich bin mir bewusst, dass diese Vereinbarung nicht auf Wikipedia oder verwandte Seiten beschränkt ist. Ich bin mir bewusst, dass der Urheberrechtsinhaber stets das Eigentum an dem Urheberrecht behält und das Recht, in Übereinstimmung mit der gewählten Lizenz zuzuordnen ist. Änderungen, die andere an die Arbeit weitergeben, werden vom Urheberrechtsinhaber nicht beansprucht. Ich erkenne an, dass ich diese Vereinbarung nicht zurückziehen kann und dass der Inhalt dauerhaft auf einem Wikimedia-Projekt gehalten werden kann oder auch nicht.
Ich hoffe das ich damit nun das Problem lösen kann. Wenn nicht dann löschen sie diese Datei denn mir ist dieser Rechtekram in einer durch und durch kommerzialisierten und durchgeknallten Menschheit sowieso zu dumm. Viele Grüße an das Wikimedia Commons Team.
@Uwelino: Vielen Dank für dein Bild. Es kann ein bisschen dauern bis die Leute beim OTRS-Team deine Lizenz geprüft haben und es kann auch sein dass das Bild in der zwischen Zeit auch gelöscht wird. Aber sobald die Lizenz bestätigt wird, wird auch das Bild wieder hergestellt und kann dann auch wieder verwedent werden. Ich weiss dass dieses Prozedere ein bischen komisch anmutet aber weil wir hier auf Commons Urheberrechte ausserordentlich respektieren und keine Klagen von Dritten riskieren wollen.--Sanandros (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sanandros, Uwelino, and AFBorchert: Ich sehe wirklich keinen Grund, warum der Request noch nicht entfernt, noch nicht einmal, wieso er überhaupt gestellt wurde. Uwe Häntsch ist hier ordentlich registriert, sogar unter demselben User-Namen wie bei Panoramio. Er hat alle seine Bilder selbst hochgeladen und hier mit CC-Lizenz versehen. Zudem wurde oben bereits das - meines Erachtens gar nicht nötige - OTRS-Ticket genannt. Darüber hinaus ist die Datei in der Monats-Liste gar nicht mehr aufgeführt, was mich vermuten lässt, dass vergessen wurde, den Baustein beim File zu entfernen. Daher denke ich, dass Uwelino mit Recht verärgert ist und werde das nun vornehmen.
- Gruß --Friedo (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FkMohr: An der Abwicklung über OTRS führt hier kein Weg vorbei, da das Bild zuvor ohne eine freie Lizenz veröffentlicht worden ist. Bis das nicht abgeschlossen ist, bleibt dieser Löschantrag bitte offen. Bitte nicht OTRS-Tags selbst hinzufügen. Dies ist ausschließlich den Mitarbeitern des Support-Teams vorbehalten. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Was soll das ganze Theater? Die Begründung für mein Handeln ist hier oben zu lesen. Es gibt keinen Grund zur Löschung. Die Lizenz wurde vom Rechteinhaber erteilt. User:4nn1l2 wird um endgültige Klärung gebeten. --Friedo (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Das „Theater“ sind die Richtlinien bei uns. Wenn ein eigenes Werk hochgeladen wird, dann findet sich bei den Erläuterungen beim Hochlade-Formular folgender Hinweis: “If your file was published without a free license, or with a different credit name, or with no credit at all, please send a confirmation E-mail to the address on this page and add {{OTRS pending|month=September|day=12|year=2017}} with details about the previous publication in the permission field below.” Es wird also ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen, dass es so abläuft. Da das offenbar übersehen worden ist, kam es jetzt zu diesem routinemäßigen Löschantrag. Sobald die Sache über OTRS geklärt ist, kann das hier abgeschlossen werden. Solange bitte ich um Geduld. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich bitte Dich nun aber höflich, einmal zu erklären, wieso dieses Bild gelöscht werden soll. Inzwischen sollte Dir klar geworden sein, dass es dafür keinen Grund gab, auf jeden Fall aber jetzt nicht mehr gibt. Ich weiß auch nicht, was mit Geduld gemeint sein soll. Die Mitarbeiter von OTRS können gerade wegen solcher Anträge über Beschäftigungsmangel sicher nicht klagen. Ich denke, die einzig sinnvolle Maßnahme wäre, wenn Du Deinen Request selbst zurücknimmst und ähnliche Anträge (außer in wirklich begründeten Fällen) bis zur Abschaltung von PANORAMIO unterlässt. Gruß --Friedo (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FkMohr: Bitte störe Dich nicht zu sehr daran, dass es sich um einen Löschantrag handelt. Im Grunde geht es hier nur um einen Klärungsprozess. Wenn dieser positiv abgeschlossen wird, kommt es selbstverständlich zu keiner Löschung. Dieser Prozess hier bleibt jedoch für einige Zeit weiter offen, bis sich das klärt. Es bringt hier jedoch nichts, laufend über das ganz normale Prozedere auf Commons zu lamentieren. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: Mit lamentieren fühle ich mich jetzt aber persönlich angegriffen. Du tust und schreibst viel, doch hast Du noch immer nicht gesagt, was es noch zu klären gibt und warum Du den Löschantrag erneut hineingesetzt hast. --Friedo (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FKMohr: Wie oben bereits mehrfach ausgeführt, erfolgt die Klärung über unser Support-Team. Und diese Klärung gilt es abzuwarten. Und ich habe nur die regelwidrige Entfernung des Löschantrags revertiert. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nur? - Nein, Du selbst hast ihn doch eingebracht und meine Fragen immer noch nicht beantwortet! --Friedo (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FKMohr: Wie oben bereits mehrfach ausgeführt, erfolgt die Klärung über unser Support-Team. Und diese Klärung gilt es abzuwarten. Und ich habe nur die regelwidrige Entfernung des Löschantrags revertiert. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: Es wäre nett wenn Sie mir mitteilen könnten wie ich mein eigenes Bild (der hier unter Betrugsverdacht stehende Wasserfall) von dieser Plattform löschen kann. Entweder bin ich nur blind jedenfalls bin ich nicht fündig geworden. Ich würde es gern selbst löschen da mir diese Diskussionen um mein (wirklich eigenes Bild!!!!) auf den Nerv geht. Ich habe alles ausgefüllt und schon Anträge geschrieben und alles zig mal Bestätigt aber es tut sich leider nichts. Ich komme mir vor wie in einer deutschen Amtsstube wo man Lichtjahre für die Bearbeitung braucht. Nun es ist wie es eben ist was ich aber nicht möchte das sich Nutzer am Ende wegen dieses Bildes noch streiten. Streit,Beleidigungen und Missgunst gibt es im Internet schon genug. Leider kommt man heute schon in Misskredit wenn man sein eigenes Produkt anderen kostenlos zur Nutzung zur Verfügung stellen möchte. Selbst wenn der Vorwurf als Irrtum erkannt sein sollte ändert sich daran leider nichts. Danke!
- @AFBorchert: Mit lamentieren fühle ich mich jetzt aber persönlich angegriffen. Du tust und schreibst viel, doch hast Du noch immer nicht gesagt, was es noch zu klären gibt und warum Du den Löschantrag erneut hineingesetzt hast. --Friedo (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FkMohr: Bitte störe Dich nicht zu sehr daran, dass es sich um einen Löschantrag handelt. Im Grunde geht es hier nur um einen Klärungsprozess. Wenn dieser positiv abgeschlossen wird, kommt es selbstverständlich zu keiner Löschung. Dieser Prozess hier bleibt jedoch für einige Zeit weiter offen, bis sich das klärt. Es bringt hier jedoch nichts, laufend über das ganz normale Prozedere auf Commons zu lamentieren. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich bitte Dich nun aber höflich, einmal zu erklären, wieso dieses Bild gelöscht werden soll. Inzwischen sollte Dir klar geworden sein, dass es dafür keinen Grund gab, auf jeden Fall aber jetzt nicht mehr gibt. Ich weiß auch nicht, was mit Geduld gemeint sein soll. Die Mitarbeiter von OTRS können gerade wegen solcher Anträge über Beschäftigungsmangel sicher nicht klagen. Ich denke, die einzig sinnvolle Maßnahme wäre, wenn Du Deinen Request selbst zurücknimmst und ähnliche Anträge (außer in wirklich begründeten Fällen) bis zur Abschaltung von PANORAMIO unterlässt. Gruß --Friedo (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Das „Theater“ sind die Richtlinien bei uns. Wenn ein eigenes Werk hochgeladen wird, dann findet sich bei den Erläuterungen beim Hochlade-Formular folgender Hinweis: “If your file was published without a free license, or with a different credit name, or with no credit at all, please send a confirmation E-mail to the address on this page and add {{OTRS pending|month=September|day=12|year=2017}} with details about the previous publication in the permission field below.” Es wird also ausdrücklich darauf hingewiesen, dass es so abläuft. Da das offenbar übersehen worden ist, kam es jetzt zu diesem routinemäßigen Löschantrag. Sobald die Sache über OTRS geklärt ist, kann das hier abgeschlossen werden. Solange bitte ich um Geduld. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Was soll das ganze Theater? Die Begründung für mein Handeln ist hier oben zu lesen. Es gibt keinen Grund zur Löschung. Die Lizenz wurde vom Rechteinhaber erteilt. User:4nn1l2 wird um endgültige Klärung gebeten. --Friedo (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FkMohr: An der Abwicklung über OTRS führt hier kein Weg vorbei, da das Bild zuvor ohne eine freie Lizenz veröffentlicht worden ist. Bis das nicht abgeschlossen ist, bleibt dieser Löschantrag bitte offen. Bitte nicht OTRS-Tags selbst hinzufügen. Dies ist ausschließlich den Mitarbeitern des Support-Teams vorbehalten. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Der letzte (unsignierte) Beitrag stammt vom Urheber selbst. AFBorchert sollte endlich erkannt haben, was er angerichtet hat. Tatsache ist, dass die Datei vom Urheber stammt, die Lizenz vorliegt und OTRS eingeschaltet ist (vgl. oben). Daher sollte die Datei nicht gelöscht, dieser Vorgang umgehend abgeschlossen, zumindest aber der Löschrequest aus der Datei entfernt werden.
Tatsache ist auch, dass AFBorchert eine Schnelllöschung mit der falschen Behauptung einer angeblichen Urheberrechtsverletzung beantragte, und das zu einem Zeitpunkt als die Lizenz bereits vorlag. Ein Info-Hinweis, wie er bereits von anderer Seite auf der User-Diskussionsseite erfolgte, ist dazu völlig ausreichend. Uwelino ist auch nicht vorzuwerfen, er hätte sich nicht an die Regeln gehalten, da ein diesbezüglicher Hinweis bei Benutzung des UploadWizard und Wahl deutscher Sprache gar nicht erfolgt. Darüber hinaus blieb er eine Antwort schuldig, was denn noch zu klären sei.
Zu bedenken ist darüber hinaus Folgendes: Es werden derzeit Hunderttausende solcher Dateien hochgeladen; soll da wirklich für jede einzelne ein OTRS-Vorgang eröffnet werden? Dies sollte auf zweifelhafte Einzelfälle beschränkt bleiben.
--Friedo (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS ticket. Ruthven (msg) 22:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
fake license Leokand (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Leokand: Why so? Please provide a source for copyvio? --Ruthven (msg) 06:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Ich empfinde eine Verletzung meiner Persönlichkeitsrechte, da ich nicht zugestimmt habe, dass mein Foto auf Wikiepdia und Wiki Commons hochgeladen wird. Ich möchte nicht mehr in Verbindung mit dieser Band stehen. Auf Wikipedia wurde das Foto aus dem Beitrag entfernt. 2003:70:CF1C:1600:7DCA:5DFF:EB9B:7E0D 10:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Translation: "I feel a violation of my personality rights because I did not agree to upload my photo to Wikiepdia and Wiki Commons. I do not want to be connected to this band anymore. On Wikipedia the photo was removed from the post." - Themightyquill (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Assuming you are actually the subject, the fact that you were once associated with a band cannot simply be erased from history by removing a photo from Wikimedia Commons. Your personality rights are not violated by Commons hosting a photo of you. Secondly, and more importantly, we cannot verify that you are actually the subject... you would need to request deletion by contacting OTRS so that they can confidentially verify your identity. If they can do so, then they can decide on the merits of deletion. --Storkk (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Piracy. Calligraphy works are copyrighted in the People's Republic of China. WAN233 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to suspect that this 12-year old file is not {{Own work}}? Storkk (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no reply to Storkk's question, therefore COM:AGF. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Unlike what the previous deletion nomination discussion says, this is actually a TyueType Chinese font made by SinoType, according the Chinese WP article that is linked to. (See this google search https://www.google.ca/search?q=行楷字体) SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This file is probably a hoax, there is no way a newspaper from the twenties would look like that! no date and "established 5000 BC" ... this is a joke about a hot/serious topic 207.233.110.67 20:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- if not a hoax, then a copyvio. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
