Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/01/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
{{Speedydelete}}: Test page accidentally created. Kate at the Science Museum Group (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
SPAM, out of project scope Ies (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant spam, user indeffed. --Achim (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Workersocial1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commerical advertisement, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant spam, nuked & user indeffed. --Achim (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 23:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajkumar kar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Rajkuma.jpg
- File:Rajkumar road site.jpg
- File:In Mandir.jpg
- File:Road visit.jpg
- File:Rajkumar sitting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar Style.jpg
- File:Rajkumar pandel.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with Namita.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in ghosola.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in More.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in Office.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar guiter.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in room.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in Bank.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar bye.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar fish.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar fishing.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with sister.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with bro.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar river.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with boathers.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar go.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting in.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in flight1.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in flight.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar wait for.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar waiting for flight.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar at airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting in airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar waiting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with friends.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with friend.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar.jpg
- File:Rajkumar Kar.jpg
Rohana Erani (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajkumar kar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope; not a personal photo repository
- File:CP2 THEROOM terice4.jpg
- File:CP2 THEROOM Terice3.jpg
- File:CP2 THEROOM Terice2.jpg
- File:CP2 THEROOM Terice1.jpg
- File:CP2 THEROOM terice.jpg
- File:CP2 THEROOM.jpg
- File:CP2 The Room.jpg
- File:CP2 Park.jpg
- File:Centralpark2.jpg
- File:Raj Proposed.jpg
- File:Suncity hill 123dfsfv.jpg
- File:Guiter playing suncity.jpg
- File:Guiter Playing in GhaTA.jpg
- File:Sitting stylely.jpg
- File:Car Adverterise.jpg
- File:In ICICI Bank.jpg
- File:Sitting on Scooti.jpg
- File:Ghata gaon Selfie1.jpg
- File:Ghata Gaon Road.jpg
- File:Ghata Gaon Style.jpg
- File:Trafic Show.jpg
- File:Rajkkumar karwithbhagwan.jpg
- File:TreeSide.jpg
- File:Siting in RadhaMondir.jpg
- File:SadMode.jpg
- File:Some Enjoy for.jpg
- File:Down backround.jpg
- File:Styling stand.jpg
- File:Murder plan.jpg
- File:Rajand Shaktiu In Ghasta.jpg
- File:RajandTapasIn ghata.jpg
- File:Holi Enjoy.jpg
- File:Phhoto with Amit.jpg
- File:Photoshot in Ghata gason.jpg
- File:Time pass in ganhata gaoin.jpg
- File:Indusind Bank.jpg
- File:TimepassIn.jpg
- File:Sundaytime.jpg
- File:Ghata gaon Selfie.jpg
- File:Ghata gaon.jpg
- File:Selfie in Ghata.jpg
- File:Beautiful Selfie.jpg
- File:Verygood Selfie.jpg
- File:Selfie pritam.jpg
- File:LAltu And rajjkumar.jpg
- File:Selfiewitnh Pritamlaltyu.jpg
- File:Good Selfie.jpg
- File:LaltuPRitamand Raj.jpg
- File:RajaANDLALtu.jpg
- File:RajkumarKarand pritam.jpg
- File:RajANDLaltu.jpg
- File:PritamANDme.jpg
- File:Rajpritamandlaltu.jpg
- File:RajkumarAndpritam.jpg
- File:Sitting on suncity.jpg
- File:TapasANDsaktipada.jpg
- File:Me and sali enjoy.jpg
- File:Amezing photo in taj.jpg
- File:MeandSali.jpg
- File:Jamunasidewith pritam.jpg
- File:Jamunariverside.jpg
- File:Yamuna Riversite.jpg
- File:RajandRanjit.jpg
- File:TajwithRanjit.jpg
- File:PhotoIN taz.jpg
- File:Tazmah.jpg
- File:InAGRA.jpg
- File:WithASingho.jpg
- File:PhotoINpremMondir.jpg
- File:BappaRajBapi.jpg
- File:IN prem Mondir.jpg
- File:With own sister.jpg
- File:With NamitaAND ruhini.jpg
- File:SmokingIN puja.jpg
- File:Phone Calling.jpg
- File:BapiCigrate.jpg
- File:RajSandhya.jpg
- File:RajAndBapi.jpg
- File:GoodStant.jpg
- File:MewithSandhya.jpg
- File:Sitting on.jpg
- File:Namitadidi.jpg
- File:Singleperson.jpg
- File:InRiverside.jpg
- File:Merychristmas.jpg
- File:Crystmassday.jpg
- File:Meand sambhu.jpg
- File:Cakedistribute.jpg
- File:Enjoytogether.jpg
- File:Roadshowvisit.jpg
- File:Byebye.jpg
- File:Drinkingpepsi.jpg
- File:Shaktiraj.jpg
- File:Shaktitapas.jpg
- File:With Goutam mondal.jpg
- File:InANANDVIHAR.jpg
- File:Rajkuma.jpg
- File:Rajkumar road site.jpg
- File:In Mandir.jpg
- File:Road visit.jpg
- File:Rajkumar sitting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar Style.jpg
- File:Rajkumar pandel.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with Namita.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in ghosola.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in More.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in Office.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar guiter.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in room.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in Bank.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar bye.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar fish.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar fishing.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with sister.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with bro.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar river.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with boathers.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar go.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting in.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in flight1.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar in flight.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar wait for.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar waiting for flight.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar at airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar sitting in airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar airport.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar waiting.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with friends.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar with friend.jpg
- File:Rajkumar kar.jpg
- File:Rajkumar Kar.jpg
TJH2018talk 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajkumar kar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
- File:Playing guiter2.jpg
- File:Playing guiter3.jpg
- File:Inoffice dewali party.jpg
- File:In office dewali.jpg
- File:INoffice.jpg
- File:Playingguiter5.jpg
- File:BapiandRaj.jpg
- File:Breakfasttime.jpg
- File:Dewalinight.jpg
- File:Dewaliparty2.jpg
- File:Dewaliparty1.jpg
- File:Indewaliparty.jpg
- File:With friendsdinpuja.jpg
- File:Villagesite.jpg
- File:Sittingonbed.jpg
- File:With friendsin pujapandel.jpg
- File:In puja pandel1.jpg
- File:With ranjit.jpg
- File:Hill styling 2.jpg
- File:Laying mode.jpg
- File:Hill styling.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajkumar kar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. Also serial uploader of many images. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:Policezeep.jpg
- File:Nicepic.jpg
- File:Whataphoto.jpg
- File:WithTumpadi.jpg
- File:Inmondirgate.jpg
- File:Meandtupasitting.jpg
- File:Natureselfieinhill.jpg
- File:Selfieforall.jpg
- File:Didi,meandraja.jpg
- File:Withnamitaandraja.jpg
- File:Tumawithherson.jpg
- File:WithRaja.jpg
- File:Withtupaandnamita.jpg
- File:Meandnamita.jpg
- File:Funnyselfies.jpg
- File:Selfiefunny.jpg
- File:Meandraja.jpg
- File:Selffismart.jpg
- File:Merrycrystmass.jpg
- File:Christmass.jpg
- File:Visitsuncityhill.jpg
- File:Insuncityhill.jpg
- File:Withlaltunsambhu.jpg
- File:Withsambhu.jpg
- File:Takeagift.jpg
- File:Singlevisit.jpg
- File:Sweetselfisave.jpg
- File:Meandbapi.jpg
- File:Tumpadi withhme.jpg
- File:Meinmeetrsave.jpg
- File:Tumpadiandme.jpg
Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 23:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:مراكش 2.jpg
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright vio JiiQo (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
copyright violation JiiQo (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 19:11, 12 Januar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Missing permission. E4024 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:10, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: No permission since 5 January 2018 --Krdbot 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:صورة للقرآن العظيم بالرسم العثماني.png
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
False date, no reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
False date, no reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
False date, no reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No reason to be cc-by-sa-4.0 or public domain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Josve05a at 22:19, 13 Januar 2018 UTC: Mass deletion of copyrighted content; see Commons:Licensing. If the deleted image was public domain, please file a COM:UNDEL with evidence. - --Krdbot 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and very liekly a copyright violation. --JuTa 11:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Image created for vandalism in Spanish Wikipedia. Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new here, but I believe you are looking for a General-3. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, really looks like vandalism. Taivo (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Looks like an OoS personal image. Does anybody know him? Does the painting on the face have any EV? E4024 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
no copyright Sonounpancreas (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 16:01, 14 Januar 2018 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source - --Krdbot 19:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Spoiled file. E4024 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Sealle at 20:57, 14 Januar 2018 UTC: Out of project scope - --Krdbot 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Looks like an OoS personal image. Does anybody know him? E4024 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Sealle at 20:57, 14 Januar 2018 UTC: Out of project scope - --Krdbot 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Everything uploaded so far has been stolen and this is obviously not your "Own work". — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Everything uploaded so far has been stolen and this is obviously not your "Own work". — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably a copyrighted toy. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy delete Let's keep the discussion in one place: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Buzz_L.JPG. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the toy is copyrighted. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Commons:Derivative_works#I_know_that_I_can't_upload_photos_of_copyrighted_art_(like_paintings_and_statues),_but_what_about_toys?_Toys_are_not_art! W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial flag of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license since 10.01. --JuTa 01:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MagazineculturelMédia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No proof of license. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Probable copyvio Salsero35 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Probable copyvio Salsero35 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Found several places on the Internet (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/601511_1292895876421_full_2569.jpg or https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/harrypotter/images/3/3d/Joe_Walker.png/revision/latest?cb=20130718183007&path-prefix=pl). Dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - I found a 1000px version in the web. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farouk oujjair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Appears to be 3D artworks - in Morocco, no Freedom of Panorama when artwork is main subject.
- File:مراكش 2.jpg
- File:حديقة بمراكش.jpg
- File:City of Marrakech.jpg
- File:Garden of Marrakech.jpg
- File:Marrakech 2.jpg
Ronhjones (Talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farouk oujjair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Larger or higher-quality versions of (obviously the same or related) images are available (checking via Google Images) and apparently predate their upload here. This strongly suggests that they are not uploader's work as claimed. If these are freely-usable for any other reason (i.e. not copyrightable), then the reason must be stated explicitly here.
Translation: تتوفر نسخ أكبر أو ذات جودة أعلى (من البديهي أنها نفس الصور أو متقاربة) وموجودة في مواقع أخرى قبل أن يتم تحميلها هنا. هذا يشير حتما إلى أنها ليست عملك الخاص كما هو مشار إليه في وصف الصور.
.إذا كانت هذه الملفات قابلة للاستغلال بحرية لأي سبب آخر (على سبيل المثال لا حقوق الطبع والنشر)، يجب ذكر السبب بوضوح
- File:عبد الله بن عباس 2.png
- File:حفصة بنت عمر.png
- File:أسماء بنت أبي بكر 2.png
- File:عقيل بن أبي طالب.png
- File:بلال بن رباح 2.png
- File:الترمذي 2.png
- File:الليث بن سعد 2.png
- File:أبو هريرة 2.png
- File:غزوة بدر الكبري 2.png
- File:سليمان بن عبد الملك 2.png
- File:سفيان الثوري 2.png
- File:عبد الملك بن مروان 2.png
- File:مسلمة بن عبد الملك 2.png
- File:الوليد بن عبد المالك.png
Ubcule (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely own work. --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Copy of https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57bdfbbccd0f68f047b3ff6d/t/5940a525e6f2e1c68376763f/1497408816548/_DSC2904--SRGB_WEB.jpg, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Found several places on the Internet (http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/601511_1292895876421_full_2569.jpg or https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/harrypotter/images/3/3d/Joe_Walker.png/revision/latest?cb=20130718183007&path-prefix=pl). Dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the source is unlikely the copyright holder, very small withou EXIFs, I found a 1000px version in the web. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Film poster, copyrighted and not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Film poster : copyrighted and not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Image of the periodical "Estado de São Paulo". According to the terms of the same, a request and a permission to reproduce the contents (including the images) is required. Therefore, nothing indicates that the permission was granted and that much less the image is under Creative Commons license.
The uploader has a history of deleted files about players from the São Paulo Football Club. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PARASHAR SIBIL HANSDA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper @ India.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper of Bharat.png
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper of Indian.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper Indian.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper in India.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper & dancer.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper & singer & dancer.jpg
- File:SIBIL HANSDA the santhali rapper & singer.jpg
Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyvio per COM:TOYS. Leyo 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As source, "Stuttgarter Straßenbahnen AG" is given, but there is no documentation whether they licensed it. dealerofsalvation 22:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTMY0o6V4AU3r5g.jpg, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfies/images and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Info Used in d:Q1561431. --Leyo 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not anymore. Item has been deleted on Wikidata. Mbch331 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Similar to http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Images/AMR%20DIAB%20Guinness%20Record%202%20edit_tcm25-445367.jpg, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vuconsulting (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. personal images, self promotion.
- File:Игорь Вац 2.JPG
- File:Игорь Вац1.JPG
- File:Игорь Вац VUG консалтинг.JPG
- File:Праведнюк Елена.jpg
- File:Татьяна Устименко.JPG
- File:Игорь Вац.JPG
- File:Политический консалтинг.jpg
Дима Г (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal image. Дима Г (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Principe Anthony Stiltom (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
- File:Principiantes.jpg
- File:Vanacio.jpg
- File:Hamiltom Cleizy.jpg
- File:Principe Anthony Stiltom.jpg
- File:Zexal Cristiam.jpg
- File:Principe Anthony Stilom.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: Promotional content, uploader is blocked locally as well as locked globally. --Achim (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. (Note: In another file categorized as Youtube video producer). E4024 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Note: The building behind could have some EV but looks complicated to crop, as the head of the OoS person impedes a complete view. E4024 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр Джет (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused.
Дима Г (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Winthrop is not a federal agency. I don't think this logo is simple enough to be un-copyrightable; is it? C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This file has multiple problems. The filename has nothing to do with the content. Metadata has camera model specifications but authorship is attributed to Picasa which suggests to me that a file from the web has been photoshopped for the purposes of vandalism. See uploader's global contributions also. Rightly not in use and COM:PRP. Rahul Bott (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gallery version existed. Nino Marakot (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - I don't understand the deletion reuest, but it is moot, because the file is in use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; possible personal image/selfie; blurry theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This is artwork, actually. See COM:DW. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- What is it a derivative of? I see an uncopyrightable generic dragon, nothing more. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- How is the head generic or uncopyrightable? This car is "Noggin Del Fuego II" by Brian "Visker" Mahaney of Visker Kustoms. According to his resume, this was made in 2004 and is a "Hand-crafted paper-mache mobile sculpture built on a 1992 Plymouth Colt." It won first place at the 2004 Houston Art Car Parade, and second place at the 2005 Steamboat Springs Beaux Art Festival. 3-D art is copyrightable insofar as it is beyond functional utility. The photograph appears to be taken by a Houston, Texas user as well, so it appears this photograph was taken in the United States, where freedom of panorama only applies to buildings. (Because the description says "seen at", I'm assuming the photographer/uploader is not the car creator, though the photographer/uploader appears to be very familiar with the art car scene in Houston.) ---Closeapple (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and Closeapple. Green Giant (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alvarodpas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obviously not own work. Notice on the website that provided these maps [1] is not specific enough for our purposes. It says "The use and reproduction of this information is authorized only if AEMET is identified as its author" which doesn't include derivatives.
- File:Mapa de la clasificación climática de Köppen en los archipiélagos de Madeira y Azores en el periodo de referencia 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa de precipitación media en el periodo 1971-2000 en los archipiélagos de Madeira y Azores.png
- File:Mapa de temperatura media en el periodo 1971-2000 en los archipiélagos de Madeira y Azores.png
- File:Mapa de la clasificación climática de Köppen de Portugal peninsular en el periodo de referencia 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa de temperatura media en el periodo 1971-2000 en Portugal peninsular.png
- File:Mapa de precipitación media en el periodo 1971-2000 en Portugal peninsular.png
- File:Mapade de temperatura media en Canarias en el periodo 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa de precipitación media en el periodo 1971-2000 en Canarias.png
- File:Mapa de precipitación media en el periodo 1971-2000 en España peninsular y Baleares.png
- File:Mapa temperatura media Canarias 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa temperatura media 1971-2000 España peninsular y Baleares.png
- File:Mapa de la clasificación climática de Koppen Canarias periodo 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa clasificación climática de Koppen Canarias periodo 1971-2000.png
- File:Mapa de la clasificación climática de Köppen en España peninsular y Baleares.png
- File:Mapa de precipitación media en el periodo 1971-2000 en el municipio de Madrid.png
Majora (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: The terms at http://www.aemet.es/en/nota_lega are not consistent with our rules. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ronhjones as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s640x640/sh0.08/e35/25025709_908771699290659_6267852616382808064_n.jpg. However, it seems likely to me that the uploader is the copyright holder, since anyone can use an Instagram account, and the image isn't widely disseminated, and the uploader has a similar name as the watermark. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep per Magog the Ogre. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Magog. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Very dark image, cannot see anything in this picture. B dash (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Mitte27 (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while I'm sure permission was conveyed exactly as you say, a photographer cannot waive his/her copyright by orally communicating that intent to someone else (in this case, the uploader). If the photographer & the uploader are two different people, we need the photographer (or other copyright-holder, but that presumably doesn't apply here) to send an email granting the rights. See COM:OTRS for details of what has to happen. Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi! To which email should the approval be sent? And does it have to be written in a specific way?
Sincerely Ida.
- Please read COM:OTRS. It's all there. If there's anything unclear after you read that, ask me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, permission from the photographer will not be sufficient -- see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the Hardangervidda Natursenter. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while I'm sure permission was conveyed exactly as you say, a photographer cannot waive his/her copyright by orally communicating that intent to someone else (in this case, the uploader). If the photographer & the uploader are two different people, we need the photographer (or other copyright-holder, but that presumably doesn't apply here) to send an email granting the rights. See COM:OTRS for details of what has to happen. Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is a further complication here because the picture so prominently shows someone else's presumably copyrighted photograph. To keep this image as is, we'd probably need that photographer's permission as well via OTRS. However, we could do a version with a Gaussian blur over that photograph, and then we wouldn't need that additional permission. Let me know if you want me to make such a version, assuming you can get the primary permission we need for the photo that was uploaded here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the Hardangervidda Natursenter. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Odkryłem, że posiadam dwa konta na wikimedia (Mstudnicki oraz Studnickim) i chciałem przesunąć zdjęcia na jedno konto. Zamierzam korzystać tylko z jednego konta, gdyż drugie musiałem założyć omyłkowo nie pamiętając o pierwszym. Studnickim (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Paul Claudel (1868 – 1955), Copyright violation in Europe Mutter Erde (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Paul Claudel (1868 – 1955), Copyright violation in Europe Mutter Erde (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Paul Claudel (1868 – 1955), Copyright violation in Europe Mutter Erde (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt this "handsome boy" (their own definition) is an actor. Please see their other edits, only uploading own pics. This one also has some watermark that makes it even more dubious than already is that it is an "own work" as stated. E4024 (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal unused image. Дима Г (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I see watermark on bottom left corner. Probably not own work, but stolen from a website. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
likely copyvio, seems to be album artwork that user claims as own work. Ringerfan23 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
likely copyvio, proshot photo uploaded by user with only one other upload (that is also a copyvio) Ringerfan23 (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbolic picture looking like an ad with no profound, deeper pieces of information for the project although it's currently in use in some articles. Second reason: There is an overlayed text in the picture "Kaffee & Co..." which is not in accordance with our rules and superfluous. Therefore, it should be deleted. GeoTrinity (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- We simply don't need this picture and have much better ones showing coffee beans. Delete --Zeitungsente0815 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Looks like an OoS personal image. Does anybody know him? E4024 (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Educational value is under doubt, probably out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Local Search Group Logo DM-3000.jpg
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. In addition, article about depicted en:Local Search Group was deleted, probably the organization is non-notable. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal image. Дима Г (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: While we allow a limited number of personal images for the user pages of active contributors, "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. See COM:SCOPE.. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if own work, no exif data. The subject of the photo was born in 1937. Дима Г (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Auteur : Maria Castillejo Carmen, so not own work and Commons:OTRS/fr needed. Shev123 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT in file description El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT in file description El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MariaPardodeS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright situation: Both files contain the logo of Fundación Zoo de Santillana. Who owns the copyright of the photographs: the uploader or the Fundación? What is the copyright status of the logo – the website suggests "all rights reserved"? This should probably be handled through COM:OTRS.
El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
no pretendo usar estas fotos ya dado que tienen el logotipo de nuestra Fundación y, según he sabido después, no deberían tenerlo por lo que ya he subido otra nueva
--MariaPardodeS (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shrinivaskulkarni1388
[edit]Here are last remaining uploads of Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk · contribs):
- File:We चार.jpg (608×472)
- File:समीर सामंत.jpg (858×851)
- File:समीर सामंत१.jpg (559 × 559, Facebook file)
- redirect file:मंदार चोळकर.jpg
Small photos without camera data. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 05:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs celebrities. Missing EXIF data. Unlikely to be Own work.
- File:Ashok Saraf 2.jpg
- File:Udit Narayan .jpg
- File:Sushmita Sen 2.jpg
- File:Gauri Nalawade.jpg
- File:Gauri Kulkarni.jpg
- File:Anweshaa.jpg
- File:Mrunal Kulkarni.jpg
- File:Aarya Ambekar.jpg
- File:Shivani Rangole1.jpg
- File:Jui Gadkari.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk · contribs) 3
[edit]your opinions are asked : batch of 25 (rather) personal files of a Dipavali celebration, and personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ??
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 25 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 26 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 24 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 23 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 22 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 21 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 20 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 19 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 18 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 17 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 16 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 15 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 14 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 13 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 04 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 10 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 12 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 11 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 09 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 08 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 07 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 05 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 06 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 03 Diwali.jpg
- File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 02 Diwali.jpg
Roland zh (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and previous 2 DRs. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Restored: Some, as per [2]. Yann (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk · contribs) 4
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images (en:Ramkumar Shedge).
- File:Ramkumar shedge with sajid.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with sajid wajid.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with sahil joshi (2).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with sahil joshi (1).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with deshpande.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (6).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (5).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (4).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (3).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (2).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge with camera (1).jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge sahil sunny.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge muhrat.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge acting.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge acting 1.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge aabbkk 1.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge aa bb kk still.jpg
- File:Ramkumar shedge aa bb kk seen.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and previous 3 DRs. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete photos
[edit]hello, these photos are the stills clicked by me on movie based government project beti bachao beti padhao, uploaded someone will use it films article, but yes if you feel it has no Wikipedia value then please delete it. Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Gangesh.jpg
Historical photos. Considering, how the uploader looks like (file:Wikimiki.jpg), they are not own works, but copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars toys
[edit]It seems to me these are all going to be derivative images of copyrighted toys of copyrighted characters, as per COM:TOYS. Maybe I've misunderstood something?
- File:1980s toyshop display in the Riverside Museum of Transport and Travel in Glasgow, Scotland.jpg
- File:Celebration - Action Figures (17207146478).jpg
- File:Celebration - Disney Parks Merch (16774651513).jpg
- File:Celebration - Rancho Obi-Wan (17187470837).jpg
- File:Celebration - Rancho Obi-Wan (17207337280).jpg
- File:Celebration - Rancho Obi-Wan (17394915575).jpg
- File:Osaka Tin Toy Institute The Tin Age Collection Star Wars Boba Fett Back Side.jpg
- File:Osaka Tin Toy Institute The Tin Age Collection Star Wars Boba Fett Close Up 1.jpg
- File:SWC 6 - Look Sir, Toys! (7860617306).jpg
- File:Toy shop.jpg
Themightyquill (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for the majority but provisionally Keep on these three:
- File:1980s toyshop display in the Riverside Museum of Transport and Travel in Glasgow, Scotland.jpg
- File:SWC 6 - Look Sir, Toys! (7860617306).jpg
- File:Toy shop.jpg
- I think these may count as de minimis (lots of toys in each, and they are the subject, but insufficient detail of any specific toy). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, AdamBMorgan. That seems fair, though I have to wonder if the storm trooper in the first image, the Disney duck in the second, and the Yoda in the third can really be considered de minimis. I'll leave that to others to decide. At any rate, they should be removed from the Category:Star Wars toys. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with AdamBMorgan. The 3 photos, he mentioned, are covered by de minimis. For File:Toy shop.jpg see also the opinion -> at Village pump. It "has a mass of copyrightable detail, some more prominent than others, but they are incidental to the overall photograph." Electron ツ ➧☎ 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Generally, if there are many things in an image, all of which are copyrighted, de minimis cannot apply. In order for DM to apply, you must be able to delete the copyrighted objects without the average viewer noticing. Obviously that cannot happen in these cases. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars toys
[edit]These Star Wars toys are probably copyrighted. COM:TOYS.
- File:-062 - R2D2 (25331209262).jpg
- File:Chewbac.jpg
- File:Father & Son (2743180610).jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 7.jpg
- File:Obi Wan Kenobi.jpg
- File:Opposites (28438029062).jpg
- File:Star Wars Launch Bay Hot Toys Kylo Ren.jpg
- File:Star Wars Roboter Darth Vader und BB-8 - Gamescom 2017, Köln (35946081083).jpg
- File:SWCA - From Droid Builder's Club Room (17176926866).jpg
Kulmalukko (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure about Chewbac.jpg, but the others are clearly not OK. I deleted Father & Son (2743180610).jpg, as obvious copyvio. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete But don't delete SWCA - From Droid Builder's Club Room (17176926866).jpg. That's mislabelled as a toy (the picture is dated long before the toys were even released), when it's a fan-built droid, which appears to be OK. However, File:Star Wars BB8 (24193040086).jpg seems like it should be deleted.--Quarax (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - SWCA may have been produced by a fan rather than commercially, but it still has a copyright and there is no evidence that the Flickr user had the right to freely license it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars toys
[edit]COM:TOYS. COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Chilango Studios Empresa.jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 100.jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 103.jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 3.jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 44.jpg
- File:Games Day 2015, Budapest, 45.jpg
- File:Lee McAteer with Invasion Mascot and Stormtrooper in Salford Offices.jpg
- File:Toys 2007-150-112 (15593444642).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: potentially, copyright-protected map (online?), Proper DR, as per UDR discussion. Yann (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not a copyright violation as the map was made by me
- The map was made as part of an academic assignment on cartography. I chose my hometown kannur and abstracted the information in a regular map using illustrator. Arogon05 (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do clarify how i'm infringing copyright laws. I intend to add a few more layers to this map (including the time taken to reach the locations) and label road names. I also intend to make similar maps for all the districts in Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arogon05 (talk • contribs)
- Keep AGF. Yann (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: "I... abstracted the information in a regular map using illustrator." -- that makes this derivative of the original map. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yger as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: nonfree first page, not from today and not created by uploader. Should be compared with threshold of originality. Maybe the cover is considered simple. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- This is a scanned file that I have access to. It is the cover of a publication and as such I very much doubt that threshold of originality applies. I can however accept the deletion. The question is: if I scan, or take a photo of the cover of the journal today and upload it in order to be the current creator, will you still consider the design as protected originality? Then it will not be possible to illustrate the article. As far as I know a cover is free from design protection and "upphovsrättsskydd". Am I wrong?Moskawi I have learned a bit more and I support the deletion of the file.Moskawi
Asked question about the matter on Commons:Village pump/Copyright and part of the answer was that the info about the file should be cleaned up, so I changed the info a bit. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photo_of_a_journal_coverMoskawi
Silly question perhaps, but I am a learner: How does one know if and when the discussion is finished, i e if the file is accepted on/by Commons?Moskawi
- One week is given for discussion and after that up to one month for closing the request. Most deletion requests are closed during first days after discussion week is over. Taivo (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!Moskawi
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work of passport photo with unknown origin. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Those Winnie the Pooh and Shrek related toys are probably copyrighted. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Let's keep the discussion in one place: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Buzz_L.JPG. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Signature of not notable person. E4024 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Not notable biologist. A similar image is kept in his TR:WP user page. E4024 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Source given as Facebook. Likely copyvio
Gbawden (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Low quality, underexposed image. Probably the image is edited by an "art" filter. We have sharper and brighter images of the Westminster Bridge in Category:Westminster Bridge. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe edited too much with artistic filters. Superseded by clearer image from the same direction in Category:Eiffel Tower from the northwest, for example File:Paris P1010124 (35632572221).jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Kalbbes (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. One-time uploader. E4024 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Reuploaded Commons:Deletion requests/File:Farid Sodhy.jpg, unused, out of scope, advert Ronhjones (Talk) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted once. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Author given as Anthony Tung. Not own work. No evidence of permission Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, taken from his twitter or somewhere similarhttps://twitter.com/tomfornd?lang=en Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, based on the logo bottom right Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No very clear, maybe the photo is edited too heavily. We have clear images of the palace in Category:Exterior of the Palace of Westminster. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Edited too heavily, not very clear. Superseded by clearer images from the same direction. For example File:London, UK - panoramio (50).jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The page is basically being used to advertise what appears to be an escort service website. The user's userpage on enwp might want deleting per U5 too. At any rate, out of scope / misuse of commons for advertising. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Also
- File:Tokyo view.jpg
- File:Fisher with cod.jpg
- File:Klippfiskproduksjon.jpg
- File:Eriophorum.jpg
- File:Rock carving Swan.jpg
- File:Rock carving 1.jpg
- File:Rock carving 2.jpg
- File:Rock carving 3.jpg
- File:Plague and disease.jpg
- File:Footlock.jpg
- File:LD Employee.jpg
- File:Mantrap.jpg
- File:Boiling.jpg
- File:Maria Stuart2.jpg
- File:Gapestokk.jpg
- File:Maria Stuart3.jpg
- File:Deheaded king.jpg
- File:Dead man.jpg
- File:Death2.jpg
- File:Sceleton2.jpg
- File:Hanging.jpg
- File:Aarelating.jpg
- File:Crimes punishable by death.jpg
- File:Foots.jpg
- File:Guillotine.jpg
- File:Heads on London Bridge.jpg
- File:Heavy flail.jpg
- File:London Bridge Heads.jpg
- File:Mary Queen of Scots.jpg
- File:Spanish gaiter.jpg
- File:Tongue tearer.jpg
- File:River of death.jpg
- File:Husoy.jpg
- File:Forfall.jpg
- File:Prague tram.jpg
- File:Prague view 2.jpg
- File:Prague view 3.jpg
- File:Prague view 4.jpg
- File:Prague view 5.jpg
- File:Prague view.jpg
- File:Terezin 1.jpg
- File:Terezin 2.jpg
- File:Terezin 3.jpg
- File:Terezin 4.jpg
- File:Terezin 5.jpg
- File:Terezin 6.jpg
- File:Terezin 8.jpg
- File:Terezin churchyard.jpg
![90 File:Анна Малик (поп рок группа "Индиго" ).jpg](#File:Анна_Малик_(поп_рок_группа_"Индиго"_).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![04:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/01/12#c-Mitte27-2018-01-12T04:50:00.000Z-File:Анна_Малик_(поп_рок_группа_"Индиго"_).jpg){kind=link}
![10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/01/12#c-Jameslwoodward-2018-01-19T10:58:00.000Z-File:Анна_Малик_(поп_рок_группа_"Индиго"_).jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_25_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_26_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_24_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_23_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_22_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_21_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_20_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_19_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_18_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_17_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_16_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_15_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_14_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_13_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_04_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
_10_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02_Diwali.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=307127402#File:%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B3%E0%A5%80_(%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A3)_25_Diwali.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Source website http://www.navtek.no/~johnny/pics/travel/ is dead. It is not clear if the files on this website were released under CC license. Jarekt (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thanissaro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious "own work": these images are of low resolution and/or contains no camera info in EXIF.
- File:Dhammakaya wimbledon.jpg
- File:Dhammakaya norbury.jpg
- File:Thongsuk samdaengpan.jpg
- File:Phramonkolthepmuni.jpg
- File:Chandra khonnokyoong.jpg
Wcam (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Photo files deletion
[edit]Pk9720 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC):Wcam ,I am sorry is there any particular reasons for the deletion of those photos[Phramonkolthepmuni.jpg + Chandra khonnokyoong.jpg],I should be take note of ? If is due to it low resolution quality,would it be replace with better "resolution" ones in the future ? Currently,I am the translating the English version Wikipedia content into Chinese. Pk9720 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Pk9720 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)：Jim.Sorry is there anythings that I should take note on this matter ???I'm the one who translating the "English" content into "Chinese".I am also a new member with Wikipedia.Pk9720 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As noted above, these were small and/or did not have camera information in EXIF. Those, particularly the latter, are strong indications that the files are not in fact "own work" as claimed. Generally files should be uploaded to Commons at full camera resolution and the uploader should ensure that they retain EXIF information. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jameslwoodward. Thanks for your explanation on this matter. Points noted.Pk9720 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Pk9720, please note also that claiming "own work" when, in fact, one's only connection to the files is being a representative of an organization which claims to own the copyright is a serious violation of Commons rules. (This was disclosed in an UnDR today). Unless one is the actual photographer, the files are not "own work". . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Pk9720 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)：Sorry Jameslwoodward， base on your latest reply on this matter mentioned above.What are the advises & actions, you could provide me on my current translation works situation.Since I'm base on the "English" version as my translation works reference ? What are the other opinions available for me now ? Pk9720 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Srkking309 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope.
- File:D.jeelan quote witty.jpg
- File:D.jeelan hindi quotes qitty.jpg
- File:D.jeelan hindi quotes.jpg
- File:D.jeelan Witty Quotes.jpg
- File:D.Jeelan witty quotes Author Quotes on Faith.jpg
Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. And speedy it. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Geneviève Böhmer
[edit]Geneviève Böhmer died in 2016. No freedom of panorama in France, copyright violation.
- File:Fanny sculpture G. Bohmer.jpg
- File:Genevieve Bohmer atelier.jpg
- File:Genevieve Bohmer.jpg
- File:Le Buisson Ardent, Geneviève Böhmer.jpg
- File:Parure 1, Geneviève Böhmer (Sculpture).jpg
- File:Pour une résurrection d'Ophélie, Geneviève Böhmer.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Chassipress (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Maybe private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Image of a gravedigger published in magazine "Esquinas" of São Paulo, Brazil in an article about fear, per file description in Portuguese, so image in scope. Tm (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: perhaps in scope, but there is no evidence that the Flickr user has the right to freely license the magazine cover. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyrighted picture Rudolphous (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: The image was on the cover of Life magzine in 1945. That copyright was renewed. The cited discussion was of the B&W image. This version has a separate copyright for the colorization, so even if the B&W image were PD (which it is not), the color version is still under copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
EXIF says copyright holder is CHORNAYA&PLUSHENKO Ytoyoda (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Corrupted files, along with File:Dad Manki.jpg. Unlikely to be of use in the encyclopedia. Kalbbes (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Portraits of a person, which is maybe not notable. (Uploaded from Flickr.)
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (16744658554).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (16744660974).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (16746899023).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17159698867).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17159707527).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17179376118).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17341205126).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17366827261).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17366838231).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17366843291).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17367169315).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17367176935).jpg
- File:Liza Mandel Traus (17367179895).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kulmalukko (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Nadya Myre is supposed to be the leftmost woman (sitted). However, the picture quality is so bad that she is unidentifiable and thus the picture bears no educational content. Boréal (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
text-only document, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Painting of an artist active in the 1950s and in the 1960s, so still under copyright, need an autorization, see Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia for monuments. The uploaders have not the right to publish photos of copyrighted artworks under a free licence!
- File:"Алёша".jpg
- File:Agility course.jpg
- File:Alyosha Monument, Murmansk (18993498054).jpg
- File:Alyosha Monument, Murmansk (19590614056).jpg
- File:Alyosha Monument, Murmansk (19621107141).jpg
- File:Alyosha Monument, Murmansk (19621517111).jpg
- File:Murmansk, Russia, Мурманск, Русия - panoramio - aristidov (1).jpg
- File:Murmansk, Russia, Мурманск, Русия - panoramio - aristidov (3).jpg
- File:Алёша (июль 2012).JPG
- File:Алёша (Мурманск).JPG
- File:Алёша в Мурманске.jpg
- File:Алёша со спины.JPG
- File:Алёша-Мурманск-2.jpg
- File:Алёша-Мурманск.jpg
- File:Алёша. Мурманск.jpg
- File:Алеша летней ночью.jpg
- File:Защитникам Советского Заполярья.jpg
- File:Мемориал защитникам Советского Заполярья в годы Великой Отечественной Войны.jpg
- File:Мемориал у Алёши.JPG
- File:Памятник "Алёша".jpg
- File:Памятник Алёша.jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья («Алёша»).jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья «Алёша».jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья в Мурманске 1.JPG
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья в Мурманске 2.JPG
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья в Мурманске.JPG
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья.jpg
- File:Пирамида у Алёши.JPG
- File:Труженикам военного Мурманска.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia for monuments. The uploaders have not the right to publish photos of copyrighted artworks under a free licence!
- File:Alyosha monument.jpg
- File:Алёша.jpg
- File:Вечерний вид на памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья.jpg
- File:Всегда на посту.jpg
- File:Памятник неизвестному солдату. Вид со стороны сопок.jpg
Ras67 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia for monuments. The uploaders have not the right to publish photos of copyrighted artworks under a free licence!
Ras67 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia!
- File:Защитникам Советского заполярья 2014 01.jpg
- File:Защитникам Советского заполярья 2014 02.jpg
- File:Защитникам Советского заполярья 2014 04.jpg
- File:От героев былых времен не осталось порой имен (257058021).jpeg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья («Алёша»).jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья («Алёша».jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья «Алёша».jpg
- File:Памятник Защитникам Советского Заполярья.jpg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures!
- File:09.17-20 Мурманск (517).jpg
- File:09.17-20 Мурманск (523).jpg
- File:09.17-20 Мурманск (758).jpg
- File:09.17-20 Мурманск (832).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Funny but I'm not sure if it's in scope. E4024 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- User:Cultura de la basura, if you wish to keep this image of yours, you can place it on your user page. --E4024 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Part of mass upload: unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per educational value as it illuminates the demographics and human diversity of Quebec. --Taterian (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted:Per nomination . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is My Personal Pic Nabin Niraula (Nagendra) (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
-2018-01-12T17:35:00.000Z-File:Nabin_Niraula.jpg){kind=link}
This is My Personal Pic 27.34.21.121 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This is my Personal Picture 27.34.21.121 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
this is my personal pic 27.34.21.121 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Jcb (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elitsmeta1980 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not in use, wiki is not a hosting
Bilderling (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; personal images/selfies; File:Christobé 3.png is badly photoshopped
theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; personal images/selfies
theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LocknlockHQ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisement and non-trivial logos. No evidence of permissions.
- File:Red Dot Design Award.jpg
- File:Germany Design Award.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Mumii.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Well Being.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Top100.pdf
- File:LOCK&LOCK C-BPI.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK K-BPI.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Travel.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Glassware.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Livingware.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Lunch box.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Minimal.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Water bottle.jpg
- File:LOCK&LOCK Tumbler.jpg
- File:Bisfree.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LocknlockHQ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Promo photos, album artwork, brochure, non-trivial logo. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:GRIM SALA SCD.jpg
- File:Foto GRIM.jpg
- File:GRIM STRATOVARIOUS.jpg
- File:GRIM TOKATA.jpg
- File:GRIM LIVE.jpg
- File:GRIM.jpg
- File:Roger .png
- File:Visions of Death.jpg
- File:GRIM HISTORIA.pdf
- File:Logotipo de la marca.jpg
- File:GRIM .jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SuzanneRose2010 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope; personal image/selfie
theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. It was used on Citizendium. Really I fail to recall why did it appear here. Tsirel (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. See files uploaded by Mntchristopher94 (talk · contribs) Kalbbes (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. See files uploaded by Mntchristopher94 (talk · contribs) Kalbbes (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. See files uploaded by Mntchristopher94 (talk · contribs) Kalbbes (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photos. See files uploaded by Mntchristopher94 (talk · contribs) Kalbbes (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omar daoudieh (talk · contribs)
[edit]probably copyvio, small sizes without exif, contain screenshots also
- File:تنمية.jpg
- File:ندوة.jpg
- File:حوار 1.jpg
- File:نائبا.jpg
- File:حر.jpg
- File:صورة رئيسي.jpg
- File:استقبال.jpg
- File:شبااب.png
- File:مصاروه.jpg
- File:عشيرة.jpg
- File:ويكي 3.jpg
- File:ويكي مقال.jpg
- File:سفير.jpg
- File:فيصلي.jpg
Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
اِحْذِفْ أسامة الجزري (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
اِحْذِفْ اِحْذِفْ أسامة الجزري (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
اِحْذِفْ اِحْذِفْ أسامة الجزري (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
اِحْذِفْ اِحْذِفْ أسامة الجزري (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 13:33, 24 Januar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ينتمي إلى رمز رياضي.svg: اِحْذِفْ اِحْذِفْ --Krdbot 19:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be at least from the same computer model used to generate images at https://sjmc.gov.au/the-centre/about-the-centre/, where there are some at least very similar images. That raises copyright questions, since that site doesn't say anything about free-licensing. We really need the copyright-holder to go through the COM:OTRS process to release rights for this, not just a pseudonymous account asserting "own work". Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe stick a No permission tag on it next time. Amada44 talk to me 18:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44 talk to me 18:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Low quality image with a better SVG version available. B dash (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Amada44 talk to me 18:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Low quality image with a better SVG version available. B dash (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Amada44 talk to me 18:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:NEW Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valta.PNG, File:Stemma val tagliamento.PNG, File:Stemma battaglione Val Tagliamento.jpg and likely a copy-vio too. Noclador (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Noclador: Next time directly use {{Duplicate}}; thanks. Ruthven (msg) 14:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:NEW Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valta.PNG, File:Stemma val tagliamento.PNG, File:Stemma battaglione Val Tagliamento.jpg and likely a copy-vio too. Noclador (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Noclador: Next time directly use {{Duplicate}}; thanks. Ruthven (msg) 14:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
copyvios; may meet the threshold of originality on source country, Croatia
- File:Big Brother Doors Eye.jpg
- File:Bb7 1.png
- File:Bb3 1.jpg
- File:Bb2 1.png
- File:Bb4 1.jpg
- File:Bb5 5.jpg
theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; kept simple enough logos. Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, but these logo designs are far too complex to fall below the threshold of originality.
ℯxplicit 04:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Bad .jpg copy of this File:COMALP.svg and without attribution to the original content creators. Noclador (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Added on French wikipedia with the comment "Je me suis permise d'ajouter une photo officielle et professionnelle" (I added an official and professional shot). Credited to a photograph on commons that does not seem to be linked with the username (+ the upload seems to have crashed as just the top of the picture shows) Symac (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Zelomorpha: You can ask for speedy deletion for this kind of case. Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Zelomorpha: You can ask for {{COM:SPEEDY|speedy deletion]] for this kind of case. Ruthven (msg) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Zelomorpha: You can ask for speedy deletion for this kind of case. Ruthven (msg) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Zelomorpha: When uploading from external sources, please use {{subst:Lrw}}, so that the upload can be verified. Ruthven (msg) 14:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
NC license Zelomorpha (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This image is copyright infringement, source: http://www.qinnongbank.com/images/index_13.jpg 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Copy of http://leopoldineroux.com/images/index/leopoldineroux_atelier2.jpg, photo by Alcides Navarro, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
this might not be simple text Queryzo (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: simple enough text. Ruthven (msg) 14:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Smile mobile bd (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertising content. Out of project scope.
- File:Smile-z14.png
- File:Smile-Z13-c.png
- File:SMILE Z13.png
- File:Z13-classic.png
- File:Smile Z12.jpg
- File:Y10 Final.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; more than advert, looks like copyvio!. Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, taken from the internet as per a google images search Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS authorisation needed from the author RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Ruthven (msg) 14:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Woller Michael, (Michael.WA.Woller@partner.bmw.de), identity of Mikeformelbmw should be verified via Commons:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Similar to http://www.cornerflag.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/michael-cunningham-1175x500.jpg. Dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Redundant. Superseded by similar view without watermark: File:Colosseum Rome 2017.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Looks like an OoS personal image. Does anybody know him? (Linked to an item without articles at WD.) E4024 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in use; Wikidata says: Founder and chief executive officer of OND TechSol, India. Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
1. UPF and OoS. 2. One-time upload without camera EXIF. E4024 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, the corresponding Wikidata item has since been deleted. No educational use possible IMO. Hiàn (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused random shot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Spoiled file. E4024 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Not own work. samee 15:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No own work Martin K. (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elberth 00001939 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Logo UniversidadECCI.png
- File:Escudo UniversidadECCI.png
- File:Logo by Elberth Jimenez.png
- File:Logo by Elberth Jimenez.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; File:Logo by Elberth Jimenez.png is used in several pages. Ruthven (msg) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Work of an artist who died in 2010, so autorization needed, see Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC) OSTR COMMONS en attente de suppression pourtant je suis l'auteur et ayant droit, accord de mes frères et soeurs mais je vais leur faire passer la lettre de commons truc et j'attends leur accord une nouvelle fois, en attendant ne supprimez pas la photo mais je ne sais pas comment mettre la mention sur la photo, tant de pages a lire que je ne la retrouve plus . Vous pouvez merttre la mention Ostr et quelquechose sur la photo à ma place car trop difficile pour moi merci beaucoup--Tpgrieg (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS processing. Ruthven (msg) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a studio photograph taken in 1961 by Studio Oulasvirta considered as a work of art, so the section 49a of the Finnish Copyright Act does not apply and the photograph is under copyright. The source (in Finnish) also explicity states that the usage of the photograph may be restricted. Apalsola t • c 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola t • c 16:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- This photograph does not manifest sufficient originality. An anonymous promotional photo like this could have been taken by several professional photographers, and therefore it does not qualify for being considered a work of art. In other words, there is no need to delete this file. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Mlang.Finn; such a close-up has not enough creative elements to be considered a work of art in the terms of the law. Ruthven (msg) 15:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No authorisation for this movie poster. Benoît Prieur (d) 16:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Benoît Prieur: You can speedy delete such files. Ruthven (msg) 15:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as no permission. After I got noticed on my talk page that there is no dofference to i.e. File:Patralekha gracing ‘Filmfare Glamour & Style Awards 2016’.jpg from Bollywood Hungama I restored the image and converted it to a regular DR. I dont see on both images any attribution to Bollywood Hungama but maybe I'm missing something. JuTa 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Both carry a Bollywood Hungama watermark. Whether that's enough to conclude they were taken by a Bollywood Hungama photograper is debatable. Huon (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Huon. Ruthven (msg) 14:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation, photo from a friend uploaded without permission Erik den yngre (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
picture of a band without noticeability - not useful for educational purposes (Commons used as hosting) L736E (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; besides we need an OTRS permission, as the file is "suspect" (no EXIF, low res). Ruthven (msg) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Any permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Found elsewhere (https://www.lsa-conso.fr/mediatheque/8/9/5/000135598_103.jpg), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Poor quality thumbnail without EXIF, replaceable image, unlikely to be uploader's own work. Category:Dianna Agron contains many pictures of higher quality. Animalparty (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't think this logo is free. HerrAdams (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Not own work -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- This is a copy of the Jaguar logo used by Jaguar Land Rover. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: by Christian Ferrer. Ruthven (msg) 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Racconish as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: youtube source has been terminated due to copyvio — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per reason above. — Racconish ☎ 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Spam, spaces for rent; User:Fæ should be advised not to upload more of the same from https://unsplash.com/@breather and remove those he has added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep illustrative, high quality, in scope. If you seriously want my account blocked, ask at the right notice board, rather than making threats in deletion requests. See diff. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&oldid=279059772){kind=link}
Kept: good quality photo. It's use is not necessarily bound to the advert, as it shows a flat in Montreal. Ruthven (msg) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Spam, spaces for rent; User:Fæ should be advised not to upload more of the same from https://unsplash.com/@breather and remove those he has added. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep illustrative, high quality, in scope. If you seriously want my account blocked, ask at the right notice board, rather than making threats in deletion requests. See diff. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given my reverted wording, I think it's pretty clear I was mistakenly thinking the spam account was the uploader -- not you. But let me make that clear: I never thought nor do I think you should be blocked, of course. Which is why I immediately changed it. I don't see the point of pulling out that diff. But sorry. Now as for the matter of the photo. If it's kept then I'd suggest a title change -- because as it stands now it's unambiguous spam for someone looking to rent the spaces at these addresses. And I still don't believe they fall within project scope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: It's not amazing, but I suppose it's plausibly illustrative of what the inside of a home looks like. The advertising intent of the original creator isn't really factor in COM:SCOPE, so much as whether the file can be used for anything in the future other than advertising. Even when a corporate "marketing" department uploads files directly here, we routinely accept plausible uploads and then still tell them they can't create a promotional article on Wikipedia; we delete the article and keep the decent files. --Closeapple (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This appears to be 1117 rue St Catherine Ouest (probably Edifice Drummond), not 117 (probably some street-level shop space in Place des Arts). It should be renamed if it is kept. --Closeapple (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Copy of my work, without attribution, and with errors. This is the original File:CoA mil ITA btg alpini val tagliamento.png and the other user just copied it as his own work two weeks later. Noclador (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Use {{Duplicate}} next time. Ruthven (msg) 15:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:NEW Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valta.PNG, File:Stemma val tagliamento.PNG, File:Stemma battaglione Val Tagliamento.jpg and likely a copy-vio too. Noclador (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: keeping one copy. Ruthven (msg) 15:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:NEW Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valta.PNG, File:Stemma val tagliamento.PNG, File:Stemma battaglione Val Tagliamento.jpg and likely a copy-vio too. Noclador (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: keeping one copy. Ruthven (msg) 15:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:NEW Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valtajut.PNG, File:Stemma valta.PNG, File:Stemma val tagliamento.PNG, File:Stemma battaglione Val Tagliamento.jpg and likely a copy-vio too. Noclador (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
probable copyright of video feed on television screen SecretName101 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused. Looks like an OoS personal image. Does anybody know him? (I looked around but could not find a ref to "Turkish biologist". Perhaps they wanted to use Category:Biographies.) E4024 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Unidentified person with useless description, clearly not related to any of the categories added by the uploader. BD2412 T 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work samee 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No own Work Martin K. (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted model, not applicable under the SVPOW CC-BY license IJReid (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- IJReid: I don't understand what is the problem with these images. from the source: "these images are now released to the world under the CC-BY license". The creator, Dr. Matt Wedel, released these images.--Mikey641 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The images are not copyrighted, but the model itself is a commercially-purchasable item, and as such is not under the same license. The model is copyrighted, so the image of the model cannot be used. IJReid (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Blurred image with no meaningful content. Archie02 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted model, not applicable under the SVPOW CC-BY license IJReid (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- IJReid: I don't understand what is the problem with these images. from the source: "these images are now released to the world under the CC-BY license". The creator, Dr. Matt Wedel, released these images.--Mikey641 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The images are not copyrighted, but the model itself is a commercially-purchasable item, and as such is not under the same license. The model is copyrighted, so the image of the model cannot be used. IJReid (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by किशोर कारभारी (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/1884092/Television.jpg?1473814924.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet COM:SCOPE, and unclear who owns the copyright or whether it was work for hire or what. Closeapple (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I work for GJC Law and we owe the Copyright of this logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonsimsingapore (talk • contribs) 2018-01-15 (UTC)
- Jasonsimsingapore, that's fine. So please follow our OTRS procedure. I felt free to remove your spam links from that page. I'm sure you will not add them again. --Achim (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Дима Г as no permission. It appears that the uploader may be the author however; I don't see much evidence of a copyright violation. Closeapple (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Missing permision that that uploader is the owner. Not grandfathered. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Low quality, unused image with a better SVG version available. B dash (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения разрешения автора фото AlexZeb на публикацию данного фото под указанной лицензие Dogad75 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Несвободное изображение (скопировано с сайта, все материалы которого защищены авторским правом) Александр Танчугин (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Несвободное изображение (скриншот с сайта, все материалы которого защищены авторским правом) Александр Танчугин (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Несвободное изображение (скопировано с сайта, все материалы которого защищены авторским правом) Александр Танчугин (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
File are not used Ilzhabimantara (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unused personal image, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
not free content DHN (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
اِحْذِفْ اِحْذِفْ أسامة الجزري (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete!
- --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)لا من سبب مقنع للحذف
- ❌ No reason to delete! Abdellah SADIQUI (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, dubious own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Pictures by agencies need a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
uploader request: superseded by a better file A1AA1A (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I want to delete a file because it contains several errors in the locations of geographic objects, I want to add to this place an improved simple map without errors Maps world (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Maps world: You can upload a new version over the top of this one -- indeed, you already have (the original was uploaded on 2017-09-06 and you uploaded a new version on 2018-01-22, after this nomination -- so can I assume this is done and you're happy for it to remain? James F. (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of a free license. --Yann (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in France, copy without attribution of fr:File:Tour CB21.JPG. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No information on the photographer of this 3D object. Unknown copyright situation. Picture is clearly not PD-old. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: information completed, file cropped. --Yann (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not used anywhere in the mainspace, wrong colours, replaced by File:Xiaomi_logo.svg — kashmīrī 18:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This map is non-NPOV and the product of speculative/fringe theories; it represents data that is and will likely remain inherently incomplete; it does not accurately reflect the sources cited and; it is not used in a article in any Wikipedia arrticles (or outside user pages). Please see the relevant talk page for more detail. Grant65 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no response from uploader during 1½ months, citing errors. I can see some minor errors myself. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
one more image related to this old request. He added it to my own and other user categories as well (I removed that already) DerFussi 06:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Facebook. Taivo (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ronhjones as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://en.ppt-online.org/129503. Converted to a DR because speedy deletion tag has been removed. Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The https://cf.ppt-online.org/files/slide/t/ty3h2LGb04Cw6sIU1u8Mf5ecxNEjHYpJBTFnWQ/slide-3.jpg image has a prominent “Свое имя город получил по названию горы Качканар” text stamped over it with definite signs of generation loss. An absurd accusation (note also destruction of the category tag by Steinsplitter). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: The file was uploaded to Commons on 10 Jan 2018. this file's server date is 26 Feb 2017. Possibly, you can find a lot of other files with other dates. But an uploader's declaration concerning image license is considered reliable and valid (according to Wikimedia Commons rules) only if the image was not published elsewhere before upload to Commons. Otherwise we have significant doubt whether uploader is the author or copied the image from somewhere else and we require another proof that the license is valid (eg. a link to a license page at the initial publication site or a permission e-mail to OTRS). If a reliable proof is not possible, we have unclear copyright status and such an image should not be uploaded to Commons. You may consider this paranoid, by this rules were established by the community and we have reasons for them. So Delete for now and request COM:UDR when copyright status is clearly resolved (eg. permission confirmed by an OTRS agent or initial publication claiming image to be CC0 found). Ankry (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ankry: This file's server date is 26 june 1972. Well that settles it.. Per Commons rules the file would indeed have to be deleted if it was previously published, but such cases should never be speedy copyvio. http://photogoroda.com/foto-90213-ulica-sverdlova.html says it's from 2006 and credits "1123" as the source. Other images in that album seem to have proper credit, so 1123 probably means something. The server date on this Google thumbnail is 16 november 2017, also predating the upload here. And server dates from Google are not so likely to have been tampered with. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given they belong to one uploader with as few as five photos,
it’s very unlikely that some malicious person (other than Vyacheslav_Bukharov (talk · contribs)) uploaded namely these two items as own.Note that Vyacheslav claimed that photos are not only his own, but free. I am sorry for not converting the {{Copyvio}} to a regular deletion request. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)- Hey, there's 1123 again. Apparently a Google username or something. There's a slight problem with your link though: it's not the same photo. Same angle, but look at the traffic. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The same problem as with photogoroda.com. Now we learned that Panoramio Nr 209454 is identical to http://photogoroda.com/foto-90213-ulica-sverdlova.html and both have the same credit, whereas Качканар_-_улица_Свердлова.jpg was shot from the same location, but definitely at another time. Also, a degraded picture at ppt-online.org and http://lamel.webxtra.eu/images/Ka.jpg were derived from the same photo as Качканар_-_улица_Свердлова.jpg represents. But the source of the latter remains a mystery and I don’t think now that own authorship should be discounted as a possibility. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Woops, I didn't even notice photogoroda was the same (wrong) picture. As for Ka.jpg, you might want to refresh that link. For this photo, there's also page 10 from [3]. This is far from a reliable link, but it would seem unlikely that the date on this is not true. It's not the original source though. For those who like spot-the-difference puzzles: compare https://i.imgur.com/Okp0oNT.jpg to the photo here. I suspect the photos where taken the same day, but with a different lens/zoom. W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- The same problem as with photogoroda.com. Now we learned that Panoramio Nr 209454 is identical to http://photogoroda.com/foto-90213-ulica-sverdlova.html and both have the same credit, whereas Качканар_-_улица_Свердлова.jpg was shot from the same location, but definitely at another time. Also, a degraded picture at ppt-online.org and http://lamel.webxtra.eu/images/Ka.jpg were derived from the same photo as Качканар_-_улица_Свердлова.jpg represents. But the source of the latter remains a mystery and I don’t think now that own authorship should be discounted as a possibility. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, there's 1123 again. Apparently a Google username or something. There's a slight problem with your link though: it's not the same photo. Same angle, but look at the traffic. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Logo with Copyright. Source: "(...) fue bocetado hacia fines de 1943, por encargo de Ángel R. Guzmán" (...) "se apresuró a anotarlo en Registro de la Propiedad Intelectual con el nombre de “Distintivo de la Paz”, derechos que luego cedió a cambio de la exclusividad en la fabricación." (p. 2-3) Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Redundant. Almost identical image is File:Rua - SP (17391556152).jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Querying based on the United Kingdom's TOO. The UK's TOO required for copyright protection is much lower than that of the United States. Probably above the TOO in the UK? Eyesnore (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The uploaded logo can be made without so much effort in Adobe Illustrator. It's not complex enough to be labelled as TOO. It stands. --Bankster (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bankster: Local file on Wikipedia labeled as "fair use" material. Eyesnore (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Eyesnore: Yup, but it was still graphically made from scratch as a simple image file. Thus, it does not qualify for WP:TOO. --Bankster (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bankster: Got it. Tagged the enwiki local copy with NFUR not needed template. Eyesnore (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Eyesnore: Yup, but it was still graphically made from scratch as a simple image file. Thus, it does not qualify for WP:TOO. --Bankster (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Bankster: Local file on Wikipedia labeled as "fair use" material. Eyesnore (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept, in my opinion this is textlogo. Taivo (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Copy of https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/27826600319_757385b4ec_o_d.jpg, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
An edited Satellite map. The Satellite map is not likely own work. 172.105.238.76 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's true, I didn't take the satellite image. It's available on the websites of dozens of media organizations. What I did do was take that background and add a bunch of annotations — a legend, markings showing what burned where, and a "north" symbol. I'm not a copyright expert so I'll let others weigh in. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- One moment: I'm uploading a new version with free satellite imagery from USGS. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, new version is still not uploaded. Taivo (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no author, no date. Not sure, that this is work of US government. Taivo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no author, no date, no evidence for CC-license. Taivo (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, source link is dead. That's what happens, if license is not reviewed for 11 years. Unfortunately now we must delete the image. Taivo (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Bogus license. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, 1907 photo is not enough old to assume public domain without evidence. US-1923 license is bogus. If you have more information about the photo, please present it and the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- No deletion! its a historic document and old (no copyrights anymore possible).--79.240.209.103 20:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- In Belgium copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no author. 1919 map is not enough old to assume public domain without evidence. Taivo (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Deze foto dook onlangs op in mijn familie. Is de voorzijde van een als ansichtkaart verstuurde foto naar een familielid.
- Aangezien het auteursrecht in België verloopt 70 jaar na het overlijden van de fotograaf, is er een aanzienlijke kans dat deze foto nog niet Public Domain is. Wij houden als veilige grens 120 jaar aan als de fotograaf niet bekend is. Jcb (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
De foto is begin november 1914 genomen. Zeg dat de fotograaf toen een jaar of 20 was, ofwel geboren omstreeks 1895. Is dat lang genoeg?
- Nee, dat is niet lang genoeg. Een fotograaf kan makkelijk de 70 gehaald hebben en zijn overleden in 1965, ik welk geval het copyright pas zou verlopen per 1 januari 2036. Zoals ik je hierboven al schreef: wij houden als veilige grens 120 jaar aan. Dat 1914 geen 120 jaar geleden is kun je zelf ook uitrekenen. Jcb (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Zie mijn argumenten bij de foto Belgische evacués.
- We hebben hier als gemeenschap gewoon een besluit over genomen door middel van een stemming na een lange discussie en hebben de grens bij 120 jaar gelegd. Jcb (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, 1914 photo is not enough old to assume public domain without evidence. Taivo (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bangtan09092003 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tags should be used if they're in public domain.
- File:South-Korea-arreglos-1997.ogg
- File:Belarus-1997 1.ogg
- File:Scotland-National-Anthem.ogg
- File:Kongesangen (1).ogg
- File:African Union flag.svg -768x512.png
- File:Flag of the African Union 2010.svg
- File:God-Save-the-Queen-2016.ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, still no plausible licenses. Taivo (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
DW. No information on the author of the original picture. Probably not own work by the uploader. Bogus date, one of the depicted people died almost 30 years ago. Jcb (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Niks 'bogus date', gewoon een vergissing met de datum, die door gouwenaar zou zijn hersteld. Het klopt dat de afgebeelde persoon is overleden, op 10-08-1989 om precies te zijn. De foto is mijn eigen werk.
- Dit lijkt meer op een persfoto. Jcb (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ik heb geen bemoeienis gehad met deze afbeelding, zoals in de bestandsgeschiedenis is te zien. De foto waar ik een datumcorrectie heb aangebracht was deze inmiddels verwijderde afbeelding. Gouwenaar (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ik zou de overige foto's die ik toen heb gemaakt kunnen opsturen. Misschien dat dat overtuigend genoeg is.
- Mij lijkt dit geen persfoto, afgaande op de kwaliteit is dit een door een amateurfotograaf gemaakte afbeelding. De lezing van de uploader lijkt mij valide. Moet natuurlijk wel correct door de maker gedateerd worden. Volgens het artikel Eduard Janssens moet dat op een dag in 1984 zijn geweest. Gouwenaar (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
De exacte datum waarop deze foto gemaakt is kan ik niet noemen; ik ben allang blij dat ik heb kunnen achterhalen dat het in 1984 was. Het is me een raadsel dat deze foto voor het werk van een beroepsfotograaf kan worden aangezien; doordat ik mijn flitser vergeten was is de kwaliteit van álle foto's tamelijk belabberd; deze was na bewerking met Paint Shop Pro nog de beste.
- Uploader insists that this would be own work, but based on the whole series they uploaded as 'own work', including images from as old as 1914, their claims don't seem plausible. Jcb (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ik heb bij die gelegenheid 13 foto's gemaakt, zoals gezegd van slechte kwaliteit doordat ik geen flitser had meegenomen. Ik ben bereid de 12 overige op de een of andere manier ter beschikking te stellen, om zelfs de ergste sceptici te overtuigen. Durf je de uitdaging aan?
https://meray.stackstorage.com/s/MxcLe7FBTWnJBYm
- Keep - obvious amateur photos from 1984 made by the uploader. Gouwenaar (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept, after all, I am still ready to assume good faith. Taivo (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably not own work by the uploader. Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Deze foto is mijn eigen werk. Geen enkele reden om hem te verwijderen— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 12 jan 2018 19:48 (UTC)
- Dat lijkt me niet zo geloofwaardig, meer iets voor een professionele fotograaf. Wie zegt dat je hem niet gewoon ergens in een doos gevonden hebt? Het feit dat je als datum "before 10 August 1989" (overlijdensdatum) aangeeft zegt genoeg, je hebt blijkbaar geen idee wanneer deze foto genomen is. Jcb (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Ik weet inderdaad niet exact wanneer ik deze foto genomen heb en na digitalisering heb ik het negatief helaas weggegooid, maar het is wel degelijk eigen werk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 13 jan 2018 08:36 (UTC)
- Uploader insists that this would be own work, but based on the whole series they uploaded as 'own work', including images from as old as 1914, their claims don't seem plausible. Jcb (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Ik heb nergens beweerd dat de foto uit 1914 mijn werk is. Als auteur wordt 'onbekend' genoemd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 13 jan 2018 18:36 (UTC)
- Oh nee? En wat zien we hier dan? De archieven zijn geduldig... Jcb (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Dat is stug. Als ik die foto bekijk via "uploads" staat er "onbekend".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 14 jan 2018 09:11 (UTC) Ik ben echt niet zo dom dat ik een foto uit 1914 voor eigen werk laat doorgaan. Dan zou ik pakweg 120 jaar moeten zijn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 14 jan 2018 09:12 (UTC)
- Dat is de door mij corrigeerde versie. Bij het uploaden werd als auteur vermeld Pieter Janssens. Gouwenaar (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Waarom kun je toch niet geloven dat ook dit een amateurfoto is? Van de foto van de uitreiking van het verzetskruis dacht je ook al dat het professioneel werk was, hoewel het een belabberde foto is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 18 jan 2018 14:34 (UTC)
- Ik neem aan dat deze opmerking niet voor mij bestemd is, ik heb slechts opgemerkt dat de uploader niet de maker van deze foto kon zijn, zoals werd vermeld bij het uploaden en dat de foto niet op 5 december 2017 gemaakt kon zijn. In het andere geval heb ik juist opgemerkt: "Mij lijkt dit geen persfoto, afgaande op de kwaliteit is dit een door een amateurfotograaf gemaakte afbeelding". Gouwenaar (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
De vraag was inderdaad gericht aan Jcb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Janssens (talk • contribs) 20 jan 2018 08:49 (UTC)
Kept, after all, I am still able to assume good faith. Taivo (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, superseded by file:Small Coat of Arms Belgrade.svg. Taivo (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, beautiful image. Unfortunately no source and no EXIF. Taivo (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"Een afwijkende regel bestaat voor het geval dat de maker niet of onvoldoende bekend is, zoals bij anonieme foto’s of foto’s die onder pseudoniem zijn gepubliceerd. In die gevallen vervalt het auteursrecht na 70 jaar, te rekenen vanaf de eerste januari na het jaar van eerste rechtmatige openbaarmaking." Dat was in 1914. Het auteursrecht was hoe dan ook in 1984 al verlopen.
- Wie zegt dat de fotograaf in 1914 niet bekend was? Dat vraagt om een onderbouwing. Zonder die onderbouwing geldt dat we hier met elkaar hebben afgesproken dat we een veilige grens van 120 jaar aanhouden in deze situatie. Jcb (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Het gaat er niet om of hij tóén bekend was, maar of hij nú bekend is. uiteraard was hij toen bekend, al was het maar bij degenen die op die foto staan. En waarom zou je voor een Nederlandse fotograaf die in Weurt, je weet wel, bij Nijmegen, een foto heeft gemaakt de Belgische wetgeving aanhouden? Of zouden ze voor de gelegenheid een Belg hebben laten overkomen uit oorlogsgebied? 1914-1918, weet je nog?
- Hoezo Belgisch? Waar schrijf ik dat in deze nominatie? In Nederland geldt ook de PMA+70. En nee, het feit dat wij hier en nu niet weten wie de fotograaf was, is onvoldoende om uit te gaan van anoniem werk. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Was je even kwijt dat je het volgende schreef: "Aangezien het auteursrecht in België verloopt 70 jaar na het overlijden van de fotograaf..."?
- Ik zie het nergens is deze nominatie. Jcb (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Kan kloppen; je schreef het in de discussie over rené vermandere.jpg
- Ja, er is niets in de beschrijving bij die foto dat naar Nederland verwijst. Dus als die foto ook in Nederland is genomen, dan kan het handig zijn de beschrijving uit te breiden. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Het bijschrift luidt: Weurt, 1914. En Weurt ligt nou eenmaal in Nederland.
- Dat zie ik nergens staat op de afbeeldingspagina. Ik heb de indruk dat je er maar half uitkomt hoe de software hier werkt en waar je dingen kunt vinden. Geen probleem, daar kan ik me wel iets bij voorstellen. Zo gebruikersvriendelijk is de software nu ook weer niet. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Ga dan eens naar de Wikipedia-pagina over René Vermandere, daar staat duidelijk dat de foto in Weurt is genomen. En je hebt gelijk: ik ben een zeer onervaren Wikipedia-gebruiker.
Deleted, 1914 photos are not enough old to assume public domain without evidence. 120 years from creation is needed for that. Taivo (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No soure. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no source. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nagualdesign (talk · contribs)
[edit]Relative discussion in my talk page. Claimed as derivative works of the free image File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, but obviously, clearly and willingly derivative works of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ecosia_logo.png
Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pardon my language but what the fuck?! I've asked 2 different users several times to explain exactly how the original uploads were deemed to be above the threshold of originality, even though they were just maps within circles. I have not yet received an answer. The new images have been made entirely from scratch, and if you compare them to the actual logo they're not even the same. They're not derivatives of that logo at all, and if you think they "obviously and clearly" are you aren't looking at them very closely. I took File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, smoothed it, coloured it, cropped out a circular portion and placed a circle around it. Ecosia do not have a copyright on putting a circle around a map.
- According to Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions; Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request. This did not happen at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ecosia-globe.png, nor did Christian offer a reply to my simple question on his talk page. I would appreciate some discussion, or at the very least some clarification, before this deletion request is closed.
- Moreover, Christian has now decided to make this about Files uploaded by Nagualdesign (talk · contribs) rather than simply being about the two files in question. Why you are bringing my previous uploads into question I have no idea, but it does show that you know fuck all about me and have decided to make some questionable snap judgements. I gladly offer my uploads up for further scrutiny by uninvolved administrators, and you'll see that I offer an invaluable service to this project. In point of fact, when I uploaded File:Ecosia-globe.png (and File:Ecosia-globe.jpg) I left a note at Template talk:PD-textlogo#Ecosia globe in order to hold my work up to scrutiny, and according to Magog the Ogre it was me that accidentally nominated them for deletion in the first place. Let's not make out that I'm some sort of wanton rule breaker. nagualdesign 01:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep w:Mockbusters aren't illegal. The original is so marginally copyrightable to begin with, and I think he's clearly sidestepped any copyrightable elements of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Mockbusters" has nothing to do with one of our policies nor with one of our copyright relative guidelines. As it was written by the uploader himself in my talk page, these artworks have been made to look like this copyrighted logo, and in my opinion it is successful, you did a great job, and it is what we call a derivative work. Your logos and the copyrighted logo are very close and furthermore it is deliberate. No matter if you used a free map, you modified you artwork in the purpose that it looks as an existing logo. You come in my talk page saying in summary "hey look I made these logos so that they look like this logo, and you are surprised and offended that me, whom you know well I just deleted similar logos, I nominates your logos for deletion? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mockbusters is an example of how copyright law works, and Commons does not delete stuff that doesn't violate copyright law just because it's similar to other works. I'm not sure the works in question are copyrightable at all, but what is probably copyrightable is the map, which is different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: That's not how I understand the term derivative. The images which you think should be deleted are direct derivatives of File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png (ie, I made them using that image. See how I made them here) and made to look kinda like the bit in the middle of the Ecosia logo. Looking kind like the bit in the middle of something is not an infringement of copyright. The bit that I find offensive is that this isn't Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ecosia-like logo.png, and instead you've decided that my uploads in general ought to be scrutinized, providing links to my contributions. I've provided almost 1000 uploads to Commons, to date – feel free to look them over – but this isn't about them. nagualdesign
- The animation is well done, but no matter what material you used, it's the result.
- One example, if you upload here, in Wikimedia Commons, a copyrighted map found in the web, it will be a copyright violation, right? now if you take 1, 2 or as much free images as you want, and with these images you make an assembly, you modify the shapes and the colors during 4 hours so that the result is almost identical to the copyrighted map, or enough identical so that we identify it to the copyrighted map, then.... then no matter the free material you used, you have made a derivative work of the copyrighted map.
- Of course you own a copyright on your work, but if you inspire from the creation of someone else, and if your new creation is not enough different from the original, then the original creator own also some rights on your creation, because the original creator is the one who have been creative enough to create the artwork, and if that the result is so identical that it become easier to find the commonalities that the differences then is is obviously a derivative work. Your uploads are obviously derivative works.
- The only question is " is it below ToO or not?, me I think no and it is why I already deleted the other deletion request, and why I created this deletion request. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- You need to get your eyes tested. This is clearly different to this, and deliberately so. They're not nearly identical. To "inspire from the creation of someone else" isn't against copyright law either. I'm surprised that someone with deletion priveleges on Commons doesn't understand this, or understand what constitutes a derivative work. nagualdesign 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- A map of the world in blue and green with a orange circle around it is barely copyrightable; the only bit that is copyrightable is different. It's different in all important ways.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: That's not how I understand the term derivative. The images which you think should be deleted are direct derivatives of File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png (ie, I made them using that image. See how I made them here) and made to look kinda like the bit in the middle of the Ecosia logo. Looking kind like the bit in the middle of something is not an infringement of copyright. The bit that I find offensive is that this isn't Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ecosia-like logo.png, and instead you've decided that my uploads in general ought to be scrutinized, providing links to my contributions. I've provided almost 1000 uploads to Commons, to date – feel free to look them over – but this isn't about them. nagualdesign
- Keep Simple logo, made from a free source. The Ecosia logo is barely copyrightable anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of educational value. Since it’s not the actual logo it claims to be like, what conceivable purpose does it have? Any use to do with the company would be a misrepresentation, while the distortion of coastlines and cropping into the circle seriously compromise its utility as a map.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: It's being used in a userbox on the English Wikipedia. Nobody is misrepresenting the company and it obviously isn't being used for navigation. I wasn't aware that "lack of educational value" was a valid reason for deletion, nor is that being questioned by the nominator. nagualdesign 22:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the first point, having it in a userbox called “Ecosia”—with the filenames themselves—would seem to associate it with the company, and also undermines the notion that it’s an independent creation. On the second, see COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. I realize that it’s technically “in use in another Wikimedia project”, but it‘s my position that non-mainspace usage is in a grey area WRT educational purpose.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you're right and we should start deleting all those barnstars and wotnot too, and perhaps open a discussion at WP:AN regarding all the non-copyright-infringing logos used in these userboxes. The one for Google+ doesn't even use the proper font! They should all be made to conform to official company standards, so as not to misrepresent anyone, then deleted on copyright grounds. (Sarcasm, by the way.) nagualdesign 23:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the first point, having it in a userbox called “Ecosia”—with the filenames themselves—would seem to associate it with the company, and also undermines the notion that it’s an independent creation. On the second, see COM:SCOPE#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. I realize that it’s technically “in use in another Wikimedia project”, but it‘s my position that non-mainspace usage is in a grey area WRT educational purpose.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: It's being used in a userbox on the English Wikipedia. Nobody is misrepresenting the company and it obviously isn't being used for navigation. I wasn't aware that "lack of educational value" was a valid reason for deletion, nor is that being questioned by the nominator. nagualdesign 22:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- This discussion, such as it is, is going nowhere fast. The idea is surely to make statements, ask questions and that sort of thing. Instead there have been no edits in over a month until Christian just made this edit, changing the wording at the top of the page to "Claimed as derivative works of the free image File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, but obviously, clearly and willingly derivative works of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ecosia_logo.png", which I take as Christian essentially calling me a liar. My response to that is:
- Fuck you too, buddy
- I've already uploaded File:Ecosia-like logo animated.gif which shows exactly how I derived File:Ecosia-like logo.png from File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png
- As I've already explained above, if you compare it to W:File:Ecosia logo.png you can see that they are clearly different
- As I've already explained above and on Christian's talk page I have "obviously, clearly and willingly" made a generic copyright-free image
- As I've already explained above, Ecosia cannot claim copyright on a map with a circle around it
- Somebody entrusted to delete images on Commons ought to know exactly what constitutes a derivative work and follow Commons deletion policy when doing so
- If anyone cares to respond to those comments then please do and we can discuss this further (I'd also appreciate it if I was notified of any continuing discussion on my Wikipedia talk page)
Kept: as per Prosfilaes above. --Yann (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Designer of these stamps is hu:Légrády Sándor who died in 1987. Copyrighted graphics. Regasterios (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59061037@N02/39654663141/in/dateposted-public/ There are no illegal stamps here. Stamps, published by the Hungarian State are not copyrighted materials. --Elekes Andor (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete: [4]: Stamps of Hungary are not considered to be in the public domain. Assume copyrighted until general term of protection expires. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete: copyrighted graphics. --Pallerti (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep:
Public domain Stamps of Hungary are considered to be in the public domain. Publishing of the stamps is state monopoly in Hungary. According to the law (1.§), publishing under abiding rules (the state) are n o t defended by the law. Szerzői jogi törvény 1.§. 4) Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá a jogszabályok, az állami irányítás egyéb jogi eszközei, a bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok, a hatósági vagy más hivatalos közlemények és az ügyiratok, valamint a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok és más hasonló rendelkezések. (https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=99900076.TV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekes Andor (talk • contribs)
Csak az a bibi, hogy a bélyegek ezek közül egyiknek sem felelnek meg. Se nem jogszabályok, se nem az állami irányítás eszközei, se nem bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok vagy hivatalos közlemények, ügyiratok. És nem is jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
@Pallerti and Hungarikusz Firkász: ezt hol kéne jelezni? --Regasterios (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Ha mint problémás szerkesztőt-szerkesztést akarsz jelezni, azt itt lehet, azt hiszem: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Időszerű lenne, mert illető rengeteg jogsértő képet tölt fel szankcionálatlanul, és ez a módosítása önkényes és nonszensz. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
@Regasterios: jó az ott, ahol van amíg ki nem derül, hogy a szóban forgó feltöltés melyik a felsorolásból
- az állami irányítás egyéb jogi eszközei
- bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok
- hatósági vagy más hivatalos közlemények és az ügyiratok
- jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok és más hasonló rendelkezések
--Pallerti (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Köszi, HuFi. @Pallerti: ezt nem értem. Megnézted a linket, hogy mit vandalizált? Ha itt nem szól valaki, nem is veszem észre, mert eddig nem volt rajta a figyelőlistámon a lap, és annyira nem is néznének hülyének, amikor látják a törlésre jelölés indoklását. --Regasterios (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Röviden és tömören, a 2012. évi CLIX. törvény a postai szolgáltatásokról 2. § kimondja, hogy:
- „30. postai értékcikk: a postabélyeg, az Egyetemes Postaegyezmény alapján kibocsátott válaszdíjszelvény, valamint a postai szolgáltató által forgalomba hozott - a postai szolgáltatás díját is magában foglaló - nyomtatvány vagy egyéb tárgy;” Így, ahogy a többiek is írták, nem eshet a szjt. 1 § 4. bekezdés hatálya alá.
- (@Regasterios and Pallerti: Légyszi javítsátok, itt a szövegemben, ha rosszul fordítottam!) Fauvirt (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Kiváló. Mármint a törvény. A fordítást nem tudom megítélni. --Regasterios (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Public domain Stamps of Hungary are considered to be in the public domain. Publishing of the stamps is state monopoly in Hungary. According to the law (1.§), publishing under abiding rules (the state) are n o t defended by the law. Szerzői jogi törvény 1.§. 4) Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá a jogszabályok, az állami irányítás egyéb jogi eszközei, a bírósági vagy hatósági határozatok, a hatósági vagy más hivatalos közlemények és az ügyiratok, valamint a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett szabványok és más hasonló rendelkezések. (https://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=99900076.TV) Ebből a felsorolásból a bélyegekre illik a következőː jogszabállyal ...... kötelezővé tett rendelkezések. (A jelzős szerkezet - jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett - vonatkozik egyrészt a szabványokra, másrészt a "hasonló rendelkezésekre". Ilyen rendelkezések azok, amelyek megállapítják a Magyar Állam monopóliumát arra, hogy bélyegeket adjon ki. A Magyar Állam által - a Magyar Posta útján - kiadott bélyegek kiadását illetőleg magának a monopóliumnak a gyakorlását is jogszabályok mondják ki. Ezek a jogszabályok a szerzői jog rendszerében "hasonló rendelkezések", így a bélyegek vonatkozásában teljesül a szerzői jogi törvény 1. §-ban írt utolsó fordulat. Teljesül azonban a második fordulat (jogszabályok) is. Valamennyi állami bélyeget jogszabály alapján adnak ki. Ezért fölösleges egyenként vizsgálni hogy volt-e a bélyegre vonatkozó jogszabály (volt). --Elekes Andor (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Magad mondod ki, miért nincs igazad... a postabélyeg se nem szabvány, se nem rendelkezés... egy rendelkezés írja le, milyen legyen, de maga a bélyeg egy értékcikk, ami a postatörvényben le is vagyon írva. ;o) Ahogy az összeszerelhető asztal is egy bútor, nem pedig az összeszerelési útmutató. Fauvirt (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
̊Fauvirt A megjegyzésed bizonyítja azt, hogy hibás az a véleményetek, hogy jogászok segítsége nélkül megértenétek a jogszabály szövegét. Egy jogszabály alkalmazása során az egyik legelső feladat (a jogszabályszöveg megértése érdekében) az úgynevezett nyelvtani értelmezés. A nyelvtani értelmezés azt jelenti, hogy a jogalkalmazó (aki meg akarja érteni a jogszabályt) megállapítja, hogy mit jelent a szöveg magyarul (nem jogi szakzsargonként). Magyarán megállapítja, hogy mi az alany, állítmány, tárgy, jelző stb. Melyik mire vonatkozik. Erre azért van szükség, mivel a jogszabályok - a jogászok szerint célszerűen, a tömörség, egyértelműség érdekében - sokszor bonyolult, többszörösen összetett mondatokból állnak (mint esetünkben is). Nézzük, hogy mi az alany, állítmány stb. Nem az amire te gondolsz. Te úgy érted a szöveget, hogy a postabélyeg se nem szabvány, se nem rendelkezés. Erről persze nincs szó, pusztán arról, hogy nem sikerült megértened hogy pontosabban mi az alany és mi az állítmány a kérdéses szövegben. A logikai szerkezet a következőː 1. Állítmányː Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá.... 2. Jelzőː a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett... 3. Tárgyː rendelkezések. Ezt kellene megértenetek. Aki nagyon értetlen, ezen a ponton felteheti a kérdéstː miért rendelkezés a bélyeg ? Azért rendelkezés a bélyeg, mivel az állami monopólium gyakorlása során, jogszabályban meghatározott módon és minta szerint adják ki a bélyegeket, amelyek értelemszerűen sem funkciójukat, sem megjenésüket tekintve nem műalkotások (piece of art). A bélyegek, pontosan ugyanúgy ahogy a pénzjegyek ezen állami monopólium alapján készített tárgyak,a rendelkezések egyes részeinek (a jogszabályban k ö t e l e z ő e n megjelent minta) többszörözései. Ilyen értelemben a bélyegek r é s z e i a rendelkezéseknek. A postán árult bélyeg maga is, a jogszabályban megjelent bélyeg m á s o l a t a, szerzői jogi értelemben f e l h a s z n á l á s a. Ahogy a Magyar Állam megbizottjaként a Magyar Posta is felhasználási engedély nélkül, pusztán a jogszabály erejénél fogva, engedély nélkül másolhatja a jogszabályban s z e r e p l ő bélyeget, mi is másolhatjuk, felhasználhatjuk a jogszabályban szereplő bélyegábrát. Érdekes módon, nagyon kényes mindenki, hogy ha én lefényképezek egy sörcímkét, akkor az ne az én fényképem legyen, hanem a gyárosé. Rendben. De akkor vajon miért nem mondhatja a bélyeget lefényképező feltöltő azt, hogy a jogszabályt fényképezte le ? Vagy bármit is csinált a "mű" ott született meg, a jogszabály oldalán ? (Amit bárki ingyen másolhat, felhasználhat). A két eset nem hasonlít egymásra ? Senki sem hallott arról, hogy az Állam felhasználási engedélyt kérne a rajzolótól, senki sem adott soha szerzőként engedélyt a bélyegek (nem bérmentesítési célú) felhasználására. Tehát mindenki úgy értelmezi a jogszabályt ahogy én. Persze ott, ahol azok erősek, akik mernek kicsik lenni, ott minden jelentős győzelemből könnyedén súlyos vereséget lehet produkálni. Megoldásː három - négy jogász többségi álláspontja. --Elekes Andor (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Mivel te többszáz jogsértő képet töltöttél fel és töltesz fel folyamatosan, a jogi szakvéleményed számunkra nem sokat számít, mivel a szavad igencsak masszívan hitelét vesztette, amin tovább csorbított az, hogy több megbeszélés közepette megváltoztattál egy szöveget, amelyről nem volt konszenzus és a te javadra döntötte volna a vita mérlegét. Az a diktatúrák módszere, hogy ha nem tetszik egy szabály, akkor azt gyorsan olyanra módosítják, amely az előnyükre válik, hogy azzal rövidre zárják az egész ügyet.
- Az értelmezéseddel az a baj, hogy még ha igazad is van, semmivel sem támasztottad alá, hogy a bélyeg ebbe a meghatározásba esnek, mindössze a jogszabályt magyarázod (azaz forgatod ki), de nem bizonyítottad, hogy a bélyegek ebbe a meghatározásba esnek (és ezért obstruálsz, mert azzal akarod elkenni a dolgot, hogy nem tudod az állításaidat bizonyítani).
- Konklúzió: ki lehet kérni valóban hozzáértő jogász véleményét. Én például a Hungart szakértőjét szoktam megkérdezni egyes ügyekben, aki -- veled ellentétben -- szerzői jogból doktorált, tehát -- veled ellentétben -- valóban ért a szerzői jogokhoz, ja és nem töltött fel többtucat jogsértő képet, azt állítva róluk, hogy az a sajátjai.
- Magyarán: Nem tartoznak e törvény védelme alá a jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett rendelkezések. Hol van az megvétózhatatlanul, bizonyíthatóan, minden kétséget kizáróan leírva, hogy a bélyegek jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett rendelkezések? Sehol, ergo nem azok, ergo jogvédettek, ergo jogsértőek, ergo törlendőek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ajánlom figyelmetekbe az alábbi hivatkozáson olvasható szöveget (Regasterios, ha lefordítod akkor, szerintem a továbbiakban is használható megerősítésre):
- "...grafikai tervek felett a Magyar Posta korlátlan és kizárólagos felhasználási jogot szerez. A Magyar Posta jogot szerez továbbá arra, hogy ezt a felhasználási jogot harmadik személyre átruházza, valamint harmadik személynek további engedélyt adjon a művek felhasználására.
- A díjazott grafikai terveket a Pályázó a továbbiakban nem használhatja fel sem egyéni, sem más nyomdai termék előállításához, illetve harmadik fél számára nem adhat semmilyen további felhasználási engedélyt a Magyar Posta engedélye nélkül." [...]
- "...a díj 1/3 része a pályaművek elkészítésének díja, 2/3 része az átengedett felhasználási jog ellenértéke."
Továbbá ezt is, ami itt található:
- "Alulírott kijelentem, hogy a pályázati kiírásban foglalt feltételeket elfogadom, és helyezés elérése esetén a Magyar Posta Zrt. részére korlátlan és kizárólagos felhasználási engedélyt biztosítok a pályázatra benyújtott műveim tekintetében."
Innen pedig erre a mondatra hívnám fel a figyelmeteket:
- "Ezek a művészi alkotások többféle formában kerülnek piacra, sokszínűségük és kifejező értékük megszámlálhatatlan (1)." (Itt a zárójelek közé zárt 1-es az alábbit takarja, amit forrásnak adtak meg: Nikodém Gabriella - Szabó Jenő: A magyar bélyeg története, Kossuth Kiadó 2010 --Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ezzel csak az a probléma, hogy a saját mondanivalóm megfogalmazása is gondot okoz, nemhogy egy jogi szöveg lefordítása. :-)
.jpg){kind=link}
Az a baj, hogy nem tudjátok értelmezni a világos, egyértelmű jogszabályt. Most ott tartunk - ha jól értem - hogy mindenki úgy gondolja már, hogy akkor nem esik copyright alá a bélyeg, ha "kötelezővé tett rendelkezés" része. Azaz rendelkezés a bélyeg. Mivel eleve nem értitek azt, hogy mit jelent egy jogszabály, így értelemszerűen nem érthetitek azt, hogy a bélyeg is rendelkezés. Azt kellene - nem jogászként - megértsétek, hogy a bélyegek kiadására vonatkozó bármiféle rendelkezések r é s z é t képezik a helyesirási hibák a jogszabályszövegben. Továbbá ugyancsak a jogszabályok részét képezik az érthetetlen részek, az értelemzavaró hibák, a jogszabályban szereplő ábrák és grafikonok. És a jogszabályban szereplő bélyegek is. MINDEN. --Elekes Andor (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Egyetértek azzal, hogy vonjunk be jogászokat. Hungarikusz Firkásznak az a véleménye, hogy copyright alá esnek a bélyegek, azaz felhasználási engedély kell a felhasználásukhoz. Ezzel megvan a felhasználást "tiltó" oldal jelöltje (ha elfogadjátok Hungarikusz Firkász jelöltjét ilyennek). Javasolom vagy fogadjátok el személyemben a "megengedő" oldal jogászát. Ha ez bármi miatt nem megy, akkor azok, akik a felhasználás megengedése mellett érveltek eddig, Pld. Dodi123 vagy más akár a hu.wiki kocsmafalán folyó vita résztvevői közül is jelöljön szintén egy jogászt. A Hungarikusz Firkász által jelölt jogász önmagában elfogadhatatlan elfogultság lenne a vitában (szokás szerint). Egy jó döntéshez az érvek hatalma és nem a hatalom érvei kellenek. --Elekes Andor (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Az a baj, hogy nem tudod értelmezni az egyértelmű dolgot: hozzál bizonyítékot arra, hogy a bélyeg rendelkezés! Enélkül mindez csak a te kifacsart egyéni értelmezésed, amire nem sokat adunk, mivel rengeteg jogsértést követsz el. Egyszerű szövegeket nem vagy képes értelmezni (mint amilyen https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elekes_Andor&oldid=234567895#File:Ambr%C3%B3zy_Gyula.jpg Ambrózy Gyula képének esete volt a Krúdy Gyula képeként feltöltve]. Úgyhogy attól, hogy mások szövegértését minősítsed, olyan messze esel, mint Makó Jeruzsálemtől. Mielőtt jogot akarsz értelmezni, előtte tanuld meg, hogy ne sértsél jogot.
- A Fauvirt által fentebb hozott 2012. évi CLIX. törvény a postai szolgáltatásokról szóló pont és a most felvonultatott hivatkozások bőven alátámasztják, hogy a bélyegek szerzői jogvédelem alá esnek.
- Mi törvénnyel és más bizonyítékokkal támasztottuk alá az igazunkat? És te? Te semmit nem hoztál, csak a saját véleményedet, amit nem tudsz alátámasztani, csak obstruálni és minősítgetni (valamint csalással próbálkozni, amin már meg sem lepődünk).
- Elképesztő, hogy mennyire arrogáns vagy. Képek százaival sértettél már jogot, és ki tudja, még mennyi van. Milyen alapon fogadjunk el téged jogi szakértőnek? És mégis miképpen képzelted ezt? Megerősíted a saját véleményedet és akkor jogilag alá van támasztva? Ez majdnem olyan vicces, mint amikor Putyilov levelet írt saját magának (Harmat Endre: Gyilkosság a palotában). Ezzel sikerült is végérvényesen röhejessé tenni mind önmagadat, mind a hozzászólásaidat. Arról nem is beszélve, hogy a Hungart jogi szaktekintélyét már látatlanban elfogultnak minősíted. Egyszerűen undorító amit csinálsz.
- Részemről ennyi, mert csak a felesleges köröket futtatod velünk, miközben mi bizonyítunk, te csak obstruálsz. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
HuFi, igazából kár erre több szót vesztegetni. L a s s a n í r o m, h o g y m i n d e n k i m e g é r t s e: a k é p e t m i n d e n k é p p e n t ö r ö l n i f o g j á k. Slussz passz. --Regasterios (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Regasterios, igazad van. Ráadásul, sajnos hagytuk, hogy megforduljon a dolog a lovon: nem nekünk kellett volna bizonyítani, hogy ezek a képek jogvédettek, mert ez az alap, hanem annak kellett volna, hogy nem azok, aki azt állítja, hogy azok. Ezzel szemben mi bizonyítékokat hoztunk, míg a másik oldal csak obstruált, személyeskedett meg lökte a sódert, de egy kézzelfogható, szemmel olvasható bizonyítékkal nem álltak elő arról, hogy a bélyegek azok, amiknek ők beállítják. Nem véletlen, hogy még a csalás sem állt messze némelyiküktől. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Kár lenne elfelejteni, hogy én javasoltam jogászok bevonását egy jogi kérdés megoldásába, majd Hungarikusz Firkász egyetértett ezzel. A véleménykülönbség pusztán abban van közöttünk, hogy szükséges-e a (szokás szerint) tiltó/törlő oldal által nevezendő szakértő mellett a feltöltést “engedő“ oldal részére is lehetőséget biztosítani szakértő jelölésére. Igen, szükséges. Az európai tradíció szerint a vitában részt vevő felek egyenjogúak. Nem attól kell függővé tegyék az érvelésüket, hogy a másik félnek mi tetszik. A jogaikat a vitában ez az egyenlőség mérce szabja meg, nem pedig a másik (megmondó) fél kénye-kedve. --Elekes Andor (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Esetleg megengedtetnéd már magadnak azt is, hogy amennyiben a szóban forgó postabélyegek mintaképe véleményed szerint egy(-egy) rendelkezésben láthatóak, melyik vagy melyikek az/azok a rendelkezés / rendelkezések? Fauvirt (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Regasterios lassan írta, úgyhogy megértettem, hogy a magyar wikipédián nincs helye méltányos feltételek melletti vitának. --Elekes Andor (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- ...vagy csupán nem tudsz válaszolni, mert nem igaz az állításod és könnyebb másra fogni és látszatsértődöttséget mímelni...? Fauvirt (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Info The discussion above is largely misguided. I expanded Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Hungary to better explain what the current position of Commons is based on. Please read the Council of Copyright Experts opinion before commenting further. / További észosztás előtt/helyett legyetek szívesek elolvasni a Szerzői Jogi Szakértő Testület szakvéleményét az Szjt. 1.§. 4 értelmezéséről. --Tgr (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A Szerzői Jogi Szakértői Testület, hivatkozott szakértői véleménye az Szjt. 1. §. 4. bek-ét értelmezi, a következő kérdésre adott válasszal:
A megbízó által feltett kérdés: 1. A megbízó álláspontja szerint „a szerzői jogi törvény alapján a bankjegykép, illetve annak részlete nem áll szerzői jogi védelem alatt”. A kérdés az, hogy jogszerűen alkalmazza-e (A kérdést feltevő felhasználó, “megbízó”, a bankjegyet hatósági aktus keretében kibocsátót hatóság – megjegyzés Elekes Andor) az 1999. évi LXXVI. törvény [Szjt.] 1. § (4) bekezdését, illetve 1999. szeptember 1. előtt az 1969. évi III. tv. [rSzjt.] 1. § (3) bekezdését a forint bankjegyhez kötődő szerzői jogosultsággal kapcsolatban?
(A szakértők válasza az 1. alatti kérdésre - megjegyzés Elekes Andor) Válasz az 1. kérdésre: A pénzkibocsátás hivatalos irat funkció által átfogott többszörözési cselekményeit a megbízó valósítja meg.
Magyarul: 1. A bélyegkibocsátás esetével a n a l ó g bankjegykibocsátás esetében a Szerzői Jogi Szakértői Testület szakvéleménye szerint a bankjegykibocsátás “hivatalos irat funkció által átfogott többszörözési cselekmény”. Ez a megállapítás azt jelenti, hogy a bélyegkibocsátással analog bankjegykibocsátás az Szjt. 1. §. 4.bek. szerinti “jogszabállyal kötelezővé tett …. rendelkezések” kategóriájába esik, ennek megfelelően nem esik szerzői jogi védelem alá. Ennek a megállapításnak természetesen nincs semmilyen kihatása a művész és a bankjegy kibocsátó (illetve Magyar Posta, a bélyeg esetében) közötti jogviszonyra, amelyre a törvény 1. §. 4. bekezdése értelemszerűen nem vonatkozik.
A mi döntésünk szempontjából ez a megállapítás a perdöntő. --Elekes Andor (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Nyilván nem az, a bélyegkibocsátást/bankjegykibocsátást a Posta/MNB végzi, annak a jogállása a Commons szempontjából érdektelen. --Tgr (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Hungary. --Sealle (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}