Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/10/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_3.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Clear copyright violation Dmartin969 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Je n'arrive pas à trouver un "bandeau de licence valable et approprié". Polvoenamorado (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Je n'arrive pas à trouver un "bandeau de licence valable et approprié". Polvoenamorado (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
J'ai finalement trouvé la licence Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 PT) sur la page qui contient la photo. Si vous considérez cela comme valide je pourrai annuler ma demande de suppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polvoenamorado (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I will reupload this file to en wiki under "Non-free use". This file may have a copyright problem Vistadan 10:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I will reupload this file to en wiki under "Non-free use". This file may have a copyright problem Vistadan 11:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I will reupload this file to en wiki under "Non-free use". This file may have a copyright problem Vistadan 11:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, found all over the internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly copyvio, so did speedy delete instead. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Cancella subito, motivo=Immagine non necessaria Carminemeo (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
From copyrighted videos here (as the outro.) Should be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use instead of here. Abequinn14 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by هانم داود ٢٠١٨ (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images feature book covers. Does anyone think that those cups of coffee are worth saving (by cropping)? By the way, they all have FBMD string on their EXIF data. Therefore, saving those cups of coffee may not be an option due to possible copyright violation.
- File:قهوتك مع أمل وعتاب.jpg
- File:كتاب قلوب مراهقه للكاتبه هانم داود.jpg
- File:كتاب نهايه أسطوره للكاتبه هانم داود.jpg
4nn1l2 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mardetanha talk 10:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Sorry for the inconvenience!. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Sorry for the inconvenience!. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
i want to deleted this image because i am selling the copyright of this image. Ummidnp (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
i am seeling this image Ummidnp (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevokable. You still own the copyright and can sell the image as you wish. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://www.deccanchronicle.com/gallery/entertainment/160918/siiima-awards-2018-baahubali-telugu-kannada-shriya-puneet-shanvi-winners.html Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: different images. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 04:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 04:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. Yann (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 04:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав. Не относится к произведениям, которые не являются объектом авторских по статье 1259 ГК РФ .Это не официальный гимн и не фольклор. SealMan11 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Авторы Лев Книппер (музыка), Виктор Гусев (текст). --SealMan11 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The song itself obviously falls under the category of folk-songs, as well as the fact that it was developed as a patriotic folk-song (and re-published by Sojuzmul′tfil′m, potentially qualifying it to be a state-song) during the Russian Civil War, easily devoiding any copyriğt formerly applied to it. Учхљёная (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав. Не относится к произведениям, которые не являются объектом авторских по статье 1259 ГК РФ .Это не официальный гимн и не фольклор. SealMan11 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Авторы Константин Листов (музыка), Михаил Рудерман (текст). --SealMan11 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The song itself obviously falls under the category of folk-songs, as well as the fact that it was developed as a patriotic folk-song (and re-published by Sojuzmul′tfil′m, potentially qualifying it to be a state-song) during the Russian Civil War, easily devoiding any copyriğt formerly applied to it. Учхљёная (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав. Не относится к произведениям, которые не являются объектом авторских по статье 1259 ГК РФ .Это не официальный гимн и не фольклор. SealMan11 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Авторы Александр Александров (музыка), Николай Кооль (текст). --SealMan11 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The song itself obviously falls under the category of folk-songs, as well as the fact that it was developed as a patriotic folk-song (and re-published by Sojuzmul′tfil′m, potentially qualifying it to be a state-song) during the Russian Civil War, easily devoiding any copyriğt formerly applied to it. Учхљёная (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав. Не относится к произведениям, которые не являются объектом авторских по статье 1259 ГК РФ .Это не официальный гимн и не фольклор. SealMan11 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Авторы Самуил Покрасс (музыка), Павел Горинштейн (текст).--SealMan11 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: The song itself obviously falls under the category of folk-songs, as well as the fact that it was developed as a patriotic folk-song (and re-published by Sojuzmul′tfil′m, potentially qualifying it to be a state-song) during the Russian Civil War, easily devoiding any copyriğt formerly applied to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Учхљёная (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from HOGAN, with wrong licenses. Brinn.raisa (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope – not educationally useful (unused personal image[s] of uploader). Hiàn (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aacky verma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images, out of scope
- File:Styles Aacky verma.jpg
- File:Aacky verma in guru gram lila hotel.jpg
- File:Aacky verma fitness.jpg
- File:Aacky verma tokyo.jpg
- File:Beautiful aacky verma.jpg
- File:Aacky with goat.jpg
- File:Aacky shayari with image.jpg
- File:Aacky verma 2.jpg
- File:Made by aacky.jpg
- File:Singer aacky verma.jpg
- File:Aacky shayari.gif
- File:Aacky verma with god.jpg
- File:Aacky verma 1.jpg
- File:Aacky verma.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE. The text in the image literally says: Wikipedia! Shame! Admin Maxinvestigator! Maxim! Shame!!!!!!!!!!!! Doesn't want to recognize cosmoenergetics! Cosmoenergetians of the Earth are outraged! --Colt browning (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TracceLanga Za (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal pictures.
- File:THULANI LANGA TRACCE THE RAPPER.jpg
- File:BACK IN A GAME SONG BY TracceLangaZA.jpg
- File:TracceLanga ZA the one an only.jpg
- File:TRACCELANGAZA THE RAPPER.jpg
- File:Tracce & Easy N.jpg
- File:TRACCELANGA ZA.jpg
- File:Traccelanga za.jpg
- File:TRACCELANGAZA RAPPER.jpg
- File:Tracce langa za.jpg
- File:TRACCE SMOKING GANGER.jpg
- File:TRACCE WITH FAKE TRUTH.jpg
- File:TRACCELANGA FROM MATATIELE.jpg
- File:TRACCELANGAZA.jpg
- File:TRACCE AN MATAT CREW.jpg
- File:TRACCE AT MATATIELE WITH LUXENI BOYS.jpg
- File:TracceLangaZA At skull with his fans.jpg
- File:HANSOM YOUNG RAPPER FROM MATATIELE... TracceLangaZA.jpg
- File:TracceLangaZA an Thulani from Date my family, the real hustler.jpg
- File:TRACCE AN THULANI.jpg
- File:TracceLangaZA.jpg
- File:TRACCE LANGA WALKING IN POINT.jpg
- File:TraccelangaZA best PHOTOSHOP ARTICLE.jpg
- File:Tracce x The GambiT.jpg
- File:Traccelangaza TRACCE.jpg
- File:Tracce an O.G Sabz.jpg
- File:Tracce langa is an underground rapper.jpg
- File:Tracce. hk. o.g sabz.jpg
- File:Traccelangaza.jpg
- File:TRACCE WITH HIS BROTHER.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Calabar Jamaica (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope – not educationally useful (unused personal image[s] of uploader).
Hiàn (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope – not educationally useful (unused personal image[s] of uploader). Hiàn (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Text document. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Advertising copied from https://drive.google.com/file/d/10yP9m64xoKo99kvSZTexLFOeSx3GNat-/view Achim (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything but a commercial site that is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant to anything. Only points to the commercial site which is down Eurohttp (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Jcb (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
not clearly within scope of Commons. This is a politicial cartoon where there may be copyright issues; otherwise it is personal opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Useful. Used in article about specific (primitive) cartoon style. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Already present at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raising_Awareness_in_Iraq_--_Impact_Report.pdf SGill (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to revoke this request. --SGill (WMF) (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims.
- File:Coventry city F.C. badge1.jpg
- File:Aston Villa badge 2.jpg
- File:Aston Villa badge1.png
- File:Jose Ramon.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jinky morales (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:BABY_NOOR.png
- File:EX_HUSBAND_PAPA.png
- File:PAPA_EDDIE.png
- File:OHHH_BABE_I_LOVE_U.png
- File:AKMAD_I_LOVE_YOU.jpg
- File:I_AM_FREE_FOR_SEX.jpg
- File:CUM_TO_ME.jpg
- File:Jinky_ugly.jpg
- File:Jinky_morales.png
- File:Mistress.jpg
- File:I_am_ungly.jpg
all these images are out of the scope of wikicommons and a bit creepy to be honest including some kind of revenge porn --Wvdp (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
out of scope drawing. used for vandalism on enwiki. theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, not sure how the platform works, my bad. I updated the logo of the company I work for as the one listed in the page was outdated and taken from a non authorised (from our point of view, I am part of the company) source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto.mainardi (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. Used in unpublished draft.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello EugeneZelenko, I am the author of these documents that I never published outside this draft page, and they contain fake informations : that's why they are not notable. But you can delete them since it is only a draft page, and they are not essential. Sincerely, Bkl123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkl123 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello EugeneZelenko, You can delete this logo, I made it for tests but I don't need it anymore. Sincerely, Bkl123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkl123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faheememon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Davidcowell42 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused charts of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
- File:What daily travel hassles would you MOST like to avoid?.png
- File:Which websites, if any, did you use to research your destination?.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Eugene, would you be so kind as to explain why you think there is any benefit in using SVG or Wikimedia graphs?
Thank you.
Davidcowell42 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- In case of Wikimedia graphs, you need to only maintain data. See w:en:Scalable Vector Graphics for advantages of that format. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Davidcowell42 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused pie charts related to some unspecified survey about holiday planning; probably related to a promotional article repeatedly deleted on Wikipedia (cf. en:User talk:Davidcowell42).
- File:Would stringent EU border controls put you off travelling within the EU?.svg
- File:What daily travel hassles would you MOST like to avoid?v2.svg
- File:Would you buy an electric car? v2.svg
- File:Do you think travel firms should focus on responsible tourismv2?.svg
- File:Would you pay extra to go on an eco-friendly holidayv2?.svg
- File:Do you feel that you need a digital detoxv2?.png
- File:Yes, you do not need it on holidayv2.png
- File:Which websites, if any, did you use to research your destination?v2.svg
- File:Would you leave your mobile phone at home when you go on holiday?.svg
- File:Which websites, if any, did you use to research your destination?.svg
- File:Mobile on holiday.svg
- File:Mobile usage on holiday.svg
- File:Would you leave your mobile phone at home when you go on holiday?Would you leave your mobile at home?.svg
- File:Which websites, if any, did you use to research your destination2?.svg
- File:What daily travel hassles would you MOST like to avoid2?.png
- File:Would you buy an electric car?.png
- File:Do you think travel firms should focus on responsible tourism?.png
- File:Would you pay extra to go on an eco-friendly holiday?.png
- File:Do you feel that you need a digital detox?.png
- File:Would you leave your mobile phone at home when you go on holiday?.png
- File:Which websites, if any, did you use to research your destination?.png
Omphalographer (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
səəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəəə 158.181.42.157 16:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope, copyright violation is likely too. Taivo (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Photo from unsplash published after 4 June 2017, exactly on 13 April 2018 Jeuwre (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kəmalə baxa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most likely copyvios and not own work.
- File:Mirzə Allahverdiyev.jpg
- File:Yulduz Ramaznova.jpg
- File:Elmira Cavadova.jpg
- File:Mahizər Əliyeva.png
- File:Mirzə Mövsümzadə.jpg
- File:Səbirə Sərdarova.jpg
- File:Fikrət Məmmədov.jpg
- File:Nazim Mustafayev.jpg
- File:Səadət Vəliyeva.jpg
- File:Şahmərdan Əliyev.jpg
- File:Sabir Babayev.jpg
- File:Rəna Babayi.jpg
- File:Oruc Nəbiyev.jpg
- File:Nina Ladoxina.jpg
- File:Minaxanım Musayeva.jpg
- File:Məlahət Abbasov.jpg
- File:Leyla Şahgəldiyeva.jpg
- File:İsa Hüseynov.jpg
- File:Gülşən Babayeva.jpg
- File:Elxan İsakov.jpg
- File:Ağayev Əmirçoban.jpg
- File:Tənzilə Akçurina.jpg
- File:İkram Güləliyev.jpg
- File:Bella Musayeva.jpg
- File:Xuraman Əfəndiyeva.jpg
- File:Elmira Nağiyeva.jpg
- File:Ceyhun Həmidova.jpg
- File:Nelya Novotorjina.jpg
- File:Qeribe.jpg
- File:Mammadov Sabir.jpg
- File:Məmmədov Sabir.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 17:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kəmalə baxa (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Qlükoza.jpg stolen from a stock site, all these other files are low res and lack any meta data and look stolen from web. All uploads claimed as own work, yet higher res available via google search.
- File:M-16IXP-3.gif
- File:M-8.gif
- File:Yaşıl kimya.jpg
- File:Doganinkimyasi.jpg
- File:Yesil-kimya.jpg
- File:MC-70.gif
- File:Istehsal.jpg
- File:Dubrar.jpg
- File:Su mənbəsi.jpg
- File:Sirab.jpg
- File:Badaml;.jpg
- File:K43092.jpg
- File:Əhəng-nədir.jpg
- File:Əhəng.jpg
- File:Köpüklənmə.jpg
- File:Basmati d.jpg
- File:Katarantus.gif
- File:Kimya kolba.jpg
- File:Aviabenzin.jpg
- File:Barium sulfat wek.png
- File:Şahmərdan Əliyev.jpg
- File:Pərvin Məmmədova.jpg
- File:Fikrət Məmmədov.jpg
BevinKacon (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and COM:PCP. I looked at a bunch that were not tagged, and all were reduced-size or thumb-of-SVG of other commons images. I'm working my way through the chemicals images. DMacks (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Question Some of the tagged images are also dup/reduced-size of commons. Is it worth handling these separately (via replace/delete/recreate-as-redir)? Or should I just replace so that it's easier to handle this whole DR as a bulk delete (and not care about redir because they were license violations)? DMacks (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Fails NBCUniversal's Trademark Policy, specifically the part where they say that only non-commercial use of trademarks is permitted without a written permission. This can be reuploaded with a similar text. Wumbolo (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you like, I can send confirmation to OTRS that I have no commercial interest in making parodies of how bad the mobile app is for editing.
- Also Wumbolo, you're confusing trademark with copyright. Trademark deals mostly with commercial entities infringing on the "marks of trade" of other commercial entities. Copyright has to do with intellectual property rights, and is the primary domain of Commons. Commons also currently hosts at least 102,659 trademarked images. GMGtalk 23:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, the {{trademark}} template is not supposed to be used when you take a trademark from NBCUniversal and put into your picture, which has nothing to do with NBCUniversal. I'm not talking about copyright; I believe this is trademark infringement. Wumbolo (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- The trade mark tag lets other people know that even though the image I made is comprised entirely of media that is free, and is itself a free compilation, some of the free elements of the image are trademarked, and so if my image is reused by someone like Apple for an ad campaign, NBC is likely to sue them. GMGtalk 10:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, the {{trademark}} template is not supposed to be used when you take a trademark from NBCUniversal and put into your picture, which has nothing to do with NBCUniversal. I'm not talking about copyright; I believe this is trademark infringement. Wumbolo (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
this file contains false pictorial representation of my beloved Prophet, i and billions of other muslims whoever is able to see this shall be hurted and feel tortured mentally. religious differences apart but one should not make fun of others religion. so its a request to please remove this picture and other material like this and prove that your organisation is a responsible and fact oriented organisation for all not for a specific type of people. 39.40.236.203 06:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep Muslim apologetics: we have inuff of that on Wikipedia, now they're trying to censor files on Commons. This painting is an illustration of William Blake based on Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, the artistic representation of one cantica (Canto 28) from his poem. There's nothing biased about that; Blake depicted what Dante wrote in that cantica, it's just art.--GenoV84 (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)- Keep Septate (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – disruptive nonsense nomination. According to established policies and overwhelming established consensus, Commons is not censored based on your religious beliefs. Please refer to en:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, File talk:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mahomet.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Muhammad 1514.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maome.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mcrop.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed by Hlkolaya.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg (2nd nomination), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beheading Prophet Muhammad. Muhammads cousin.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An angel presenting Mohammed with a town.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed Splits the Moon.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muslim depiction of Muhammad - 17th century Ottoman copy from the "Edinburgh codex".jpg for example. At this point, endlessly nominating these images without the slightest attempt at bringing any new arguments whatsoever to the table is purely disruptive. If you are offended by historically significant depictions of Muslim characters, don't look at historically significant depictions of Muslim characters. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad-faith nomination. We are not bound by the rules of Islam. We don't censor content for the benefit of any group of people. Furthermore, any user can configure their browser or their Wikimedia account settings to avoid seeing these images. The nominator would do well to read w:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ on the English Wikipedia, which explains how. Anachronist (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per keepers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Apap04 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sealle (talk) 21:51, 11 October 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) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cesarfontanarrosa (talk · contribs) 1
[edit]Likely not own work: images look like scans and crops form other sources. All inconsistent sizes, styles, and qualities. Several images by this uploader already deleted.
- File:Hernan Castellanos.jpg
- File:93 Nob 1 1 gol Alex Rossi 3.jpg
- File:93 Nob 1 1 Alex Rossi.jpg
- File:Rafa Maceratesi.jpg
- File:Puma rodriguez.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
File:Fitz - Banners hanging from the rafters that normally were Cubs stars were replaced with NU football stars (5196857978).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyrighted image not de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
copyright violation, no clear evidence of public domain image — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
this is the dublicate file and picture Sultaniwiki (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sultaniwiki: Duplicate of which picture? 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This file uploaded by mistak. 202.56.186.246 05:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no file at all, closed. --Wdwd (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems a capture of a television shows, likely a copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a capture of a weather report out of a state broadcaster. Weather report is commercially valuable only when it is up-to-date and I believe this falls under fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenide (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Commons does not accept Fair use. Pierre cb (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate file of File:Martin Fillo, FCB-SLAVIA 30092018.jpg T.Bednarz (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader request. --Wdwd (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I do not know whether the publication of this ticket is permitted under American law. So please delete it. Naturgucker Illtal (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As you nominated your file for deletion 2 days after upload, you could have used the speedy deletion process, general reason #7. I don't think that there's anything copyrightable in the ticket, but it's not in use anywhere, it seems. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
https://www.media.gov.sa/page/information doesn't clear anything. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Machine translation says "The pages and screens of these pages, as well as the information and materials contained in these pages and screens, are governed by intellectual property rights laws, and the Ministry retains legal rights to any infringement thereof." ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: جميع حقوق الطبع محفوظة لوزارة الثقافة والإعلام لعام ("All rights reserved to the Ministry of Culture and Information"). --Эlcobbola talk 19:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The nominator didn't offer a reason for tagging the image as lacking permission. It is clearly marked as PD as the work of an employee of a US Federal Agency. The document is signed by Admiral Mark Buzby, when he was commandant of the Guantanamo detention camp. I don't think there is any doubt that he wrote the document as part of his official duties.
Yes, the DoD still considers the document to be classified - even though it has been leaked, republished, and downloaded many, many times. But that is irrelevant. We would allow the Pentagon Papers to be uploaded here. A secret classification has no effect on the public domain status. Geo Swan (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I would think verifiability would be the key issue here. If you can't verify it's source, how can you verify it's PD status? Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Someone knowledgeable about this kind of documents could say if it is an original or a fake, even without the source. So if it is what it claims to be, no copyright issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sir, but where can we find such a knowledgeable person, right now I don't have any reason to believe if it is real. HIAS (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Someone knowledgeable about this kind of documents could say if it is an original or a fake, even without the source. So if it is what it claims to be, no copyright issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can confirm that this is a genuine DOD document. For what it's worth, The New York Times has published it here and doesn't say it was leaked, but I couldn't find them saying that this specific document has been declassified either (for comparison, documents released through FOIA requests have the "secret" line struck and replaced by "unclassified//for public release", such as here). Huon (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are people around here who know. While I don't know if it is real, I don't see any reason to doubt it either. The publication by the NYT is rather a proof that it is authentic. And the classified status (or not) is not a valid reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Huon, excuse me, what kind of confirmation do you think is necessary? You are aware that Private Manning, the leaker, was convicted of leaking these and other official DoD documents? This document, and 760 or so similar JTF-GTMO documents, were released by WikiLeaks, on April 25, 2011.
- The release triggered a lot of outrage. But none of the outraged parties ever claimed they were forgeries. Rather their outrage was because the documents were classified as secret.
- I know this document came directly from the WikiLeaks site because I downloaded it directly from the WikiLeaks site.
- So, could you please clarify what kind of confirmation you think is necessary?
- For the record, that the DoD continues to consider the documents classified, should be irrelevant. If the Pentagon Papers were recently leaked, we would upload them here. Being considered classified does not alter that, like every other document prepared by a DoD employee, they are in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Huon, you wrote "Delete unless someone can confirm that this is a genuine DOD document. For what it's worth, The New York Times has published it here and doesn't say it was leaked...".
- Do you accept that the following NYTimes and Guardian articles spells out the provenance of this document? Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Charlie Savage, William Glaberson, Andrew W. Lehren (2011-04-24). "Classified Files Offer New Insights Into Detainees". The New York Times. "Obama administration officials condemned the publication of the classified documents, which were obtained by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks last year but provided to The Times by another source."
- Christopher Hope, Robert Winnett, Holly Watt, Heidi Blake (2011-04-27). "WikiLeaks: Guantanamo Bay terrorist secrets revealed -- Guantanamo Bay has been used to incarcerate dozens of terrorists who have admitted plotting terrifying attacks against the West – while imprisoning more than 150 totally innocent people, top-secret files disclose". The Telegraph (UK). Archived from the original on 2012-07-13. Retrieved on 2012-07-13. "The Daily Telegraph, along with other newspapers including The Washington Post, today exposes America’s own analysis of almost ten years of controversial interrogations on the world’s most dangerous terrorists. This newspaper has been shown thousands of pages of top-secret files obtained by the WikiLeaks website."
- Praxidicae, HIAS, clarification please... your concern boils down to a suspicion this document is a clever forgery? I linked to a NYTimes and Guardian article they published in late April 2011, when they republished these leaked documents. The publication of these leaked documents was very widely covered, in 2011. Try this google search. Okay, having done so, do you retain any doubts that this document is not a forgery? Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per my above comment. --Yann (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : although used ad Telugu Wikipedia, potentially personality right and copyright issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ?? Roland zh (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Roland zh Please explain how. Do you think the photo is taken without his permission? Clearly you can see his posing and smiling. The media uploaded by the state government of Telangana. FYI Telangana is a state in India and they will not take any risk. And please use talk pages to ask opinion. I don't think its good practice to nominating directly for deletion. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. No personality issue, and in use, so in scope. --Yann (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : unused file, potentially personality right and copyright issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ?? Roland zh (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Roland zh I don't think image should be deleted if the file is not used on Wikipedia. It can be used somewhere else such as news paper or offline. Can you please explain how copyright issue is taking place here? If you are asking opinion please write on talk page. It is not good practice marking image for deletion to ask opinion and waste admins time. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: high quality image of a concert. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no permission (No permission since). However, the website states [1] "Salvo diversa indicazione, tutti i contenuti di questo sito sono soggetti alla licenza Creative Commons - Attribuzione - 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0)" [Google Translate: Unless otherwise indicated, all contents of this site are subject to the license Creative Commons - Attribution - 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0)]. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep it:Yana Chiara Ehm is an Italian politician who has recently been elected as a member of Chamber of Deputies. This picture has been published at dati.camera.it [2], and the website publishes its content under a compatible license. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see on the bottom of the source site: Camera dei deputati 2015-2018 © Tutti i diritti riservati which means Chamber of Deputies 2015-2018 © All rights reserved, which contradicts the CC-License. --JuTa 14:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have been told [3] "All rights reserved" does not contradict CC licenses, and it makes sense to me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see on the bottom of the source site: Camera dei deputati 2015-2018 © Tutti i diritti riservati which means Chamber of Deputies 2015-2018 © All rights reserved, which contradicts the CC-License. --JuTa 14:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: "All rights reserved" without a free licence would be a reason to delete the file, but in this case there is no contradiction. Copyright does not cease with granting a CC licence. --De728631 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Under Qatari copyright law, freedom of panorama is restricted, and the copyright term for buildings in the country is the lifetime of the architect + 50 years + the end of the calendar year under Copyright Law of Qatar, 2002, No. 7. Therefore, no freely-licensed image of the venue can exist, as the venue depicted in this photograph was constructed from 2014–17, and its architect is most likely still alive. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine. Created 2000. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine. Created 1998. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine. Created 1997. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
NO FOP in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Image extracted from Google, does not have any neutrality either. Extracted from: https://www.luna.ovh/planeta/es/Alfonso_Portillo Stalin990 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in France, need permission from the poster holder B dash (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's just a political poster... --Codas (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that copyright has been released. The uploader has apparently been guilty of attempted deception at enwiki, so his claim that it has been released should be treated with caution. David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note also that on his user page here the uploader claims to be an an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. This is apparently not the case. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming that #2 and #3 are not from free sources? B (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Second image is attributed to "Gschwantler 1986". Who is that? B (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No EXIF for own work; plus, this -- similar photo available on the internet taken months before it was uploaded here Canopus Grandiflora 15:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Missing EXIF for own work, and this Canopus Grandiflora 15:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Missing EXIF + this Canopus Grandiflora 15:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Not an own work. Canopus Grandiflora 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Not an own work. link (Might need to scroll down) Canopus Grandiflora 15:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
low quality, possibly a copyright violation 92.184.102.101 16:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Unused low quality image of non-notable event, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This picture is copyrighted or owned by someone else then the publisher ChillATM (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
File:Banners hanging from the rafters that normally were Cubs stars were replaced with NU football stars (5196858870).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely copyrighted image not de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The photo is available in the link (https://www.weibo.com/p/1005056229101244/photos?from=page_100505#wbphoto_nav) provided. The link contains a series of photos which the photo is also included. In case of future deletion requests, I updated on the source link to (http://photo.weibo.com/6229101244/wbphotos/large/mid/4274129127661407/pid/006NyFMUly1fud1zquva8j326w3aahdx) which will lead directly to the image. Uthaop (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- You do not just simply edit out my words! again, Watermarked image failed to provide a prove of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.--Brinn.raisa (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Focus is on copyrighted billboards ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- agreed. Pretty clear copyvio. Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Focus is on copyrighted packaging ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Ad, potential copyvio ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
scan from book, certainly not own work, place and date of creation is unknown Polarlys (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
certainly not own work, source unknown Polarlys (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Useless with the current amount of information. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Espigueiros, cultural heritage in Portugal and Galiza, obviously on scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept per Darwin. Strakhov (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Porn pic without encyclopedic relevance used for shameless vandalising Igfalcon (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, anal stimulation is a specific type of sexual arousal and this is a high quality photograph and it is (basically) anonymised, so it's not a personal picture. Also "without encyclopedic relevance" applies to Wikipedia, per Commons:Scope photographs on Wikimedia Commons have to be educational, not just "encyclopedic". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. There are no other files in Category:Anal fingering depicting at the same time masturbating and anus fingering. Commons is not Wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Po 2601:152:4600:2183:B9D6:46F9:FF7E:FD2C 04:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Standard license from YouTube are not allowed in Commons B dash (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment It's marked with the Youtube standard license there, yes, but it's a video by the NOAA, so shouldn't it be PD-USGov anyway, no matter the license marker at Youtube? Currently labeled as {{PD-USGov-NASA}} here which seems to be wrong, but changing it to {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} could be enough? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, we should follow the Youtube license rather than the NOAA license. --B dash (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why? If this is originally a public domain US government work, its public domain status isn't changed if it's uploaded and tagged (wrongly) with Youtube's standard license. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, we should follow the Youtube license rather than the NOAA license. --B dash (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Kept: If it's a work of the US federal government, it is public domain even if labeled "Standard YouTube License". --Guanaco (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Small and unused image B dash (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The flickr uploader isn't the original creator of the image. Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AC%D8%AF_%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87.jpg Amir.heidarnejad (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Bogus license. No indication that the authors would have died before 1948.
- File:Nimmersatt Zollstation.jpg
- File:Nimmersatt 4.jpg
- File:Nimmersatt 3.jpg
- File:Nimmersatt 2.jpg
- File:Nimmersatt 1.jpg
Jcb (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
il existe un copyright sur cette photo Tony Fersen (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission of the author, Pierre Berdoy. --BrightRaven (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
il existe un copyright sur cette photo Tony Fersen (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission of the author, Pierre Berdoy. --BrightRaven (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Author request Eider Yoldi (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Author request Eider Yoldi (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't own the rights of this photography when it was uploaded. I didn't take this photo either. The actual photographer has requested its deletion because of copyright infrigment. Eider Yoldi (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't believe you, this file is from the same camera as your other uploaders. You have tried several times already to revoke your contributions. Made up statements won't help. Jcb (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Per previous deletion requests. @Eider Yoldi: you can ask the author to write to commons
wikimedia.org asking deletion, with the proofs that it's his own work. Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Porque me he dado cuenta de que es muy grande. Después he subido un png más pequeño Catastrolcsj (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Creo que es demasiado pequeño. Quiero dejar el que he subido anteriormente. Catastrolcsj (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A portrait of Liselotte Richter (1906-1968) . No description. Self portrait? Mutter Erde (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS authorisation needed from the author. Ruthven (msg) 10:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Image is on pinterest at https://www.pinterest.com/pin/132152570294618613/ ... it's difficult to say who had it first, but (1) this user is a serial uploader of copyrighted images and (2) pinterest has a better description of the image than we do which usually means we weren't the source. B (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Holapaco77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivative work of a copyrighted design.
- File:Cedrata San Benedetto.jpeg
- File:Manifesti elettorali (8526292184).jpg
- File:Propaganda referendum unificazione Sermide e Felonica.jpg
- File:Manifesto referendum fusione Sermide-Felonica 02.jpg
- File:Manifesto referendum fusione Sermide-Felonica 01.jpg
- File:Propaganda referendum Veneto 2017 - 03.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- simple enough to not be considered original work. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- simple enough to not be considered original work. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Simple enough to not be considered original work. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This file was upload on Flickr by the author (Partito Democratico) with free license. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- File:Poster referendum 2005 (12506049).jpg
- File:Cinema Roma, Asmara, Eritrea (30659979042).jpg
- File:Momath logo (16305787420).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- This logo only consists of simple letters (eight greek letters π = Pi symbols, in 4 different colors and intertwined) or geometric shapes and text. Licence fixed: PD-textlogo + Trademarked. --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- This file was upload on Flickr by the author (Comitato per il NO) with free license. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- simple enough to not be considered original work. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- This logo only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. Licence fixed: PD-textlogo + Trademarked. --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- File:Manifesto Possibile referendum costituzionale 2016.jpg
- File:Manifesto PD referendum costituzionale 2016.jpg
- simple enough to not be considered original work. (The logo cold be fuzzy/hidden). --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Strainu (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the selection Holapaco77. Regading the ones you consider too simple to be original, I'm a bit concerned that the logos in the pictures are not free. Is there any reason to believe they are not copyrighted?--Strainu (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this file, if you don't consider it as a de minimis, maybe I can just fuzzy or hide the logo on the top right (circle), while the other one (flag with lion on top left) it's a normal St. Mark's flag (flag of the city of Venice, more than 500 years old, so PD). Please, tell me if it could be good for you. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this file, the logo (de minimis) could be considered also as PD-textlogo, since it's just a blu-white circle with witten "Alleanza Nazionale" with normal capital letters. Anyway, I could fuzzy/hide the logo too. Please, tell me if it could be good for you. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is not any logo actually in this file and this file. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to ping you @Strainu: . --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is not any logo actually in this file and this file. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this file, the logo (de minimis) could be considered also as PD-textlogo, since it's just a blu-white circle with witten "Alleanza Nazionale" with normal capital letters. Anyway, I could fuzzy/hide the logo too. Please, tell me if it could be good for you. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this file, if you don't consider it as a de minimis, maybe I can just fuzzy or hide the logo on the top right (circle), while the other one (flag with lion on top left) it's a normal St. Mark's flag (flag of the city of Venice, more than 500 years old, so PD). Please, tell me if it could be good for you. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the solutions proposed by Holapaco77.--Strainu (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Appears to be based on an engraving by Edward Scriven which is sure to be in the public domain, but I'm not sure if there are modern modifications. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Redundant, nicht nach Kat. gegliedert https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Corps_Silesia_Breslau Mehlauge (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: Insufficient rationale. I don't see a reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- Seite ist nicht redundant, sondern erhöht die Übersichtlichkeit und erleichtert das Auffinden der Medien --Genealogist (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
redundant, nicht nach Kat. gegliedert, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Corps_Austria Mehlauge (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep --Achim (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- Seite ist nicht redundant, sondern erhöht die Übersichtlichkeit und erleichtert das Auffinden der Medien --Genealogist (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 10:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a copyright violation. This is an image of a sculpture located in Norway and Norway does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures, see Template:FoP-Norway. (I was the photographer and uploader and did not do a thorough check on the legal situation in Norway beforehand. Sorry about that.) Spike (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please note that there is category (Category:She lies) which contains several other photos of this sculpture. I would assume that those would then also be copyvios. Spike (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. It is not in the public domain, and it is not a work of the U.S. Government, as claimed. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Uncertain copyright. Even if there isn't a copyright on the sound, there is copyright on the record. Did you record that yourself? Yann (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. — Racconish 💬 18:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture is lifted from a State of Colorado website and is not in the public domain. It was lifted from here. The State of Colorado owns the copyright and there is no documentation of any permission having been given to publish and release the work here. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Presumably a derivative work of en:Let It Be. Even if it was some sort of "easy piano" version of the score and not the real score written by the Beatles, it would still be a derivative work. B (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Conflicting combination of licenses. Jcb (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No permission from Yuwaraj Gurjar Jcb (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No permission from Yuwaraj Gurjar Jcb (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not a simple logo and this is not own work. OTRS-permission from author J. Blanchard is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster. Strainu (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing eligible of copyright protection (no prose, image, other creative copyrightable element) on the photo, except the MKKP party logo. The logo is on Commons with an OTRS-ticket allowing free use, therefore the logo appearing on this photo isn't infringing copyright. The link for the logo on Commons:
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magyar_Kétfarkú_Kutyapárt_logó.svg){kind=link}
- I consider the text as large enough to warrant copyright protection.--Strainu (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Do you think 3 full sentences on a political poster is copyrightable material? Next time we won't be able to upload a photo of a truck because it has two sentences on the tarpaul to advertise their haul services? Copyright doesn't protect mere sentences, it protects "works". If I write 3 humorous sentences about potatoes on a sheet of A4 paper it doesn't mean you need my permission to upload a photo of it on Commons. It is nothing creative. Do you think anybody would ever sue anyone over 3 sentences of political nature? Please get other people to react to this, because this is outrageous. —Rev-san (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I consider the text as large enough to warrant copyright protection.--Strainu (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Kelly Marie Tran at the Toronto International Film Festival - 2018 (42978978900) (cropped).jpg
[edit]_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not Kelly Marie Tran! KMT attended the film premiere of "Sorry for Your Loss" in which she starred in, not "Beautiful Boy". H8149 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Source image on Flickr misidentified her as KMT. Thank you for adding the delete request. // sikander { talk } 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. So User:Tm, why are you reverting the speedy delete requests on the BB01 file and the cropped image? Especially why revert the requests of the cropped image, because Commons:Deletion requests says "Obvious [...] incorrectly-named images should be handled through the speedy deletion process rather than listed here.". --H8149 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. — Racconish 💬 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Meant to crop the original and overwrite, not upload a new version. William Graham (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Needless, unused raster copy of File:William Shakespeare Signature.svg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Much higher quality version uploaded at File:Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar taking charge as the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Air Command of Indian Air Force, in New Delhi on October 01, 2018.jpg {{duplicate|File:Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar taking charge as the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Air Command of Indian Air Force, in New Delhi on October 01, 2018.jpg}}—Sarvatra (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected by another admin. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
图像质量低,模糊不清。 Tyg728 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
_3.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
_3.JPG){kind=link}
The image is not clear 2605:6001:E7DD:AC00:2094:A2A2:C05A:85E4 02:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:INUSE. Additionally, photo is one of only three public domain photos on Commons of the subject, and one of only two that feature only the subject. (The third photo is the Hussein family photo from which the image was extracted.) Etamni 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 14:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Copyright term of Iraq is 50 years. If the image was published in the late 1980s then it is still copyrighted. Also no PD indication on the Iraqi State Television A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as mentioned in a previous deletion request. For the record, it appears that this deletion request was not made correctly. This image is NOT protected by copyright as the source of this image was the Iraqi News Agency, an organ of the defunct old regime. The legal explanation for this is explained directly in the licensing section of the entry on Commons, where it is worded better than I would manage. :Etamni 18:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saddam-family-Pre1995.jpg. —holly {chat} 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't remember why i misused GNU license for the file, which seem the file was scanned by David Prothero and upload to the now closed Flags of the world website. (seem just change in web domain 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)) Since the original source of the works, at first published circa 1909, can't be located, it seem difficult to tag the file with a new proper license Matthew hk (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: PD-UK-unknown + PD-US-expired. Ruthven (msg) 14:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The image appears to have been copied from Find-A-Grave. There's no identification there of the artist name or the year of publication. Since Find-A-Grave is a wiki, we don't even know for sure that the subject has been correctly identified. If we're keeping the image the license will need to be verified or corrected to PD-US. Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The logo is not used anymore and it is not allowed to alter it anyways Mvandemal (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: PROMO anyways. Ruthven (msg) 14:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The stamp can't possibly be "own work" of the user as it is made by Chinese government agency that are responsible for border check. By "own work" it probably mean taking photo of the icon, however that wouldn't override the copyright of the stamp according to my understanding. Probably should be uploaded onto Chinese Wikipedia local media storage as fair use instead C933103 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Source mark changed.MNXANL (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think the stamp is copyrightable. (Text and geometric shapes in simple layout) Since the photography doesn't seem to add any creative expression, I'd suggest changing the license tag to something like {{PD-textlogo}}. whym (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per whym. Ruthven (msg) 14:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Voronezh violator
[edit]- Files uploaded by VoronezhAPK
- File:Ан-148-100ЕМ.jpg - source http://www.fguap-mchs.ru/index.php?id=510
- File:AirbusIL96.jpg - LOGO of JSC VASO on image
- File:IL 8.jpg - old image + source http://pinstake.com/штурмовика-ил-2-история-в-фотографиях/
- File:Voronezh1946.jpg - old image + source http://www.retromap.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7241
- File:Voronezh1950.jpg - old image + source http://pereselenie-vrn.ru/foto/fotografii-starogo-voronezha/attachment/0_2894b_d24f3d17_xl/
- File:Ion electrically powered spacecraft propulsion.jpg http://zonatex.ru/tag/ракета/
- File:R193road.jpg - source http://places.seephotosof.com/Russia/Tambov/Zharkovka/тамбовская-трасса@53366895
- File:Voronezh5118.jpg - source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=130214104
- File:Voronezh oblast 9832.jpg - source http://dev.geophoto.ru/?action=show&id=171323
- File:Voronezh oblast 87654.jpg
- File:Voronezh768L.jpg
- File:Voronezh oblast 7654.jpg - source http://www.smileplanet.ru/russia/divnogorskiy-uspenskiy-monastyr/photo/ (2 photo, crop)
- File:Voronezh oblast 12345.jpg - source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=130498598
- File:Voronezh on Europa map.jpg - map based google map (or other), low res
- File:ApkVrn.png - PNG, low res, +source http://36on.ru/news/people/55128-aleksey-gordeev-pobyval-na-prazdnovanii-300-letiya-kalacha-foto
- Files uploaded by Liallis
- File:Благовещенский собор Воронеж.jpg - + FoP +source http://www.brodyaga.com/pages/viewlarge.php?id=28903&cty=Voronezh&place=Russia
- File:Voronezh117.jpg
- File:Voronezh116.jpg
- File:Voronezh115.jpg - + scope
- File:Voronezh114.jpg
- File:Voronezh112.jpg - + bad quality of pano
Files uploaded Voronezh violator (also व्लादिस्लाव, GelioNvsb). Most likely all copyvio. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Voronezh uploaded by GelioNvsb, Commons:Форум/Архив/2015#Деятельность व्लादिस्लाव, User talk:व्लादिस्लाव, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by व्लादिस्लाव, meta:Special:BlockList/Liallis, ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/109.106.143.224, ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/GelioNvsb, User talk:Liallis, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liallis/Archive, ... --Insider (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violations. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Voronezh violator
[edit]Files uploaded by Viktor704 (Taivio)
- File:Vozair.png - png, no exif, copyvio from http://mostotrest.ru/activity/objects/3003/ (with crop)
- File:Vrnvoz.png - png, no exif, copyvio from http://www.tsm.ru/objects/1232/ (with crop, 3 photo in gallery)
- File:VoronezhWalk.png - png, no exif, copyvio from https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=148952811 (with crop)
Again (see above). Again started from the Voronezh airport. Copivio all. --Insider (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Golden Grey (Сергей Золотых)
- File:Vozairport.jpg - no exif, atypical resolution (indicative of croping)
- File:Aeroportvrn.jpg - no exif, atypical resolution (indicative of croping)
User has been warned about copyright violations at Commons and at ru-wiki. File:Vozaero.jpg was deleted. I think this is also copyvio, but I could not find the source. Identical edits in ru-wiki: [5] [6]--Insider (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Taivo удаляй эти фото вверху что ждёшь!?? File:Vozairport.jpg File:Aeroportvrn.jpg пусть порадуется в экстазе этот больной на голову Insider. Давай УДАЛЯЙ ПОСЛЕДНЕЕ нормальное фото которое размещено только на вики, пусть он вставит свои старые с очень плохим качеством и будет счастлив. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.41.156 (talk • contribs)
User:Taivo психически больной User:Insider не успокоиться пока не удалит все фото аэропорта, вот пожалуйста https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vozairport.jpg&action=history выставил на удаление File:Vozairport.jpg с целью чтобы вставить свои старые которые давно уже не аэропорт Воронеж и должны быть удалены. Почему и с какой целью Вы потворствуете ему ? Прошу навсегда забанить User:Insider и соблюдать правила Wiki к фото. Плохое качество запрещено размещать на википедии в статьях. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.61.81 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination files by Vikton. Lack of metadata is not a valid reason to delete Golden Grey's uploads. Ruthven (msg) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Abc10 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: pysäytyskuva elokuvasta Kielletty kirja on edelleen tekijänoikeussuojan alainen, PD-Finland50 ei päde elokuviin, ja Kurkvaara elää edelleen; picture from the film Kielletty kirja is still under copyright, PD-Finland50 is not valid for films, and the direćtor Maunu Kurkvaara is alive|source=http://www.suomalaisenelokuvanfestivaali.fi/elokuvat/yksityisalueella-kielletty-kirja/
Converted by me to DR to allow for discussion, as uploader objects to deletion-rationale. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Film stills are free in Finland after 50 years, according to the Finnish Copyright Act, § 46a, similarly as photographs are free according to § 49a.
- One must note that the particular user is not trustworthy, as it appeared in this case: It turned out that KAVI didn’t know anything about his alleged phone calls... --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your language is often assaults, so in the case you mentioned. If you had phoned the right person, they knew. --Abc10 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you have not been able to provide the name of that person. As Mr. Kuutti wrote on 26 May 2016, nobody there could remember such a phone call. Therefore one must conclude that your claim was not truthful or bona fide. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- In fact they don't give names to some random asker. You never know what is behind the questioning. --Abc10 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are very gifted with subterfuges. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- And I wish to add that this might as well be a promotional photograph, taken by a photographer at the filming location, and not necessarily a frame from the movie itself. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- This might? But you do not know actually. May be you should phone to Kavi and ask. The laws are not for ordinary people to explain, And as far as I know you are not a lawyer. --Abc10 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- You have not been able to provide any evidence showing that this photograph would actually come from the film itself. Which reel, which scene is it from? As there is no reported HD transfer of Kielletty kirja, the provenience of this high-resolution digitized version should be traced to the film reel. You have not done that, although the onus probandi is here on you. Your claims are vexatious and putative, as the law is very clear on this point.
- As far as I can see, this is a 51 years old promotional photograph, taken on the filming location. Judging from the damages, this image appears to be scanned from a paper photograph (print), not from 35 mm film. There is no reason to delete this file. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- You have not been able to provide any evidence showing that this photograph would actually come from the film itself. Which reel, which scene is it from? As there is no reported HD transfer of Kielletty kirja, the provenience of this high-resolution digitized version should be traced to the film reel. You have not done that, although the onus probandi is here on you. Your claims are vexatious and putative, as the law is very clear on this point.
- Mlang, your utilization of lexicon is estimably involute. This should keep simpletons like the rest of us vigilant of your astute preponderation! – Kotivalo (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Mikko Kuutti, apulaisjohtaja, deputy chief of KAVI, says "kyseessä on teoskuva, joten se olisi vielä tekijänoikeuden suojaama", in English approximately "it is a work of art, so it is under copyright". (You may change the words to more difficult and longer if you wish). So delete it. --Abc10 (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- This promotional photo could have been taken by several professional photographers, and therefore it may not qualify for being considered a work of art; it is anonymous as well. It is no longer under copyright. There is no reason to delete it. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I do not know if this photograph should be deleted or not but I am raising one question: Could the setting of the photo considered as work of art, the director and/or the set designer of the film being the original author(s)? If that was the case then the photograph would be a derivative work of a copyrighted work of art and the photograph should be deleted. ––Apalsola t • c 14:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- According to the § 25 of the Finnish Copyright Act, this would still a case of fair use. Besides, one should not make up restrictions not present in legislation. The rights to the set design belong to the producer. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mlang.Finn: Fair use media files are not allowed on Commons. What do you mean by restrictions not present in legislation? ––Apalsola t • c 16:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
And as you can see, this photograph does not even represent Pekka Haukinen but instead Ekke Hämäläinen. Thanks to the observant ip-user we now know who the man in the photo is. Mr. Mlang should stop uploading photographs to Commons and check his other uploadings. --Abc10 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: PD both in Finland and in the US. Ruthven (msg) 14:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio for the text. All usages are covered by similar images. Strainu (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- See also File:Pliant pro-referendum fata.jpg, speedy-deleted.--Strainu (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The speedy-deleted File:Pliant pro-referendum fata.jpg was contested here, it was an abuse, in my opinion. It's copyvio to shoot a poster which urges you to vote "Yes" at a constitutional referendum? I saw many similar posters at Commons. --Babu (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are quite a few unfortunately, yes. They might be OK to post in some other countries, but not in Romania, and almost certainly not in the EU.--Strainu (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Strainu: What about this and this? (Ireland is in the EU.) Or this? (Croatia is in the EU.) Or this? (Denmark is in the EU.) Who says "They might be OK to post in some other countries, but not in Romania"? It's only your personal opinion. Alexandru M. (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Electoral leaflets distributed in public places are not covered under Article 7 of Law 8/1996. Alexandru M. (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- The examples you give could be covered by either Commons:De minimis or by the fact that there isn't enough text on them to make them original. Each image needs to be evaluated individually. This leaflet has a huge amount of text, which makes it enter under "orice alte opere scrise sau orale" (any other written or spoken works) specified in the article you mentioned above.--Strainu (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Electoral leaflets distributed in public places are not covered under Article 7 of Law 8/1996. Alexandru M. (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Strainu: What about this and this? (Ireland is in the EU.) Or this? (Croatia is in the EU.) Or this? (Denmark is in the EU.) Who says "They might be OK to post in some other countries, but not in Romania"? It's only your personal opinion. Alexandru M. (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are quite a few unfortunately, yes. They might be OK to post in some other countries, but not in Romania, and almost certainly not in the EU.--Strainu (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete First of all, license is wrong: I presume uploader marked the photo as CC, but before one does that, one must make sure the object illustrated is in CC (or free-er) as well. Second,
there is a logo (bottom of the page) which is most certainly protectd by copyrightplease state whose logo is it and if it is free. Third,even if the logo can be cropped out,any text is still by default copyrighted unless it is very short or very old (there are other exceptions, too: official documents, etc.). Let's not be a victim of whataboutism. Gikü (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting is not the solution, if the license has not been fit properly it can be changed. If you can help with this, it would be ok. This rush to delete is counterproductive. The first step should be to try to help. If you can. If not, you could have let others to do it. I'm not a criminal, I just want to upload correctly a photo and according to legislation. So, please act accordingly.--Babu (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Babu, I understand your concern. I'd like to stress out that there is a common misconception about deletion requests. They are not designed to attack an uploader or rush to delete. Instead, they are designed to make sure files abide the Commons rules, including legally. A lot of the times discussions end up with the file being saved.
- So. Back to the our image. License in this case should describe the brochure itself, not the photo. We get it that you published the photo under Creative Commons. But we should find out what is the correct license of the brochure. Do you know that? If not, this is one of the answers we are searching for in this deletion request (and as of now the license has not been identified as free). Thank you, and also I appreciate your work and wish I had more time to upload files as frequently as you. Gikü (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting is not the solution, if the license has not been fit properly it can be changed. If you can help with this, it would be ok. This rush to delete is counterproductive. The first step should be to try to help. If you can. If not, you could have let others to do it. I'm not a criminal, I just want to upload correctly a photo and according to legislation. So, please act accordingly.--Babu (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your positive attitude this time. Fortunately, the issue is much easier as it's not a brochure but a leaflets for upcoming constitutional referendum. They were left at the subway entrance (so public place) and I took a picture. It should treated as electoral poster. --Babu (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's like w:In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message: that work is public domain in EU, but not in US. All Wikimedia projects are subject only to US law. So it all depends upon what US law says about your photo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your positive attitude this time. Fortunately, the issue is much easier as it's not a brochure but a leaflets for upcoming constitutional referendum. They were left at the subway entrance (so public place) and I took a picture. It should treated as electoral poster. --Babu (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what prompted the idea that electoral leaflets might not be protected by copyright. The Romanian copyright law has a clear list of things not protected by copyright (see {{PD-RO-exempt}}), and that list does not include leaflets. It is true that many of them are simple enough to not be considered original work (such as one saying "vote yes on October 7"), but this is not the case here. This file is a clear case of fair use, and as such should go on Wikipedia, if there aren't any similar images illustrating the article. But since the article about the referendum has other images, this image is not needed anymore.--Strainu (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Strainu: , {{PD-RO-exempt}} says that "Also, according to Chapter 10 Article 85 Paragraph 2: The photographs of letters, deeds, documents of any kind, technical drawings and other similar papers shall not benefit from the legal protection accorded to copyright." (De asemenea, conform Capitolului 10, Articolul 85, Paragraful 2: Nu pot beneficia de protecția legală a dreptului de autor fotografiile unor scrisori, acte, documente de orice fel, desene tehnice și altele asemenea. În această situație, imaginea prezentă este domeniu public). So it looks this image could be good for Commons. --Holapaco77 (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- That part prevents the derivative work from being protected, not the original. It's the equivalent of Bridgeman vs. Corel, if you wish. In this case, Babu cannot claim any copyright over the picture, but the original work is still protected.--Strainu (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- "The case of Bridgeman applies in the United States only". Alexandru M. (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- That part prevents the derivative work from being protected, not the original. It's the equivalent of Bridgeman vs. Corel, if you wish. In this case, Babu cannot claim any copyright over the picture, but the original work is still protected.--Strainu (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unclear whether {{PD-RO-exempt}} is applicable, no link was provided to verify that leaflets like this are excluded from copyright. Mentioned Article 7 defines what is subject to copyright but not what isn't. Permission from the text author needed to be sure. --Mates (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Rasheed222 (talk · contribs) nominated the image for speedy deletion, claiming, that this is Wikipedia-only license, which is not allowed in Commons. My Google cannot translate the description, so I cannot confirm that. Discussion is needed. Taivo (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as possible copyvio and no any proof of permission.Rasheed222 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are EXIF data that don't look suspicious, and the permission is given by the uploader. Where is the issue? It is published elsewhere? --Ruthven (msg) 10:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ruthven OTRS is missing. See here https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitBe2LSCRJp8IBK7XMUphcmx1G6rAT10_1WhH5vNNBrEvNhv1mo9Sit8HAh3dfjZLNkcg0zkFeWz4Yt3acJcjaLESKyW6g_13eNrgj61t_105FdJLKD1CNodF0uqkjDaARqyHp-vpS41cgb9BxvWRRik5HsrUdOOwhnErxmiZjC9NBEYxPe7HrSfMJzBE_1hgWZAHZTFOj-jU83Agg6FLY7qCIeS937soX2wqtrdTuQlKChyKyVZtL3bSWE3L4ej0y136ufZ2EyA_1C9HvAOLvNaujqFBf2Jnxrojarn0PBpxP6Zy55kUIcbNj_1Yv-zwsBCKSAM-063TLHeMKA1NjTez_1JIBucVPRQ&hl=en-PK Rasheed222 (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Rasheed222: All these results seem like a copy of this file uploaded on Commons. Do you have a reference previous to 2011? --Ruthven (msg) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ruthven OTRS is missing. See here https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitBe2LSCRJp8IBK7XMUphcmx1G6rAT10_1WhH5vNNBrEvNhv1mo9Sit8HAh3dfjZLNkcg0zkFeWz4Yt3acJcjaLESKyW6g_13eNrgj61t_105FdJLKD1CNodF0uqkjDaARqyHp-vpS41cgb9BxvWRRik5HsrUdOOwhnErxmiZjC9NBEYxPe7HrSfMJzBE_1hgWZAHZTFOj-jU83Agg6FLY7qCIeS937soX2wqtrdTuQlKChyKyVZtL3bSWE3L4ej0y136ufZ2EyA_1C9HvAOLvNaujqFBf2Jnxrojarn0PBpxP6Zy55kUIcbNj_1Yv-zwsBCKSAM-063TLHeMKA1NjTez_1JIBucVPRQ&hl=en-PK Rasheed222 (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete there may be result that google have a copy of this photo but here permission is not given for used any where else. HumTum12 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. EXIF data available, no link to site publishing it before 2011 was provided. --Mates (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Hungary Ronhjones (Talk) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Stamps not containing the text "Magyarország" or equivalent in foreign language are concidered out of circulation since a 2012 law, hence are no longer a means of payment and entered the public domain - Attila Pataki, 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataki Attila István (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Pataki Attila István: Please provide some link that would verify your argument. The copyright on Hungarian stamps is a difficult topic and was discussed several times in the past never with any general conclusion that Hungarian stamps are in PD. Previous DR with unclear cp status for Hungarian stamps ended with safe deletion. See Commons_talk:Stamps/Public_domain#Hungary, Commons:Deletion requests/File:László Almásy 1995 Hungarian stamp.jpg. --Mates (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: There is sufficient doubt as to this files copyright status. It is up to the person’s wanting to keep the file to provide evidence of its copyright status in order to keep it. No such links/documents was provided. This had been open for more than 5 months, so closing this despite recent comments. No prejudice against raising this file on COM:UNDEL. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The OSA website doesn't allow commercial use of their photos. Has this been verified with OTRS? Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It states "Donna Strickland, OSA Holiday Party 2012 ((CC BY-SA 4.0)" as a photo caption on the OSA webpage. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per above, CC-BY-SA license at the source page, already verified in October by User:DarwIn. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
