Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/02/05
 |
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}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_02999.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This is Artandimage. The artist did NOT grant permission to put this image into the public domain. He granted permission for me to post it for Wikipedia purposes only. It must be removed! Help! Artandimage (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is Opendude42. Artandimage has attempted to remove the Help:Contents page. This has disabled users from using the Help pages. The image shoould be removed, but the page should not! Opendude42 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (GMT)
Kept: per Opendude42 McZusatz (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Bahnstrecke Weilheim-Schongau Karl432 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, of course I want the listed category file to be deleted (due to a mistype in its name), not the help file itself which I inspected only to see how I do this. I simply assumed that when I click "nominate for deletion" I had first to specify the file which I wand to be deleted. -- Karl432 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure): test nomination. darkweasel94 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No PLans To use This Page Richard Alexander Cadieux (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. ★ Poké95 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
i dont want to put this picture in common DgitalTechs (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. --Achim (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Democracy_Forum Diplik (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, no valid reason for deletion. --jdx Re: 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Personal photos Marcello Hughes (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Admins, please warn the DR opener seriously. --E4024 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 01:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
File: Slumber Party - Rebels in Pinkville - 2018.jpg Arik Mirondo (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, speedy closed. --jdx Re: 17:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Iglesia_del_Sagrado_Coraz%C3%B3n_Jiquilpan_Michoac%C3%A1n.jpg Jackie RGarcia (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept, the photo of the church is not a reason to delete Help:Contents. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Pexels-photo-3772623.jpg Franz.zilvah (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep (non-admin closure): Nonsense nom. Why this page is nominated for some many times... Stang★ 02:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Failed upload. E4024 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Damaged photo Snowdawg (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- The file was renewed while in DR, but I cannot see the EXIF. --E4024 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please see: https://vimeo.com/janeantoniacornish. --E4024 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Same photo as File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg.jpg deleted as copyvio of https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1548635/mediaviewer/rm3811344128; also same as File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg. Speedying.
Deleted: speedying: previously deleted as copyvio. --Ankry (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Asep Ramadhani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Lowest quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --VIGNERON (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no permission (No permission since) Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I converted to DR as the uploader claims to have submitted permission to OTRS in 2014 already. Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete as "no permission". This appears to be about Ticket:2013101710012573 from the alleged photographer. We replied Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:37:17 +0000, requesting a clear statement in compliance with en:Wikipedia:CONSENT. We never heard back. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdi Giyatsa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images. Out of project scope.
- File:AbdiGiyatsa5.jpg
- File:AbdiGiyatsa4.jpg
- File:AbdiGiyatsa2.jpg
- File:AbdiGiyatsa1.jpg
- File:AbdiGiyatsa3.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE (F10). --1989 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
File:Umsetzung von Acrylsäure mit Isobuten unter Lewis- oder Brønstedsäurenkatalyse zu tert.-Butylacrylat.svg
[edit]
This graphic can be deleted. I replaced it by File:Synthese von Acrylsäure-tert-butylester.svg Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. Unused. Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Low resolution, bad quality, most likely derivative work 1989 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Possible source: http://www.hotel-r.net/it/baita-goles → http://www.hotel-r.net/im/hotel/it/baita-goles-7.jpg --Achim (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing. --1989 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This image hasn't yet entered freely licensed. TradeJackLandSim (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the licensing to meet the proper requirements. Henry Trowbridge 04:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Possible non-libre/free wallpaper of Microsoft Windows XP. HarvettFox 96 02:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC), edited on 02:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved to relevant project as wiki-text if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 18:42, 5 Februar 2019 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 02:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pastor Joshua Park (talk · contribs)
[edit]http://www.goodnews.or.kr/about/activities, Copyright 2018. GOODNEWS MISSION™ All rights reserved.
- File:Group Picture of Good News Medical Volunteers in Benin (2017).jpg
- File:Pastor Ock Soo Park lecture to drug addicts in the Philippines (2018).jpg
- File:Good News Mission Medical Volunteer treating a patient in Benin (2017).jpg
- File:Pastor Ock Soo Park's meeting with the President of Paraguay, Horacio Cartes (2017).jpg
- File:Archbishop Arthur Kitonga (Redeemed Gospel Church ) (Kenya).jpg
- File:World Christian Leaders Forum (South Korea).jpg
- File:Pastor Ock Soo Park's meeting with the King of Eswaiti, Mswati III (2018).jpg
- File:Good News Mission.jpg
- File:2018 World Christian Leaders Press Conference (Seoul, Korea).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}
_(Kenya).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}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permission is required. [1]. --1989 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
COM:CRT/New Zealand#Stamps 1989 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 07:16, 6 Februar 2019 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) - --Krdbot 14:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:JOLED Logo.png Commons:Deletion requests/File:JOLED Logo.jpg
Files uploaded by Juliana Clemente Borges (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The individual in the image is black in appearance but white in this photo which is inappropriate TroubledOne (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Jon Kolbert at 02:41, 8 Februar 2019 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE (F10) --Krdbot 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The parent figure in this photo is actually apparently black but is fair in this photo which is inappropriate TroubledOne (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Jon Kolbert at 02:42, 8 Februar 2019 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE (F10) --Krdbot 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The main individual in the image is black in appearance but white in this photo which is inappropriate TroubledOne (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Jon Kolbert at 02:42, 8 Februar 2019 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE (F10) --Krdbot 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
cpovio via source. AT (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No tiene categoría Karina Pasos (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I added Category:Carnivals of Mexico. Any other problems? --E4024 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:Karina Pasos, please do not remove the deletion request (DR) tag from the page. If you changed your mind about this DR, simply come and write here that "Ya no desea borrar el archivo." You speak English, right? --E4024 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Dupe of File:Ritual al dios Pochó..jpg. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Anthere at 18:09, 8 Februar 2019 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors; see COM:SELFIE (F10) --Krdbot 19:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Drsharmadentalclinic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement, SPAM: out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Drsharmadentalclinic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement, SPAM: out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Commercial advertisement, SPAM: out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Christian Ferrer at 09:53, 9 Februar 2019 UTC: spamming --Krdbot 13:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Error en el titulo del archivo Gastrotec (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request on upload day. --JuTa 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Peter Filimonov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work as claimed
- File:Энтони Беркли.jpg
- File:Миссис брэдли.jpg
- File:Gledis Mitchell.jpg
- File:Глэдис Митчелл молодая.jpg
- File:Глэдис Митчелл.jpg
- File:Ма4.jpg
- File:Марджери Аллингем.jpg
- File:Найо марш.jpg
- File:Ма3.jpg
— Racconish 💬 12:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Peter Filimonov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work as claimed
- File:AgathaChristie09.jpg
- File:Марджери Аллингем.jpg
- File:Gledis Mitchell.jpg
- File:Миссис брэдли.jpg
- File:Глэдис Митчелл.jpg
- File:Ngaio Marsh Awards.jpg
- File:Найо марш 9.jpg
- File:Найо марш 3.jpg
- File:Могила марджери аллингем.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Overwriting second and forth version of a totally different scene: Too low quality to be useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. The third version equals the first one - and this first version should be restored. Ies (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Irrespective of educational uses, no license since 4 February 2019. --Green Giant (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Personal photos, out of Scope, also no metadata, probably no permission
- File:Indian Muslim Marriageqq.jpg
- File:Roseumw.jpg
- File:Alliumw.jpg
- File:Aconitum.jpg
- File:Houstonianumw.jpg
- File:Sareesq.jpg
- File:Loving couplesaa.jpg
- File:Alchemillaw.jpg
- File:Ageratumw.jpg
- File:African Daisy. ( Gazania).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Afifa Afrin (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Too low quality to be useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope. See also COM:PENIS
Ies (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:Nudity. Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:Beauty 1.jpg
- File:Home 020.jpg
- File:Home 1.jpg
- File:Tochukwu 20170109 220012.jpg
- File:Smile 1.jpg
- File:African Dish.jpg
- File:Xmas 1.jpg
- File:Pageantry 1.jpg
- File:Swim 2.jpg
- File:Swim 1.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused photo of non-notable sports team, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, artwork without obvious educational use BrightRaven (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal low-quality photos of subjects with no apparent notability, uploaded by a blocked self-promoter and sockpuppeteer. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Also: questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history. At least in some of the photographs, the uploader is more likely to be the subject than the author.
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope, Currently used on a promotional wikidata page tagged for deletion Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Along with rest of uploads per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Nv8200p (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Nv8200p (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal photo. Nv8200p (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. No educational use. Nv8200p (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Any metadata, low-re images, unlikely to be own works.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Файлы были загружены ошибочно — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverLiz (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope. 4ing (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
© Stewart Attwood Photography 2016, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permision is needed. --1989 (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Image size is small, suspected to come from other site. Thyj (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work. From Getty. [2]. --1989 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Seems to be advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:אפוד מגן קרמון דור ב מק"ט 408172357.jpg
- File:סרבל מיגון חסנש מק"ט408200180.jpg
- File:וסט מטול א.נ.jpg
- File:אפוד חמן .jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Damaged photo Snowdawg (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Damaged photo Snowdawg (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Self-promotion (see file desc), out of scope. No contribs to any wm project. --Achim (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit of File:Swastik on head.jpg. ›› Fugitron - 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit of File:HinduSwastika.svg. ›› Fugitron - 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit of File:Swastik4.svg. ›› Fugitron - 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit of File:HinduSwastika.svg. ›› Fugitron - 15:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Own work or Facebook? E4024 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentation of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2019 (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) 15:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wrong title. It should be tarout bay MRC rules (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep @MRC rules: I have renamed the file to File:Coast image of the tarout bay in ksa.jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: File moved, unused redirect. --1989 (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
(c) DIDIER GOUPY/SIGNATURES, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Possible copyright problems: the picture it is a screenshot (as it is written in the EXIF metadata) and it is creditetd to FIBA Basketball. However it is not possible to verify the free license (it is not provided any link and generally the website of FIBA does not relase photo with a Creative Commons license - see here the Terms and Conditions). Note also, in addittion to copyright question, that the it is unclear who is the subject of the picture (it seems that there isn't a baketball playere named "Alberto Umbero") Civitas13 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Bad quality and no idea, what should be shown here. No meaningful integration or categorization available and possible. Milseburg (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC) I agree, it looks like user Matysek2000 did not know what he/she was doing Compo (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: image probably founr on the web; for Example here (note the "(C) AP" on the lower left corner of picture). Civitas13 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a watermark on the bottom right which is making me feel uneasy about the license and ownership. The photo was posted months before on 15 January 2007. The photo there leads me to https://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c321/fahrianhs/jakarta_by_jfarchaul.jpg and the jfarchaul mentioned in that file name in no way looks like the wiki-uploader's. Likely copyvio. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BlessNathan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo. Out of scope
T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
copyviol from https://www.diocesilecce.org/mons-michele-seccia/ Antonio1952 (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. File name, and descriptions are non-descriptive and do not give a hind on what the image is for. Archie02 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. File name, and descriptions are non-descriptive and do not give a hind on what the image is for. Archie02 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. File name, and descriptions are non-descriptive and do not give a hind on what the image is for. Archie02 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Taken with Hasselblad H5D-40
[edit]Created by the professionell photographer Alessandro Vasari. We need his permission via OTRS to publish the photographs under a free licence!
Ras67 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure this permission (http://www.sindic.cat/en/page.asp?id=81) is sufficient. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: It refers to the "meaning", which is an odd definition. If it is not clear, I guess it's better to delete the picture. I could find another one of this person. Thanks for the help :) --Xavier D. (Messages) 22:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect causing problems with a fair use file on en-wiki EnPassant (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
bad version of File:St Gallen stumpf col.jpg Martin Sg. (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
File:Fotografria de miguel marmol tomada en el museo de la revolucion de perkin el salvador.jpg
[edit]
Photo of photo, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Photo of photo, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Photo of photo, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No evidence that Mathew Imaging is User:EHoward2006 Ankry (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- And also no evidence of permission from the award copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal image, out of scope Migebert (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal image, out of scope Migebert (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Migebert (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(c) ORF, Thomas Ramstorfer Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(c) ORF, Thomas Ramstorfer Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(c) ORF, Thomas Ramstorfer Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
_ORF_Thomas_Ramsdorfer.jpg){kind=link}
File:Fiscal de la Nación anuncia que Equipo Especial ‘Lava Jato’ será reforzado con más fiscales.jpg
[edit]
Appears to be montage of different broadcasts. Per COM:DW, copyright should belong to the individual broadcasters, not the government ministry. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We need OTRS both from the photographer and the painter. Double copyright violation. It should have been speedied time ago. E4024 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably not own work, looks like taken from a video. Frodar (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I have uploaded a better version in png format Levana Taylor (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
I have uploaded a better version in png format Levana Taylor (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I have uploaded a better version in png format Levana Taylor (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Promotional image previously used on a now-deleted promotional userpage. Not likely to be useful in any project. Risker (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This picture is not from the Tavernier-Hours but from La Vie de Jésus-Christ, from Ludolphe de Saxe, Bruxelles, KBR, ms. IV 106, f49v Jean-Pierre Remy (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep @Jean-Pierre Remy: il suffit de renommer le fichier. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:29, 12 February 2019 (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) 15:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a portion of a write-up, for which I have been awarded the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the faculty of Law by the Gauhati University, Assam, India.I did not publish it as book. But the university norms bestow copyright to me. ....So far as plagiarism is concerned, my article is within the permissible limits as per international law. I have a certificate of non-plagiarism for that article. Of course, copy-right lies with me and using it in an unauthorised manner shall be liable to legal action...............Now, it is for Wikipedia and its member to decide about its deletion..... May be I am new here and so this is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr PSBHA (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 11:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Piled up dubiously in scope images. Split and delete the unnecessary. E4024 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
G7 - Please delete images. Marcello Hughes (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Code: G7 - Accidental Creation Marcello Hughes (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note for the closing admin: Uploader changes the image twice within hours with unrelated others, then requests deletion several times, and later uses the file in some user page to -probably- prevent deletion. Ah, I was almost forgetting their opening of this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Help:Contents! All of this looks like troll activity to me, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
attached wrong file Breskit (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by B dash as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Screenshot 1989 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of subject with no apparent notability, uploaded by a blocked self-promoter and sockpuppeteer. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Also: questionable authorship claims. The uploader is more likely to be the subject than the author of this studio photograph. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The Photo Has a Name stamp N Sanu / എന് സാനു / एन सानू (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A name stamp is added to the Photo N Sanu / എന് സാനു / एन सानू (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
A name stamp is added to the Photo N Sanu / എന് സാനു / एन सानू (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo 1989 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Self-promotion / Autopromoción Rockestar100 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo 1989 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement audio. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work of map with unknown copyright status, maybe copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's freedom of panorama in source country Mexico. But the photo is out of project scope due to small size and bad quality. Taivo (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
made new version Øyvind Holmstad (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing to upload more accurate version Jabadaw (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing to upload more accurate version Jabadaw (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
FBMD at MD. E4024 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hochlader wohl nicht Urheber / rechteinhaber, Der Urheber ist der Maler, wohl der Vater des Hochladers. Rechteinhaber könnte das Klinikum Neuruppin sein,. Urheber noch nicht 709 Jahre verstorben. Lutheraner (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Da der DDR-Künstlervertrag leider nicht mehr vorliegt, kann die Veröffentlichung streitig sein. Die Fotorechte liegen bei mir, trotzdem werde ich die Datei herunter nehmen . Schade, aber trotzdem Vielen Dank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas J. Kühn (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: by 1989. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Judging my description, uploader wants this deleted. Might be out of scope SecretName101 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright infringement: [3]. The uploader, obviously, not copyright owner of this photo. Skepsiz (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright holder: Hans-Jürgen Luntzer - 2015. Can't see no permission. E4024 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by 1989 at 19:40, 13 Februar 2019 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 01:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope. No educational use. Nv8200p (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Good for Category:Electricity pylons in Texas (only of this type). Insider (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
_-_02999.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_02999.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo is blurred Norman.seibert (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Iasmohurle (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Iasmohurle: are you requesting deletion? 06:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to re-open this. (I understand there was a confusion.) This is the personal image of a "user" on his EN:WP user page. He has made 4 (four) edits (including the previous DR opening) in Commons and as many in EN:WP, including the adding of his pic. All this in nearly 3 (three) years. He has no right to keep a pic. IMHO. E4024 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
http://beregovo.today/NewsOpen/id_news_261290 Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- (transfered from email) Hi, you wrote me about my foto ("File:Директор музею Іван Шепа .jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.")
What I can say for my opinion? Wiki's rules forbidden to post photos of real people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Пан Баклажан (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Not own work, this was published in 2016. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ThatBPengineer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Floorplans are usually the tradesecret of architect and not recommended released to Commons 1989 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ThatBPengineer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Floorplans are usually the tradesecret of architect and not recommended released to Commons 1989 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO I don't see a really original work from the architect. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ThatBPengineer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Floorplans are usually the tradesecret of architect and not recommended released to Commons 1989 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A copy of a calendar page, that has text on it that's apparently copyrightable. Prosfilaes (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Given the blur, I'm not sure this is a copyvio. However, given the blur, I am sure it is out of scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
A TV screenshot - obviously. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously? I made the shot years ago on an older mobile phone when traveling to Armenia. The file is zoomed in, and the bystanders cut out from the image to improve the quality. Hayordi (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - AGF. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Own work in 1953? Eso pone en duda todos los "uploads" del usuario. E4024 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2018 PACKERS 100 SEASONS 1989 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This photo was first published much earlier than 2018 and the copyright is not held by the Green Bay Packers. As an example, the photo was published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette in 1974 (see here). I have also seen the photo in a few offline sources published before that (Evrard was born in 1895 and died in 1974). The photo itself has never been published with a copyright notice. As such, I believe it fits {{PD-US-no notice}} and should not be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: "The photo itself has never been published with a copyright notice." is almost certainly incorrect. I doubt very much that the Green Bay Press-Gazette did not have the customary copyright notice on the masthead of each edition of the newspaper, which is all the notice that was required for any editorial (ie not-advertising) content in the paper. In order to keep this, someone will have to research who the actual copyright holder is and get a license. The newspaper still exists, start there. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2018 PACKERS 100 SEASONS 1989 (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This photo was first published much earlier than 2018 and the copyright is not held by the Green Bay Packers. As an example, the photo was published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette in 1974 (see here). I have also seen the photo in a few offline sources published before that (Evrard was born in 1895 and died in 1974). The photo itself has never been published with a copyright notice. As such, I believe it fits {{PD-US-no notice}} and should not be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This deletion request goes only for first version, not for whole file. There is no freedom of panorama in USA for sculptures, so I cropped away a modern sculpture. Taivo (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Even when it’s on public land (City-owned) and City-commissioned statue?Keizers (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. There are some reasons, how the sculpture can be free: at first it can be work of US government (any proof for that? Commissioned by city is not enough) and it can be not-so-modern sculpture (but how old is it then?). Taivo (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Blanked first version. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of the Czech Republic
[edit]The Act No. 136/2011 Coll. and the decree of the Czech National Bank No. 274/2011 Coll.(engl. version) define the terms and conditions under which it is possible to reproduce money:
For intangible reproductions of banknotes, it is required that their resolution does not exceed 72 dots per inch and they are marked with the word “Specimen” printed diagonally in an opaque colour and in a layer that cannot be separated from the image of the banknote, with the length of the word being at least 75% of the longer side of the banknote and the height being at least 15% of the shorter side of the banknote (or with another word of the same dimensions and similar meaning). Intangible or nonmetallic images of coins may always be produced.
None of the images in the category reflects the highlighted criterion, thus all such reproductions are illegal.
— Danny B. 20:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Since no uploaders have been notified and there are no files listed, this DR should be closed. This sounds like a non-copyright restriction as well. Will start a Village Pump thread about this though. Abzeronow (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I found important to notify here about the serious legal issue to prevent it remain unspotted and because I unfortunately don't have time to mark 35 files and notify several uploaders, I hoped somebody will take care about the procedural things necessary to process the files removal. (Frankly, if the result will be that (illegal) files will remain kept just because of (unfulfilled) bureaucratic requirements, then something is rotten here and should be obviously revisited...) Thanks for cranking up the Village pump thread.
— Danny B. 16:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)- I could do a different mass DR for this. (I can use the gadget for Visual File Change, so not that difficult to make sure uploaders are notified) I'll wait a few more days before deciding on that though. (Hopefully that VP thread will get some feedback by then). Abzeronow (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- It surely is a non-copyright restriction based on Czech law. BTW it applies not only to Czech banknotes, but to any valid banknotes from any country. I assume the US law has some similar restriction and should be applied preferentially; I haven't found any guidelines on this project though.--Shlomo (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I found important to notify here about the serious legal issue to prevent it remain unspotted and because I unfortunately don't have time to mark 35 files and notify several uploaders, I hoped somebody will take care about the procedural things necessary to process the files removal. (Frankly, if the result will be that (illegal) files will remain kept just because of (unfulfilled) bureaucratic requirements, then something is rotten here and should be obviously revisited...) Thanks for cranking up the Village pump thread.
- Keep - non-copyright restriction indicated by Template:Money-CZ. Template was missing in some files in category, I have added it to these files.--Jklamo (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- If the file is illegal, a template explaining why won't make it less illegal…--Shlomo (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Please see Commons_talk:Currency/Archive_1#Derivative_works_and_requirement_for_word_.22SPECIMEN.22. Gumruch (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Also, see Commons:Currency#Czech Republic and {{Counterfeiting}}. This is obviously a non-copyright-restriction, so the files are not against Commons rules. On the other hand, I think adding the SPECIMEN marking on all images of Czech banknotes would not be a terribly wrong thing to do. Or, at the very least, having such law-abiding versions on Commons (whether we would delete those without the marking or not), so that they can be used. --Mormegil (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- Both because this is a non-copyright restriction and because it is done out of process. Files must be marked and uploaders notified so that all interested parties can comment if they wish. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Source is https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/arphotos/items/1.0162321 which says, "Images provided for research and reference use only. Permission to publish, copy or otherwise use these images must be obtained from the UBC Archives: lib-ubcarchives@lists.ubc.ca" —teb728 t c 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Permission from UBC Archives to use this image freely on Wikipedia was given to me. Email proof of this permission is available on request, or you can contact UBC Archives directly for confirmation of this permission. --Mie Iwasaki (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mie Iwasaki: Please provide this proof to OTRS Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - can be restored when and if a free license is received. Not that the license must come directly from the UBC Archives -- it is not acceptable for the uploader to forward one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Currency Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in USA B dash (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Logo of Golkar party (https://kabargolkar.com/category/kabar-nasional/), unlikely to be a Government of Indonesia work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo of photo, unvalid date so impossible to determine if public domain in India. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Détenteur du droit d'auteur Patou MEZA Tous droits reserves, autorisation de l'auteurn nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not own work. --Gbawden (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted package. AlexLeeCN (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roy17 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: 1st version had a wechat watermark + no camera exif 1989 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; taken from http://k.sina.com.cn/article_6381598748_17c5f781c001001r4t.html. --Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No date, no EXIF. Dubious "own work" upload. E4024 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; delete as PCP, other uploads by this user have exif. --Gbawden (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enmanuel2307 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Please provide evidence that picture has been published more than 60 years ago.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
What type of evidences? --Enmanuel2307 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If you don't have any, then the images must be deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- https://twitter.com/perezjimenez52/status/767494025838489601 https://www.facebook.com/lavenezuelainmortal/photos/a.192793934152881/320235708075369/?type=1&theater--Enmanuel2307 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Enmanuel2307: Twitter and Facebook have been created 2006 and 2004 respectively so I wonder how it can prove pictures has been published more than 60 years ago in Venezuela... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment ... anyway seems to have been shot during Pérez Jiménez rule so 1958. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Patrick Rogel: Certainly I cannot corroborate online when these photographs were taken, because I scanned them from the original files that a Foundation in charge of the protection of Venezuelan photographs has. However, those photos were taken at the time that Marcos Pérez Jiménez was dictator of Venezuela (1953-1958). --Enmanuel2307 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Enmanuel2307: Twitter and Facebook have been created 2006 and 2004 respectively so I wonder how it can prove pictures has been published more than 60 years ago in Venezuela... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Published 2014 and 2018. 50 years have not passed since the date of its publication.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enmanuel2307 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own works. Canon EOS 50D for the first one (seems to come from this session: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rupertomiller/14804851493/), Canon EOS DIGITAL R for the second. If deleted I request a block of this user.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a work of another person, not the uploader's work. Taichi (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Verdacht auf URV Haster2 (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
> Bitte um Begründung. Foto wurde von mir aufgenommen. Eekongzi (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Das abgebildete urheberrechtlich geschützte Kunstwerk stammt von Karl Mertens. Haster2 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artwork shown is still protected, no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Verdacht auf URV Haster2 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
> Bitte um Begründung. Foto wurde von mir aufgenommen. Eekongzi (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Das abgebildete urheberrechtlich geschützte Kunstwerk stammt von Karl Mertens. Haster2 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- > Danke für den Hinweis. Das geht sowohl aus dem Dateinamen als auch aus der Dateibeschreibung hervor, wie übrigens bei allen von mir erstellten Bildern in meiner Liste der Werke von Karl Mertens. Leider habe ich nicht die Zeit, mich auf lange Diskussionen einzulassen. Viel Spaß noch! Eekongzi (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Das Problem ist, dass es urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke sind. Bei Werken, bei denen die Panoramafreiheit gilt, ist das für Fotos nur ein bedingten Problem. Die hier abfotografierten befinden sich aber nicht dauerhaft an öffentlichen Plätzen sondern in geschlossenen Räumen. Somit stellt die Veröffentlichung eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar. Haster2 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artwork shown is still protected, no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Verdacht auf URV Haster2 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
> Bitte um Begründung. Foto wurde von mir aufgenommen. Eekongzi (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Das abgebildete urheberrechtlich geschützte Kunstwerk stammt von Karl Mertens. Haster2 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artwork shown is still protected, no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The creator of this photo changed the license on Flickr to Attribution-ShareAlike earlier tonight after I contacted him asking him to. However, about half an hour after I had uploaded it here, he changed his mind and reverted the Flickr license to "All rights reserved." In an email to me, he said, "Unfortunately I've retracted my permissions. I read into it a little more and have realized it's probably not the best for me to have my photo open to the public."
As we know, Creative Commons licenses are not revocable, so we are not obligated to follow the new license. However, because the CC license was only up for such a short time, I am making this deletion discussion to see if the Commons community would consider making an exception, and deleting the image as a courtesy to the creator. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; courtesy to author. --Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not own work, published here. If the company is OK with releasing the images under a free license, we need confirmation via OTRS.
- File:Lapponia House Minihome and Nordic Lights.png
- File:Lapponia House Thermolog Minihome.png
- File:Lapponia House Minihome interior view.png
- File:Lapponia Minihome.png
- File:Princess Of Thailand receives a Lapponia House.png
- File:Lapponia House Kaskilinna.jpg
Huon (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The owner of Lapponia House, Petteri Pietikäinen confirmed he has now e-mailed the 'Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries' -letter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
The image princess was decided not to be used - I will try to delete it. The text mention about her is OK.
Hope everything is in order — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNPNiemi (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Unknown source--Thyj (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS after a month and a half. No permission. --Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ThatBPengineer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The certifications are usually kept secrets and certainly if needed to be displayed , mostly is at company portfolio and not COmmons 1989 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ThatBPengineer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.diselco.es/imagenes/caimi/CATALOGOSNOWSOUND2014.pdf 1989 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – the image is here since 2014. Who cares about
Last-Modified: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:16:41 GMT? And special thanks for 1989 for withstanding a DoS attack with random tags. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete Unused file showing some sort of artists impression of a building in an unidentified location. Without more context it is Out of Scope. Malcolma (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – I changed the category to “Factories in unidentified countries”. The description says that it’s a factory (stabilimento in Italian) known by the name “Caimi”. Perhaps someone will know where that factory is located (maybe in Italy?). --Sije (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – No longer unused. --Sije (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --JuTa 07:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by PauloMSimoes as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Law cited by source (blog) determines the opposite of that quoted by the source. "Art. 191: Reproduzir ou imitar, de modo que possa induzir em erro ou confusão, armas, brasões ou distintivos oficiais nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais, sem a necessária autorização, no todo ou em parte, em marca, título de estabelecimento, nome comercial, insígnia ou sinal de propaganda, ou usar essas reproduções ou imitações com fins econômicos." 1989 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 06:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This image is not from the Tavernier-hours as stated but from a manuscript KBR, ms. 9278-80 Jean-Pierre Remy (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: then {{Rename}} it please. --JuTa 07:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Flag of Indonesia.svg before I uploaded the flag with the color based on the Indonesian law. The red color used here (RGB 206-17-38) originally from SKopp who first uploaded File:Flag of Indonesia.svg and File:Flag of Monaco.svg on the same day with the same exact red and white color and different ratio. The law itself only defined that the flag should be RGB 255-0-0 and 255-255-255. Hddty. (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep: This version is in use on several Wikipedia pages (th:ประเทศอินโดนีเซีย, th:ธงชาติอินโดนีเซีย, vi:Indonesia, and vi:Quốc kỳ Indonesia) and on wikivoyage:vi:Indonesia. Under COM:INUSE, that means it shouldn't be deleted for inaccuracy. If they want to carry on using this version, it's not Commons' place to stop them. See COM:NPOV for more explanation. --bjh21 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: The current version of the flag is used because of User:Bonthefox1. See 1 2 3 4 5. Hddty. (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research, but it's not really relevant. Bonthefox1 and BonTheFox13 seem to have made those edits in good faith, and neither account has ever been blocked on those projects. COM:NPOV explicitly lists "the colours are not officially-approved" as an example of a content dispute that Commons will not adjudicate on. --bjh21 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: Well it seems that one account already blocked as a sockpuppet of another already blocked account (see Global account info: Bonthefox1 & BonTheFox13). COM:NPOV says that "If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is "wrong" in some way, please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead", except that it only one person who causing it without apparently create a discussion about this. I'm trying to notify those account hope that they would comment here: @Bonthefox1: @BonTheFox13: . Hddty. (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about being blocked on Commons, but on Vietnamese Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikivoyage, and Thai Wikipedia. Those sites are where this file is used, and if you want to stop it being used, those are the sites where you need to take action. --bjh21 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: Well it seems that one account already blocked as a sockpuppet of another already blocked account (see Global account info: Bonthefox1 & BonTheFox13). COM:NPOV says that "If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is "wrong" in some way, please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead", except that it only one person who causing it without apparently create a discussion about this. I'm trying to notify those account hope that they would comment here: @Bonthefox1: @BonTheFox13: . Hddty. (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research, but it's not really relevant. Bonthefox1 and BonTheFox13 seem to have made those edits in good faith, and neither account has ever been blocked on those projects. COM:NPOV explicitly lists "the colours are not officially-approved" as an example of a content dispute that Commons will not adjudicate on. --bjh21 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: The current version of the flag is used because of User:Bonthefox1. See 1 2 3 4 5. Hddty. (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The user who linked this flag in various Wikipedia and Wikivoyage language apparently has unlinked this flag. Hddty. (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Neutral, aha we are talking about UU 24/2009 right? The law itself is nonbinding, but I do agree with Hddty basing it on the law itself.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 06:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: still in use. --JuTa 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Flag of Indonesia.svg before I uploaded the flag with the color based on the Indonesian law. The red color used here (RGB 206-17-38) originally from SKopp who first uploaded File:Flag of Indonesia.svg and File:Flag of Monaco.svg on the same day with the same exact red and white color and different ratio. The law itself only defined that the flag should be RGB 255-0-0 and 255-255-255. Hddty. (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Indonesia flag Кирилл Телегин (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This flag should be deleted Кирилл Телегин (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This flag should be deleted Кирилл Телегин (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Image is mislabeled as own work, and was previously deleted Кирилл Телегин (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This picture is not from the Tavernier-Hours but from La Vie de Jésus-Christ, drom Ludolphe de Saxe, Bruxelles, KBR, ms. IV 106, f49v Jean-Pierre Remy (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: then {{Rename}} it please. --JuTa 07:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I have been been contacted by Dirk Jan Dijkstra, a lawyer from the nl.legal company on behalf of Anneke Moerenhout, the photographer of these two pictures. Moerenhout wants these files deleted. Through her lawyer, Moerenhout claims that she is not User:Hurkvanden (who uploaded them in September 2018, and claims to be Moerenhout through the combination of "Author: Anneke Moerenhout" and "Source: Own work"), thus these photos are not Hurkvanden's 'Own work'. Secondly, Moerenhout claims she has never given permission to upload these photos to any website under a Creative Commons licence. The only website that she has given a much stricter permission to is tracesofwar.nl:
As is evident from the URLs above, these pictures do not contain any Creative Commons licence. Tracesofwar.nl is a project of Stichting STIWOT (Stichting Informatie Wereldoorlog Twee), which outlines its copyright policy here. The relevant legal text translates as follows: "No part of this website may be copied, used or reproduced without the express written permission of the STIWOT board. Photos or images on this website remain the property of the creator or owner. STIWOT has the full right to use all images and photos. This right does not lapse when it is traded by the original creator or owner of the photograph. By submitting your photos or images you give the full right of use for use on the websites of STIWOT. This right does not lapse when it is traded by the original creator or owner of the photograph. For images placed with a Creative Commons Licence the terms and conditions of the relevant license apply."
As said above, these two photos on tracesofwar.nl do not contain a Creative Commons licence, thus they may not be reused without the permission of either the STIWOT board or Moerenhout, neither of which have given permission.
However, it appears that an admin of the website 4en5mei.nl has nevertheless reused these two pictures without permission.
- Photo 1 is said by Dutch Wikipedia to have been located here, but is not to be found there today: https://www.4en5mei.nl/oorlogsmonumenten/monumenten_zoeken/oorlogsmonument/2667
I've been unable to verify whether photo 1 was ever uploaded to this site, let alone under which licence. - Photo 2 is located here, with the caption "foto: Anneke Moerenhout CC BY-SA 4.0": https://www.4en5mei.nl/oorlogsmonumenten/monumenten_zoeken/oorlogsmonument/2668
Moerenhout said she has never given permission to 4en5mei.nl to reuse her photos, let alone under that Creative Commons licence. In fact, she has never communicated with 4en5mei.nl at all before finding out her photos were used. She has sent an email to request an admin at 4en5mei.nl to take it down, but hasn't had a response yet.
It could be that photo 1 was also published with the caption "foto: Anneke Moerenhout CC BY-SA 4.0" on 4en5mei.nl, but has been removed after September 2018; I find that likely. It looks like Hurkvanden reused the photos from there, because they uploaded the photos on Commons under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. Hurkvanden may have uploaded the photos in good faith, under the impression that 4en5mei.nl had been given Moerenhout's permission. Although Hurkvanden impersonated Moerenhout, this could be a beginner's error; besides these two photos they had only 1 other upload on Commons and that one is fine. I think an admin of 4en5mei.nl is at fault here for being careless in reusing Moerenhout's two photos without permission and adding a licence to them that was not provided on tracesofwar.nl. Moerenhout or her lawyer are able to provide more information if necessary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 07:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Drabdullayev17 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 1989 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Drabdullayev17: Do you have a source to show how this is copyvio? Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 07:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Most likely derivative work 1989 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 07:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Privatpersonen werden dargestellt; Fehlende Autorisierung der Weitergabe durch die dargestellten Personen 111.98.108.49 11:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Die Personen posieren eindeutig für das Foto. Und zwar offensichtlich nicht für eine Privataufnahme aus Erinnerungsgründen. So ist von einem Einverständnis zur Veröffentlichung auszugehen. Haster2 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 07:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not the actual logo 209.45.29.194 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: non-sense license. --JuTa 07:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Television channel logos
[edit]As I try to order and cleanup some of the logos that are in the Logos of Belgium category, I found several ones which are duplicates as users re-upload them without checking if they already exist or because they are low quality JPEGs and PNGs. To clear out the confusion that could occur, I asked to rename some of the ones that should be kept.
- File:VRT-Logo.svg is a self-vectored version of the file File:VRT_logo.svg
- File:Canvas-2015.svg is a duplicate of File:Canvas logo.svg
- File:Vlaamse-Televisie-Maatschappij-Logo.svg is a duplicate of File:VTM logo.svg
- File:Vtm logo.jpg low quality jpg
- File:VTM Logo.png does not respect the proper color scheme
- File:VTM Logo 2018.png is white on transparent makes it unusable (File:VTM logo new.svg has the appropriate colors)
- File:Logo BRUZZ.svg is white on transparent makes it unusable (File:BRUZZ logo.svg has the appropriate colors)
- File:Vrt logo.jpg is low resolution and poorly compressed, no longer in use
- File:VRT logo(2).png has poor sharpness and messy redirections (File:VRT logo.svg.png and File:VRT logo.png)
- File:Een logo.svg is a duplicate of File:VRT Eén logo.svg
- File:Een TV Logo.svg is a duplicate of File:VRT Eén logo.svg
- File:Radio1 new2014.jpg is a compressed JPG of a logo available in both PNG (File:Radio 1 Flandre logo 2014.png) and SVG (File:Radio 1 logo.svg) formats
- File:CAZ Logo.svg has already been posted by the same user under the name File:CAZ logo.svg that I corrected since then
- File:Vitaya-logo.svg has already been posted by the same user under the name File:Vitaya logo.svg
.png){kind=link}
--Vascer (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep
- File:CAZ Logo.svg Not a duplicate, different colours
- File:Canvas-2015.svg Not a duplicate, different colour
- File:Radio1 new2014.jpg Not a duplicate, includes slogan
Kept: not identical. --JuTa 07:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Similar to http://mairieadjame.net/ 1989 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: cant find it there. --JuTa 07:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
