Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/03/27
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
Because this image is ugly and it's copyrighted that which reassambles Golum and Yoda. 119.94.160.11 07:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Too ugly for image, please, I will delete this file for a second time. 119.94.163.193 12:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
This picture has ben used on Vikipedia "Counterfeit" page with remark "in Turkey". However, as can be seen on the column lower left of the image it was taken in Israel. ( Israeli flag "Sehild of David" and something written in Hebrew.) 103.255.6.107 08:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- KeepSpeedy close as nonsense DR. --Denniss (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept per Denniss. — Racconish 💬 10:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Too small. Dubious own work. Has this previously been deleted? E4024 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - speedy, previously deleted work. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Already deleted. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Ronhjones at 19:43, 27 März 2019 UTC: Previously deleted file File:3M-Saleh-Domais.png --Krdbot 02:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The uploader might be the author but the newspaper would hold copyright. If kept, permissions would need clarified.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also File:Kingston-times.png where the same permission issue will apply.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thank you, I'm looking for a proper fair use tag, but it looks like I need to wait before I have that permission. KingstonJournalist (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair use files are uploaded directly at Wikipedia and not at Commons. I'm not sure that this would necessarily qualify. @Diannaa: may be able to advise on that or on going through OTRS for proper permission.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC) - My opinion is that the image does not qualify for fair use, as the fact that articles were published has already been stated in the prose. The reader already has the opportunity to read the articles, since we've offered links to online copies. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Berean Hunter and Diannaa: I've removed the reference to this image from Wikipedia. Feel free to delete. Thank you! KingstonJournalist (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope WQL (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: (C) per watermark, copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Ronhjones (Talk) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
©2011 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; deleted as copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Poor-quality image (blurry, poorly lit, poorly framed, etc). Completely replaced in any educational use by File:CDTX 2116 with the Pacific Surfliner at San Diego, March 2019.jpg. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Trabalho próprio pelo carregador - falso, com certeza não é o criador ou dono da imagem / Own work by the loader - false, certainly not the creator or owner of the image O revolucionário aliado (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
MyNewsDesk.com is a Bad source per this Deletion Request Leoboudv (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you read the licens to the picture att MyNewsDesk.com it clearly says that the picture is free to use, as long as the creator is acknowledged. The picture has also a Creative Common recognition. I would say that this picture is perfectly ok for Wikipedia. LoveCervin (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
MyNewsDesk.com is a Bad source per this Deletion Request Leoboudv (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you read the licens to the picture att MyNewsDesk.com it clearly says that the picture is free to use, as long as the creator is acknowledged. The picture has also a Creative Common recognition. I would say that this picture is perfectly ok for Wikipedia. LoveCervin (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in self-promotion draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since). This portrait is possibly PD, so it is worth having an opportunity for further input. Green Giant (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:31, 29 März 2019 UTC: No license since 19 March 2019 --Krdbot 08:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
out of com:scope Wvdp (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
© 2016 Jason Alden Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there -- I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so I am not very clear on rules governing photos; many apologies. The photo of Max Lu is the property of the University of Surrey, for which Prof Lu and I both work; I have the University's permission to use the photo. Is the use of this photo not acceptable? If not, would you kindly indicate where I may find rules governing what kinds of photos may be used for a BLP profile? Thanks, and apologies again. 131.227.206.157 08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @131.227.206.157: You need to send permission for its use to OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:http://farsi.khamenei.ir
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: no evidence of a free license at http://farsi.khamenei.ir (see discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/08#Khamenei.ir_copyright_notice).
Extended content
|
---|
|
1989 (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- See bottom of this webpage, it's clearly written that "All Content by Khamenei.ir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."--Freshman404Talk 06:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- As was pointed out in the discussion linked above, the Khamenei.ir hypertext in that notice links specifically to the English subdomain, and the licence does not appear on the Persian-language version of the site. Ambiguous at best, and at the time was thought to cast sufficient doubt on images sourced from non-English pages there.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- As long as the English-language version of the website states that they are Creative Commons, we should keep these images. Applodion (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you think the English edition of khamenei.IR is more authoritative? 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- As long as the English-language version of the website states that they are Creative Commons, we should keep these images. Applodion (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- As was pointed out in the discussion linked above, the Khamenei.ir hypertext in that notice links specifically to the English subdomain, and the licence does not appear on the Persian-language version of the site. Ambiguous at best, and at the time was thought to cast sufficient doubt on images sourced from non-English pages there.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good lord, that's 2,000 images. Is there a way to make a bot that does a reverse image search on site:english.khamenei.ir to verify whether the images exist on the English language version of the site? GMGtalk 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all The license is general. It says 'Khamenei.ir' is under CC free license and does not restrict it to the En version of the site. --Mhhossein talk 12:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom as tagger. The license on the English site is for the English site. There is no license for the Persian "farsi" site. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "All Content by Khamenei.ir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." .Sicaspi (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The footer reads
All Content by <a href="http://english.khamenei.ir">Khamenei.ir</a> is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
. Note how they have provided a link to english.khamenei.ir rather than khamenei.ir. See also my comment at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-12#File:Ali_Khamenei_meets_with_Emir_of_Kuwait_Sabah_Al-Ahmad_02.jpg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC) - Keep The footer licences all content on the website under a CC license. The hypertext is just a convenience link to the english website, since the footer is in English; the written text makes clear the license applies to the entire site. Streamline8988 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The whole project, in all languages, is managed by same organization. Besides, footer says "All Content by Khamenei.ir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." It says Khamenei.ir, not just English domain. --Ahmadاحمد | Talk 20:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Source code of farsi.khamenei.ir
<meta name="copyright" content="© 2014 Khamenei.ir">
رتور (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that English version also has these two:
1.<div id="copyright" class="row"> 2.<meta name="copyright" content="" />
- Also, consider that Creative Commons is also a Copyright licence. See official website. --Ahmadاحمد | Talk 08:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Persian subdomain is copyrighted by meta tag. See also the source code of root domain of khamenei.ir. The whole website is copyrighted by:
<meta id="MetaCopyright" name="COPYRIGHT" content="تمامی حقوق برای دفتر حفظ و نشر آثار حضرت آيت الله العظمی سيد علی خامنه ای (مد ظله العالی) محفوظ است" />
that means: "All rights reserved" رتور (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)- Yes, it says all rights reserved, but in Khamenei.ir, not in other subdomains. For example, English version is under CC4, not "All rights reserved". About the meta tag of Persian version, that's true, but English version also has a Copyright meta tag. --Ahmadاحمد | Talk 16:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that English version also has these two:
- Comment This DR has been advertised at the Village Pump of Persian Wikipedia: fa:Special:Permalink/25778615#احتمال حذف ۲۰۰۰ تصویر khamenei.ir از ویکی انبار. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If anyone could contact the Persian "farsi" website and ask them to add the license, explaining that it's not clear to us. It will be perfect. Note that I already seen gallery pages about the same event/topic for the Persian and the English versions, the order of the images was not the same, at first glance there was a little more images, and in higher resolution in the English version, the address was completely unrelative. This did not concern the above images, and as I did several things at the same time I forgot to quote these pages to show you this example, sorry. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to contact them, but their "contact us" page is somehow... "semi-broken". I sent my message using two browsers, the page just refreshed, showed nothing else, so I'm not sure whether it was successful or not. --Ahmadاحمد | Talk 08:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Several users have tried to contact the website, but they do not seem to be responsive. This is true that different language editions of the website cover the same events. For example, here are the photo galleries of Ayatollah Khamenei's recent visit to the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, Iran on 21 March 2019 (= 1 Farvardin 1398, the first day of Persian New Year, a.k.a. Nowruz):
- I compared the images of galleries as far as I could and came to the conclusion that only the Persian edition of Khamenei.ir and Leader.ir publish original content. The English edition of Khamenei.ir republishes content from both the Persian edition of Kahmenei.ir and leader.ir.
- Here are some examples:
- 1a) [4] 2700×1800 pixels, khamenei.ir credit at the lower left corner, no indication of free release on the galley page.
- 1b) [5] 1024×683 pixels, khamenei.ir credit at the lower left corner, "fake" CC license on the galley page.
- 2a) [6] 2200×1467 pixels, leader.ir credit at the lower left corner, no indication of free release on the galley page.
- 2b) [7] 1024×683 pixels, leader.ir credit at the lower left corner, "fake" CC license on the galley page.
- 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per this discussion, 4nn1l2's comment here and COM:PCP (there is significant doubt about the freedom of these files). Hanooz 09:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The license for the images on the Persian site belongs to the Persian site. دن کیشوت (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- and what does it have to do with this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @دن کیشوت: Even if "Khamenei.ir" in English footer refers to English version (and not Persian), the Persian subdomain (Farsi.khamenei.ir) never said "All rights reserved" in footer, or source. Our problem is "licence". --Ahmadاحمد | Talk 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- These pictures have been uploaded based on the following template {{Khamenei}}. You guys have created it and people seeing it, spent time selecting pictures and uploading it here. Now all of a suden you are playing games which are not really meaningful. Be truthful to your own promises. Sicaspi (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ahecht, creator of that template. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep "All Content by Khamenei.ir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."--MehdiTalk 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per Hanooz's comment here. Poya-P (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The same content is released under two licenses; legally, the more restrictive one should apply. However, there is a chance that the website owners have posted inconsistent licenses in error, in which case it is best to not rush in closing this deletion request, and allow ample time just in case someone reports this to the website admins and they decided to ratify the issue. Huji (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There is no difference between here and here! GTVM92 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per رتور and Hanooz's comment here.--Mohamadr za (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment File:Ali Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani in funeral of Abbas Vaez-Tabasi.jpg has already an own discussion which should be solved before.--Sanandros (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some more files can be found here: Special:Search/insource:http://arabic.khamenei.ir & could be added to this discussion. رتور (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some more: Special:Search/insource:http://s15.khamenei.ir رتور (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I also would like to ask the closing admin to give this DR sufficient time (considering the current backlog, I suggest 3 months at least). There is a good chance that the copyright notice of the websites will be fixed. This saves us the trouble of undeleting these files in the near future. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Some of these images are from the 1980s and are PD per PD-Iran. They should be carefully reviewed before being deleted. Streamline8988 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment
All Content by <a href="http://farsi.khamenei.ir" dideo-checked="true">Khamenei.ir</a> is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" dideo-checked="true">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</a>.
is added to farsi.khamenei.ir رتور (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)- @رتور: Is that retroactive? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: See the footer of persian subdomain. CC BY 4.0 has been added today. رتور (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know, it's permanent or not. رتور (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- New footer claims all Content by persian subdomain. رتور (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @رتور: There seems to be nothing new (no free license) at the Arabic subdomain http://arabic.khamenei.ir/. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: True. There is no evidence of free license. رتور (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @رتور: There seems to be nothing new (no free license) at the Arabic subdomain http://arabic.khamenei.ir/. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @رتور: Is that retroactive? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC license was added to the Persian edition of the website. For files originating from other editions of the website, including the Arabic one, please open another DR. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
There is unfortunately no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: There is permission from copyright owner: ticket:2019032810009292. --Anatoliy (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
There is unfortunately no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: There is permission from copyright owner: ticket:2019032810007945. --Anatoliy (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Any metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by 1989 at 22:32, 31 März 2019 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
File:นายกรัฐมนตรีและภริยา ในนามรัฐบาลเป็นเจ้าภาพงานสโมสรสัน - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (40).jpg
[edit]Duplicate File:Princess Sirindhorn 2009-12-7 Royal Thai Government House 4.jpg Thyj (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate --Love Krittaya (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The file was uploaded from my hard drive by me. I am the copyright owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An Soegijo (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Picture is C & P, taken from website http://www.jakarta-berlin.de/de/a_bios/kbio.php?p=kb_banjar Ottomanisches Reich (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Chiya Guff is an innovative monthly open discussion platform developed by the CHIYA GUFF TEAM ( lead by SMRITI DHUNGANA) in 2014, where they interact on contemporary youth issues and social agenda in general o 2014-07-22 03-52.jpg
[edit]out of scope, self promotion of websites Pippobuono (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Okuryazarressamdilci yigit (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
a person on a photot asked for deletion PandoraGRV (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since). The uploader tried to add PD-old but then reverted themselves. I think it would be worth having an opportunity to have more input. Green Giant (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Photo was found in an old family album, and posted to the Hoy family website; do not know where or when taken or by whom; there is no evidence of a copyright. I should have simply described the picture as found on the internet. Hoy was an important missionary in Japan and China.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jcb. --Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
bad quality Oldtown ge (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Photo: JESUS FRANCISCO SANTOS SANTOS, permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
not encyclopedic Deror avi (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed it "is", however there is FBMD at MD. --E4024 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused and uncategorized image(s); if they are in scope I recognize my fault not to dig deeper. Sorry. E4024 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; out of scope. --Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(c)Marsel Badykshin, permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fashion4iran (talk · contribs)
[edit]OUT Of COM:SCOPE, https://insta-stalker.com/tag/fashion4iranian/
- File:کت سارافون شومیز و کراوات سبز کد 99 پارچه کرپ.jpg
- File:مانتو شلوار فرم کرپ سرمه ای کد 74 در سایت دنیای مد و لباس.jpg
- File:کت سارافون شومیز کد 99 پارچه کرپ.jpg
- File:مانتو شلورا فرم اداری کد 85 سوپر فیونا.jpg
- File:مانتو شلوار فرم کرپ زرشکی کد 74.jpg
- File:مانتو شلورا فرم کد 85 سوپر فیونا.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all as promotional. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(c)Olympia Orlova orlovastudio.ru, permission neeeded via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akshay0912 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:Shashisingh13.jpg
- File:Shashisingh1.jpg
- File:Shashisingh12.jpg
- File:Shashisingh4.jpg
- File:Shashisingh2.jpg
- File:Shashisingh5.jpg
- File:Shashisingh14.jpg
- File:Shashisingh8.jpg
- File:Shashi15.jpg
- File:Shashisingh6.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
accidentally sent; duplicate of File:Pt-força bruta.oga ~★ nmaia d 22:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Turelio. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by शुभम सिंह बाघेल (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:अयोध्या धर्म सभा में.jpg
- File:क्षत्रिय महासभा युवा के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष कु०अवनीश जी के साथ.jpg
- File:Nation First Voting Must.jpg
- File:लखनऊ विश्वविद्यालय में बैठक के दौरान.jpg
- File:Shubham Singh Baghel.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल छोटे भाई के साथ.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल abvp अवध प्रान्त.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल abvp.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल Abvp.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by शुभम सिंह बाघेल (talk · contribs)
[edit]per COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Personal/Private photo(s).
- File:वृक्षारोपण करते शुभम सिंह बाघेल.jpg
- File:वृक्षारोपण करते Shubham Singh Baghel.jpg
- File:वृक्षारोपण.jpg
- File:सामाजिक अनुभूति 2K19.jpg
- File:हिन्दू नव वर्ष की अनन्त शुभकामनाएं.jpg
- File:शुभम सिंह बाघेल,Abvp रायबरेली.jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by शुभम सिंह बाघेल (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images of a non-contributor. Out of scope.
- File:बल्केश्वर महादेव के दर्शन.jpg
- File:ABVP तहसील अभ्यास वर्ग.jpg
- File:भरत भैया(मधुवन विधानसभा) के साथ.jpg
- File:सारनाथ भ्रमण.jpg
Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 09:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
(c)Sven Wied, permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Permission of Ralf Rebmann, Bettina Ausserhofer and others needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-35.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-34.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-33.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-31.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-32.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-30.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-29.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-28.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-27.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-25.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-26.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-22.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-24.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-23.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-20.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-21.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-19.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-18.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-17.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-16.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-15.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-14.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-13.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-12.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-11.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-10.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-09.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-08.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-07.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-06.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-05.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-04.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-03.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-01.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2019-02.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 21.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 19.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 20.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 18.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 17.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 16.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 15.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 13.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 14.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 12.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 10.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 11.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 9.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 7.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 8.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 6.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 5.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 4.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 3.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 2.jpg
- File:Barcamp Open Science 2018 - 1.jpg
- File:Professor Klaus Tochtermann 2016.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS permission. --Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Outdated picture 2A02:1811:2D1C:2600:2863:47E0:C380:4A21 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Outdated picture 2A02:1811:2D1C:2600:2863:47E0:C380:4A21 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Outdated ain't no deletion reason. Feel free to provide a freely licenced updated image to be used on the article, if that would help. Edoderoo (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
© Zoe Jeanne Burrell / Greenpeace Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
blurred low quality photo Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The file is in use and we don't have many photos of PS4 Slim. // Liftarn (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Movie screenshot, copyvio. see EXIF shizhao (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- plus same image: File:佩雲.png--shizhao (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both. Copyvios.--Roy17 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
unencyclopedic photo. personal photo. Robertsky (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 05:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Bad alignment. Klein Muçi (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can fix that if it's your only gripe with it.2620:160:E308:0:0:0:0:C 12:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
MyNewsDesk.com is a Bad source per this Deletion Request The author is also Not Dr Ing but richard monning per the camera metadata. Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Also note that while it does not show up in a Google search, it is small and has no EXIF, therefore is likely not "owbn work" as claimed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal images of non-notable person. Also SPAM -- captions include a long biography.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyright: Adam Fisz, permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fantasy2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Flaccid penis 01.jpg
- File:A male ejaculation.jpg
- File:A male penis flaccid.jpg
- File:A male penis erected.jpg
- File:Glans penis of a 25 year old.jpg
- File:Human penis ejaculating.jpg
- File:Pre-cum.png
- File:Pre cum.png
- File:3rd burst during male ejaculation.png
- File:2nd burst during male ejaculation.png
- File:Ejaculation.png
Majora (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fantasy2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]More low quality penis pictures by an uploader of solely low quality penis pictures.
Ies (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on File:Male ejaculating.jpg, Delete on the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: both per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fantasy2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]More low quality dick picks from a user with already more than a dozen deleted low quality dick picks.
- File:Ejaculate seminal fluid.jpg
- File:Erected penis with down bending shape.jpg
- File:Ejaculate semen.png
GMGtalk 12:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Photo of photo, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Karlina Adikusumah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE images.
- File:RESUME PERFORM SENI USIK WIWTAN.pdf
- File:Karlina Adikusumah performance.jpg
- File:Transendental Process.jpg
- File:Soul Movement Transendental Process.jpg
- File:Transendental Processing by Karlina Adikusumah.jpg
- File:Original Painting "Usik Wiwitan Arts" and Soul Movement (transendental) by Karlina Adikusumah.jpg
- File:Meta Sukma by Karlina Adikusumah at Braga Arts Festival.jpg
- File:Seni Usik Wiwitan Soul & Movement by. Karlina Adikusumah.jpg
- File:Transendental, Painting & Movement "Usik Wiwitan Art".jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; some might be in scope but dubious claims of own work. --Gbawden (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyright [8] sᴋᴇᴘsɪᴢ (обс.) 13:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
© 2017 FHQ Records Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well know picture taken from the internet. No evidence that the picture has been released under CC Pugilist (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alex Sastoque (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE (:es:Alex Sastoque).
- File:COLOMBIAN ARTIST ALEX SASTOQUE - ART.jpg
- File:Ernst Fuchs, Alex Sastoque, Amanda Sage Grito del Tequendama Óleo sobre lienzo, pantallla animación 3D 180 x 140 cm 2012.jpg
- File:Alex Sastoque Jaguarman Óleo y acrílico sobre lienzo 300 x 166 cm 2013 -2017.jpg
- File:Maestro Alex Sastoque.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ARTIST , ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE ART 2019 , nAturAlezA CuántiCA del tiemPo en el Arte.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ARTIST , ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE ART 2019 , LATIN AMERICAN ART.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ARTIST , ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE ART 2019.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART , JONATHAN SASTOQUE ART , ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE ART 2019.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE AND JONATHAN SASTOQUE , ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE ART 2019.jpg
- File:Alex Sastoque MONUMENTAL Dove Acero ensamblado sobre palas de hierro 288 x 233 x 144 cm 2015.jpg
- File:Alex Sastoque Dove Acero ensamblado sobre cucharas 60 x 60 x 33 cm 2016.jpg
- File:Alex Sastoque Dove Acero ensamblado sobre palas de hierro 288 x 233 x 144 cm 2015.jpg
- File:Alex Sastoque Colibrí Acero ensamblado sobre cucharas 30 x 30 x 30 cm 2017.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE GALLERY ARTIST.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , , AMANDA SAGE , JONATAHN SASTOQUE SASTOQUE GALLERY.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , JONATHAN SASTOQUE ART , EDGAR NEGRET , TIBADUIZA , SASTOQUE GALLERY.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE GALLERY , EDGAR NEGRET.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE GALLERY, ART.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART STUDIO , SASTOQUE GALLERY.jpg
- File:METAMORPHOSIS, LET'S CULTIVATE PEACE , ALEX SASTOQUE PALA.jpg
- File:METAMORFOSIS, CULTIVEMOS LA PAZ , ALEX SASTOQUE.jpg
- File:METAMORFOSIS, CULTIVEMOS LA PAZ , ALEX SASTOQUE ART.jpg
- File:JONATHAN SASTOQUE, ALEX SASTOQUE, DAVID CAMARGO.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE U JAVERIANA.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ARTE.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE ART.jpg
- File:ALEX SASTOQUE.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: In Scope potentially but needs permission from the artist of each work under FOP rules. --Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of project scope Migebert (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Wyshmaster.jpg could be deleted. An updated photo was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslieamelia (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete again please. (What else can I add?) E4024 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Closing admin, please read the TP of the file before acting. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Autumnalberend (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrés Nicolás Arce (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical magazine covers. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:El-periodista-n135-abr87-juan-pablo-iivaticanopapa-D NQ NP 15912-MLA20112005971 062014-F.jpg
- File:El-periodista-n165-nov87-caida-salariobambino-veira-D NQ NP 15967-MLA20112187193 062014-F.jpg
- File:El-periodista-n1-nov87-especial-revolucion-1917-1987-D NQ NP 15989-MLA20112188944 062014-F.jpg
- File:El-periodista-n156-sep87-bussiprocesode-la-sota-D NQ NP 15937-MLA20112018743 062014-F.jpg
- File:Elperiodista1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrés Nicolás Arce (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete coopyvios. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; dubious claim of own work. --Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Terrellgarnett (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It is a C & P taken from webite https://www.robingrafie.de/expedition-humanity/ Ottomanisches Reich (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Proposed for speedy delition by Andrei Stroe as copyvio from https://www.4tuning.ro/poze/poze-stiri-76/am-facut-1200-km-prin-dobrogea-si-am-aflat-ca-romania-e-frumoasa-19959-poza-416824.html#lg=1&slide=60 I am relisting it as normal delition request because the username matches the photographer's name. This will give him the time to send an otrs ticket. Strainu (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also applies to File:Farul vechi din Sulina.jpg Strainu (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep both. License confirmed, OTRS ticket number is 2019032810002119. Images tagged. —Andreitalk 16:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Now has OTRS permission. --Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Previously published at https://twitter.com/CoachOCook/status/1110402803346792448 and likely not taken by the player himself. Needs more complete source info and an OTRS ticket Ytoyoda (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; deleting as a precaution. --Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"FBMD" in EXIF means previously published on Facebook, needs OTRS verification Ytoyoda (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If this is a screenshot, as indicated in the EXIF, needs more information on its source. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Atlaskirtasiye (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Kız çocuk oyuncakları, erkek çocuk oyuncakları, bebek oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Erkek-kiz-cocuk-oyuncaklari-atlaskirtasiye-com.jpg
- File:Kitap-cesitleri-atlaskirtasiye-com.jpg
- File:Kitap-kirtasiye-oyuncak-1.jpg
- File:Kitap-kirtasiye-oyuncak-5.jpg
- File:Oyuncak-magazasi-atlaskirtasiye.jpg
- File:Atlaskirtasiye-banner.jpg
- File:Kitap, kırtasiye oyuncak.jpg
- File:Lgs, yks, tyt, ayt, yayınevleri adına aradığınız tüm kitap ve test çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Ortaokul tüm yardımcı kitap kaynakları çevrimiçi mağazalarımızda.jpg
- File:Konu anlatım ve ders kitapları çevrimiçi mağazalarımızda sizleri bekliyor.jpg
- File:Ilkokul yardımcı kitapların tek adresi, en uygun fiyatlar bizde.jpg
- File:Ilkokul tüm sınıflara ait yardımcı kitaplar bizde.jpg
- File:Yayın evlerine ait aradığınız tüm yardımcı kitaplar, konu anlatım kitapları.jpg
- File:Soru bankası ve deneme sınavları adına aradığınız tüm kitaplar.jpg
- File:Tüm dersler, konu anlatım, cep kitapları, çıkmış sorular adına aradığınız tüm kitaplar ve testler.jpg
- File:1.sınıf, 2.sınıf, 3.sınıf, 4.sınıf, .sınıf yardımcı kitaplar.jpg
- File:Zeka geliştirici oyuncakve lego çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Lgs yks ayt tyt yardımcı kitaplar.jpg
- File:Lise yardımcı kitaplar, ortaöğretim yardımcı kitaplar.jpg
- File:Bi dünya marka bulunduran firma kitap, kırtasiye, oyuncak, yardımcı kitap, test kitapları, fasiküller.jpg
- File:Okul öncesi eğitici öğretici kitaplar.jpg
- File:Eğitici yardımcı kitaplar okul öncesi kitaplar.jpg
- File:Kırtasiye malzemeleri kalem kırtasiye çanta suluk.jpg
- File:Çocuklar için dikkat çekici puzzle oyuncak çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Puzzle oyuncak çeşitleri yetişkinler ve çocuklar için.jpg
- File:Kız çocukları için bebek oyuncakları birbirinden güzel sevimli.jpg
- File:Okul malzemeleri adına aradığınız herşey.jpg
- File:Kitap, kırtasiye, oyuncak çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Ilkokul yardımcı kitaplar.jpg
- File:Kırtasiye ürünleri toptan.jpg
- File:Yardımcı kitaplar.jpg
- File:Tavuk horoz oyuncakları kız çocuk erkek çocuk.jpg
- File:Eğitici oyuncak çeşitleri kız çocuk erkek çocuk.jpg
- File:Harika oyuncak çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Kız çocuk erkek çocuk kamyon araba oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Kız erkek çocuk gitar oyuncak çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Rengarenk kız erkek oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Kız çocuk erkek çocuk sevimli arkadaşlar.jpg
- File:Kız Çocuk bebek oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Sevimli oyuncaklar.jpg
- File:Birbirinden güzel eğlenceli şirin kostümler.jpg
- File:Birbirinden şirin kız erkek çocuk oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Erkek çocuklar için ilgi çeken oyuncak arkadaşlar.jpg
- File:Erkek çocukları için rengarenk kostümler.jpg
- File:Kız çocukları için rengarenk kostümler.jpg
- File:Dikkat çekici bebek oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Oyuncak Gitar çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Rengarenk oyuncaklar.jpg
- File:Oyuncak Çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Her yaşa uygun oyuncak.jpg
- File:Puzzle oyuncak çeşitleri.jpg
- File:Erkek Çocuk Oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Bebek Oyuncakları.jpg
- File:Kız Çocuk Oyuncakları 01.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- +1 Out of Project scope --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Request by uploader. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Request by uploader. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Request by uploader. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Request by uploader. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Request by uploader. Alireza.Azamifar (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by МансурХароныч (talk · contribs)
[edit]Already deleted, no permission.
- File:Межидов Сайд-Хусин Абдурахманович.png
- File:Магомадов Куйри Ахмедович.jpg
- File:Куриев Асхаб Кюриевич.jpg
- File:Кантаев Абдул-Муслим Магомедович.png
- File:Адам Яхьяев.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. Paul_012 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio --Love Krittaya (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Youngmoonpark (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Youngmoonpark (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens - House owner objected to public use Peli (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens - house owner objected to public use of this image Peli (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens - owner objects to public use Peli (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens - Owner objected to public use of this image Peli (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thats absolute nonsense because the house was newly build on an old castle site in the 1990s. Ofcourse the design is new since there is not even a drawing or print of the old castle available, afaik. This file should be removed because the owner of this house and garden did not give me permissions to take pictures for public use, and as stated the German jusisdiction tells us that there is no FOP in private gardens. Peli (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens - Owner objected to public use of this image Peli (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens and the owner objects to public use of this imagePeli (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In Germany there is no FOP in private gardens, owner objects to public use. Peli (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: the architect of this building has died centuries ago. --Jcb (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
personal image that is unused, out of scope. Dubious copyright status also as we can't know the photographer does releases rights. Cohaf (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
There has been no evidence presented that the toys are public domain.
For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests: Petit tigre, Erminig, Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush, Wikimania 2014 Day 1, Jimmy Wales meeting Mr Penguin.
- File:Guin at Wikimania 2017.jpg
- File:Hackathon at Wikimania 2017 - KTC 96.jpg
- File:Part of Cuteness Association in Wikimania 2017 2.jpg
- File:Part of Cuteness Association in Wikimania 2017.jpg
- File:Pookie at Wikimania.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7489.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7490.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7491.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7492.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7494 1.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Closing ceremony, ArmAg (5).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Closing ceremony, ArmAg (7).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Closing ceremony, ArmAg (8).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Closing ceremony, ArmAg (9).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (121).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (122).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (123).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (127).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (136).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (158).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (159).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (160).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (161).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (162).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (163).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (164).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (166).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (167).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (168).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (169).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (171).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (174).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (175).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (176).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (180).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (182).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (187).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (188).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (189).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (190).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (191).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (192).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (194).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (196).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - KTC (197).jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Wikimedia 2030 panel 7554.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 - Wikimedia 2030 panel 7555.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 by Deryck day 3 - 08 Wikimedia Cuteness Association.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 by Deryck day 3 - 09 Wikimedia Cuteness Association.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 by Deryck day 3 - 10 Wikimedia Cuteness Association.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7912.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7916.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7918.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7923.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7932.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7934.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7940.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7942.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7943.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7945.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7949.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7952.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7957.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7958.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7966.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7972.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7974.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7979.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7982.jpg
- File:Wikimania 2017 Cuteness Association meetup 7996.jpg
- File:Wikimania 20170811-7601.jpg
- File:Wikimania 20170811-7603.jpg
- File:WMNL mascot 7768.jpg
Fæ (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all. The purpose of these photographs is to document Wikimania 2017, not to describe the toys in question. Therefore these fulfil the requirement of de minimis incidental inclusion. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- This would be a very special way to define de minimis, that presumably you only expect to apply to Wikimania. In the example of File:Guin at Wikimania 2017.jpg, the filename has a focus on "Guin" the toy penguin, the center of the photograph and its focus is "Guin", the description (that you wrote) explains that the photograph is about "Guin". Given these circumstances it is difficult to understand how the photograph should now not be about the copyrighted toy penguin, but somehow about something else.
- However if you want to supplement our guideline COM:DM with a copyright law exemption for Wikimania or other WMF funded events, then please do make a proposal for the community to discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- What about File:Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2018 Second Day 27.jpg; this is also about toys and Wikimeetings, DR'ed, and speedily kept? --E4024 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, that DR keep makes no sense in terms of copyright or Commons policies. If you are interested in past DRs related to toys, please help yourself to those in Category:Toys related deletion requests, the vast majority ending in deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would have a problem with the ones focusing on an individual toy, such as File:Wikimania 2017 - Building a Better Dispute Resolution System 7491.jpg. Many of the other ones which are focusing on another subject but happen to include toys, you can argue as incidental and/or de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As a pro photographer I strive to respect copyright law, but as a human who could use more cuteness in their life this mass nomination depresses me. Funcrunch (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- People taking toys with them, in order to have them photographed at Wikimania, has been discussed many times. There were several people who crocheted their own 'mascots' and avoided any issues of copyright as a result, so Commons hosts many of those photographs. Creating and celebrating "open" copyright free mascots for events, seems an ideal approach rather than creating photographs which can not be legitimately shared on our "open" projects. --Fæ (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Copyright law has a way of ruining lots of things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment We should carefully consider each image. At least some of these images could classify as COM:DM. --MB-one (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- This. Also, I don't think the definition of toy has changed significantly since the last time I checked. — Yerpo Eh? 08:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have to tag @PierreSelim: on this. Léna (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- This. Also, I don't think the definition of toy has changed significantly since the last time I checked. — Yerpo Eh? 08:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep need to provide actual evidence of copyright infringement. or you might well be renowned as being "not cute". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep As per Slowking4. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Great. Can we get a proposal together to permanently change COM:L and COM:PRP to make an exception to copyright for when the photographer is a friend of ours?
- Or in baby speak that middle aged Wikipedians seem to need at open knowledge conferences:
- Please help me. My mummy works hard making toys for other children. She has seen her toys being used by Wikimedia to promote their projects and we cry together because nobody cares about giving her credit for her work and we cannot afford to pay a lawyer. Please nice Wikipedians, read the label my mummy stitches on her toys, and give my mummy credit for her work so that future children can enjoy her cute toys.
- --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- on the contrary, i have been pretty consistent decrying the biting of everyone here. (i.e. [9]) and the fact thick skinned veterans know the ropes to contest is a bias. as a prolific contributor, why do you stoop to this battleground? do you hate cuteness, as treacle and facebook? it is not harming your images in use. surely you grow tired of the endless copyright purity; wouldn't you agree we need a standard of practice, that triages licenses from higher risk to lower risk? and aren't these low risk? -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Low risk? That's a strange statement, these toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted. As a commonly purchased item for children, stuffed toys are a massive global commercial market and their copyright is vigorously defended. Any photograph focusing on a modern child's toy needs to meet COM:TOYS. There's no room for doubt and wiggle room, where the focus of a photograph is on the toy, we must be able to verify that there is no copyright issue.
- "These toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted" are you sure? I've just looked at a random selection of seven of our plush toys and only three of them had an explicit copyright statement on the label (Keel Toys, Card Factory and Nickelodeon), the others (ZSL/London Zoo, George Home/ASDA, Whimsy and Suma Collection/Ravensden PLC) make no statement of copyright at all (although the "Suma Collection" logo is noted as a trademark). They are probably copyrighted but that is not certain and anyway the presence or absence of an explicit copyright statement is irrelevant to whether the toy is deminimus in any given photograph. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- it is not strange at all: low risk as opposed to scans of paintings in German museums. this community decided to take on real risk of lawsuit with PD-art to push an ideology. how do you want to spend your time? curating images by seeking out those that pose a risk to uploaders and reuser, or endlessly bloviate about edge cases, where you do not have a consensus? hard to calculate tail risk, but show me the toy DMCA or lawsuit, and we will know what the risk is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- "These toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted" are you sure? I've just looked at a random selection of seven of our plush toys and only three of them had an explicit copyright statement on the label (Keel Toys, Card Factory and Nickelodeon), the others (ZSL/London Zoo, George Home/ASDA, Whimsy and Suma Collection/Ravensden PLC) make no statement of copyright at all (although the "Suma Collection" logo is noted as a trademark). They are probably copyrighted but that is not certain and anyway the presence or absence of an explicit copyright statement is irrelevant to whether the toy is deminimus in any given photograph. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- If "cuteness" == "ignoring copyright", then yes it is disruptive and undermines this project's policies. --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Low risk? That's a strange statement, these toys are purchased with labels on them stating they are copyrighted. As a commonly purchased item for children, stuffed toys are a massive global commercial market and their copyright is vigorously defended. Any photograph focusing on a modern child's toy needs to meet COM:TOYS. There's no room for doubt and wiggle room, where the focus of a photograph is on the toy, we must be able to verify that there is no copyright issue.
- on the contrary, i have been pretty consistent decrying the biting of everyone here. (i.e. [9]) and the fact thick skinned veterans know the ropes to contest is a bias. as a prolific contributor, why do you stoop to this battleground? do you hate cuteness, as treacle and facebook? it is not harming your images in use. surely you grow tired of the endless copyright purity; wouldn't you agree we need a standard of practice, that triages licenses from higher risk to lower risk? and aren't these low risk? -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Slowking. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete those that focus on one or a group of toys (even if there are cookies or glasses next to them) -- it is fairly clear when the photographers is taking a photo of cute toys and not of a speaker. I don't think it is reasonable to delete a speaker who happens to be holding a toy or has some toys in front of them, for the same reason we don't worry if a t-shirt has a copyright design or there is a painting behind someone. However, if we have two similar photos but in one they are holding their mascot, then I don't really see the argument for including the latter on Commons. Tbh, all this toy/mascot stuff belongs on Facebook, not Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This gallery may help. Here are two toys, do they fail to meet COM:PRP and are there good copyright reasons to keep one and not the other? --Fæ (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Photograph of a toy not taken at Wikimania
-
Photograph of a toy taken at Wikimania
- Keep I've checked a random sample, and most meet de minimis. If the nominator wishes to re-nominate those that do not, that's up to them, but it's not incumbent on me nor any other volunteer to do so, in response to such a scattergun proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Andy, a better approach will be to celebrate that we can legitimately ignore copyright of these toys. We could use them to illustrate future project merchandise, like t shirts, or editathon promotions. The tiger, penguin and the giraffe toys are especially useful to presume as public domain. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fae, you have successfully missed every single point raised by Andy's comment. If you're happy with that, then it's fine, but if you actually care about copyright you'd do far better to explain why each of these images is not deminimus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Burden of evidence is on keep, not delete. If anyone thinks the toy giraffe has no copyright, they should provide evidence. Policy does not require chocolate teapots. PRP. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody is claiming the giraffe (or any of the other toys) has no copyright - that's a straw man. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Huh, "straw man", is not a way to dismiss basic copyright law in a DR. Copyright law is not my opinion. Copyright law is not a straw man. On the other hand what you are doing is logical fallacy 101, you are demanding chocolate teapots, by demanding proof of copyright protection for any photograph on Commons that gets put up for deletion, rather than accepting the precautionary principle exists and is supported by community consensus.
- If we respect Carl's opinion, then every photograph with fewer than 6 toys in it should be deleted as failing de minimis.
- However, unless Wikipedians have special privileges on Commons for hosting their personal collections of photographs, this also means that in future for anybody to get around copyright law, they only need to get six objects in a photograph and make the identical claim for how to understand "de minimis" in any country, for any variation of copyright act.
- Damn handy, and it should be enshrined in Commons policies. If nobody else does it, I'll put it up as a proposal for a policy change.
- Examples in the listed files in this DR that fail the "Carl test":
- 1 toy
- 3 toys
- 4 toys
- --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Once again that's a straw man - nobody is arguing that these toys do not have copyright protection. You assert these all photographs with copyrightable plush toys in are copyright violations because plush toys are copyrightable objects. Others have responded with "yes, plush toys are copyrightable, but these images are not copyright violations because the copyrightable objects are deminimus." and/or "these images are not copyright violations because the work is transformative.". The precautionary principle states: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (italics in the original, bolding mine), it does not state that all files one person asserts are copyright violations should be deleted. Your job now, if you want to see these images deleted, is to rebut the assertions that the copyrightable objects in these individual files are not deminimus and the work is not transformative. You have not done this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not my "job" thanks.
- If the community consensus is that we should ignore copyright, for copyrighted toys taken to Wikimania, then let's keep them. But let's also fix policy to make it clear that Wikimania photographs, or perhaps photographs taken at all WMF funded events, are a special exception to Commons policies and copyright law. We can then create a release template to make it clear. It makes sense for the same exception to apply to WMF employee photographs, making them immune to deletion requests.
- By the way, the "transformative" argument, means that Wikimedia Commons now accepts photograph uploads under a Fair Use copyright release. We should add that explicitly to COM:L if that is going to become a new type of exception. --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop with the straw men! People are not arguing for special treatment or for copyright to be ignored, they are actually just arguing that these should be treated the same as any other image that contains copyrighted (or potentially copyrighted) objects - they are examined individually to see whether the copyrighted image is deminimus or not, and/or whether some other reason applies and kept or deleted depending on that determination. Whether the copyright object is a toy or something else is not relevant. Whether the image was taken at a WMF event or not is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hang on, exclamation marks do not prove a case. You literally just stated "because the work is transformative" is a valid rationale to keep photographs of toys. That is not a strawman, those are your words. Please point to where in Commons policies we will keep photographs of copyright works under a fair use transformative rationale. Either stick to policy or make a proposal to change policy, but do not argue against copyright law and expect to win a prize when you exhaust everyone else and scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations. That's not how Commons should make decisions about copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Transformative is not my argument (de minimus is) but you are missing the point yet again. Your assertion is that "all images with copyrightable toys in are copyright violations." This argument is fully refuted by the counter argument that "In some images copyrightable toys are de minimus and so not all images featuring them are copyright violations." The question is then, is the copyrightable toy in each individual image de minimus? Several people have asserted that in either some or all of these images the toy or toys are deminimus - the only way to refute this is by looking at each individual image and making a judgement - but you have not done this, you have just repeated your initially argument that is fully refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Repasting other people's faulty arguments, apparently expecting me to respond to them, while repeatedly claiming "strawman!" is not helping this DR.
- If you now are saying that the fair use transformative argument is rubbish, please state that clearly, rather that using it as a way to game the system and take this DR on fake copyright tangents.
- Please link to a diff where I stated "all images with copyrightable toys in are copyright violations", if you just made it up, please strike it as it is a deliberately misleading fake quotation.
- Honestly, you appear to be blatantly gaming. If you quote me again, please supply the diff or I will continue to call you out as creating fake evidence. --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the "transformative fair use argument" is or is not rubbish - I'm saying that other people have used images being transformative as a reason why (some of) the copyrighted toys in the images are de minimus. They may or may not be correct but you have not attempted to refute the argument. As for your claims re images of copyrighted toys, it is a reasonable paraphrase of several of your posts in this discussion, including your opening nomination statement, where you completely ignore de minimus. I am not gaming, I'm trying to get you to actually listen to other people in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Transformative is not my argument (de minimus is) but you are missing the point yet again. Your assertion is that "all images with copyrightable toys in are copyright violations." This argument is fully refuted by the counter argument that "In some images copyrightable toys are de minimus and so not all images featuring them are copyright violations." The question is then, is the copyrightable toy in each individual image de minimus? Several people have asserted that in either some or all of these images the toy or toys are deminimus - the only way to refute this is by looking at each individual image and making a judgement - but you have not done this, you have just repeated your initially argument that is fully refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hang on, exclamation marks do not prove a case. You literally just stated "because the work is transformative" is a valid rationale to keep photographs of toys. That is not a strawman, those are your words. Please point to where in Commons policies we will keep photographs of copyright works under a fair use transformative rationale. Either stick to policy or make a proposal to change policy, but do not argue against copyright law and expect to win a prize when you exhaust everyone else and scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations. That's not how Commons should make decisions about copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop with the straw men! People are not arguing for special treatment or for copyright to be ignored, they are actually just arguing that these should be treated the same as any other image that contains copyrighted (or potentially copyrighted) objects - they are examined individually to see whether the copyrighted image is deminimus or not, and/or whether some other reason applies and kept or deleted depending on that determination. Whether the copyright object is a toy or something else is not relevant. Whether the image was taken at a WMF event or not is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Once again that's a straw man - nobody is arguing that these toys do not have copyright protection. You assert these all photographs with copyrightable plush toys in are copyright violations because plush toys are copyrightable objects. Others have responded with "yes, plush toys are copyrightable, but these images are not copyright violations because the copyrightable objects are deminimus." and/or "these images are not copyright violations because the work is transformative.". The precautionary principle states: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (italics in the original, bolding mine), it does not state that all files one person asserts are copyright violations should be deleted. Your job now, if you want to see these images deleted, is to rebut the assertions that the copyrightable objects in these individual files are not deminimus and the work is not transformative. You have not done this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody is claiming the giraffe (or any of the other toys) has no copyright - that's a straw man. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Burden of evidence is on keep, not delete. If anyone thinks the toy giraffe has no copyright, they should provide evidence. Policy does not require chocolate teapots. PRP. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fae, you have successfully missed every single point raised by Andy's comment. If you're happy with that, then it's fine, but if you actually care about copyright you'd do far better to explain why each of these images is not deminimus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Andy, a better approach will be to celebrate that we can legitimately ignore copyright of these toys. We could use them to illustrate future project merchandise, like t shirts, or editathon promotions. The tiger, penguin and the giraffe toys are especially useful to presume as public domain. --Fæ (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Maor X (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice to individual nominations of those images which are arguably not deminimus with a specific explanation of why the nominator believes that image is a copyright violation.. Most of these are clearly fine, so a mass nomination this large is not appropriate - it has long been established in actual court cases that simply containing a possibly copyrighted object does not necessarily mean the photograph is a derivative work - consideration needs to be given to the content and circumstances of each image. Commons does not benefit from the deletion of works that are in scope and not copyright violations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Please quit using Wikimedia community insider status as a channel for seeking special privileges in intentionally and overtly circumventing the copyright law which the Wikimedia platform seeks to respect. Let's leave the past behind and please take the Cuteness Association forward in the only viable direction it can exist: either use public domain art or fundraise to buy an original stuffed animal artwork from Etsy from an artist, and acquire the copyright to that work. This association is behaving highly irrationally for no obvious reason and flouting the rules is not model behavior. The group behind this really could do well by respecting artists, copyright, and designers and teaching these respect to others by using stuffed animals and artwork with Wikimedia compatible licensing. Please do the right thing, cease erroneous ways, and start over with respect to cuteness and copyright! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no "association". It's just @PierreSelim: @JeanFred: and I who brought our plushies at Wikimedia events fo a variety of reasons, and other Wikimedians liked this and started bringing their own stuffed animals and taking pictures. Léna (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep most, transformative or de minimus. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03 30 March 2019 (GMT). 21:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fae, all files in Commons must have equal treatment; toys, rabbis, imams, WMF people. Please show me any WMF person whose personal image has a dubious status and I will propose it for deletion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete those to be deleted as in similar cases and keep those which are PD (DM etc) as in similar cases. I would boldly call in a voluntary admin to begin deleting the files not acceptable per COM:TOYS, even before closing the DR, as absolutely we will not make any discrimination among contributors here. That way the issue will be solutioned more pragmatically, easier and quicker. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: My understanding is that these are "mascots" (see Wikimedia mascots) and that it is customary to bring them to events, and pose them as if they are Wikimedians taking part in Wikipedia. The earliest mascot I am aware of is Rory(WMF), dating back to 2012, whose job description was to "provide moral support". I routinely photograph Wikimedia events for the purpose of documenting outreach. Twenty-seven of the images proposed for deletion were contributed by me. They were all taken during Wikimania in Montreal, and the category was created by me as well, so the people I photographed would be able to find them after the event. I was asked to email photos but there is no way I would have been able to find the time for all of that, and the alternative was not to share the photos. I don't know why this category is being singled out for deletion out of all the other mascot and plushie categories and sub-categories, and I don't know how anyone who was not at the event was even able to find the photos. They are not marked or categorized by company or manufacturer, in a way that could be found by search engine, or labeled as toys, only by the Wikimedia event, in a fairly esoteric subcategory tree. The "meetup" was an impromptu gathering after the official Wikimania photo, when individuals with mascots hung around and started taking selfies of themselves with their mascots. I simply stayed around and took photos of whatever was going on at the time, to show what happens at Wikimania. Many Wikimedians do have fond memories of these events and want to remember them. The photo of the giraffe was taken at the request of a young Wikimedian from the Netherlands who I requested to photograph, but she wanted me to photograph the animal instead, which she told me was the official mascot of WMNL. I think she wanted to show her Wikipedia group at home. She posed it for me (on top of a piano I think), but later I saw she took some photos of her own with a cellphone, which have since been deleted, as were the other photos I took for her. The photo was definitely not taken to advertise a particular brand of giraffe.
I do not consider myself to have some kind of special "community insider status". I traveled to Wikimania at my own expense, and even though I was invited to present, I could not get a waiver of the conference fees. The camera equipment likewise was purchased at my own expense. We have asked the WMF for help with travel expense and camera lenses, but were refused a grant.
Likewise I do not consider taking photos at Wikimania to be an act of "intentionally circumventing copyright law". If there is anyone who is intentionally putting these animals on lecterns and so forth to destroy copyright law as we know it, I am not aware of it. We work very hard to understand the complex and ever-changing copyright and fair use rules, and have traveled to the Library of Congress National Book Festival, again at our own expense, to obtain photographs of authors suitable for Wikipedia. If these are invited by the LOC they are probably all "notable". Even so, my images are sometimes removed from articles. If someone just wants to remove one of my photos and replace it with one of say, Slowking's, for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with that, but for example my photo for Sylvia Acevedo, the CEO of the Girl Scouts was rejected for Wikipedia, also Brian Selznick and Jewell Parker Rhodes, whose articles do not have any photo at all. Trying to contribute to Wikipedia can be like death by a thousand cuts.
If someone wants to delete these mascot photos, please do a thorough search and delete them all at once, instead of a steady drip drip drip of negative messages on my talk page. I am adding a few more representative photos containing mascots, for comparison.
I have tried to look for some of these on google image search and tineye, but I cannot find any information about them, and they do not seem to be recognizable, like a Pokémon or Barbie or even a knockoff of a known brand. They do not look like characters, just generic animals. I am also trying to visualize some CEO deciding to sue Wikipedia for taking pictures of our volunteers enjoying their products, and how that would play out as a PR device, and I can't visualize that either. Instead of going after individual photographers piecemeal, it might be better to address the issue, whatever it is, on a more systemic level, either prohibit these at events altogether or provide some system for vetting the animals. It is not clear how anyone can show that "a toy is in the public domain" or what public domain has to do with copyright. I really don't see buying a copyright as a viable alternative, how would you choose a firm to provide mascots to represent Wikipedia, or would you just ask for a donation and list them as a sponsor? These are not just products either, that can be interchanged like light bulbs, any more than people can interchange their children with someone else's. If you watch people with them, the mascots are more like family members, people regard them more like pets or companions. Avery Jensen (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- This DR is not one of "complex and ever-changing copyright and fair use rules", as the copyright law it is related to (commercially produced toys) has not changed for decades. The first image in your gallery is a copyright violation, the others are either considered reasonable because the toys are neither the focus of the photograph and are visually a minor component of the photograph, or there are no toys visible in them.
- To avoid the 'drip drip drip', rather than leaving volunteers to discover and review copyright violations, when you press your button, make sure you understand what copyrighted materials you are photographing and the features of copyright law in the country you are taking the photograph in. Knowing whether freedom of panorama exists in the country you are photographing in, is something that it is reasonable to expect a good photographer to have an understanding of.
- By the way, the toy tiger was probably purchased from "Wild Republic", try a Google image search on "Wild Republic Tiger Cuddlekins Toys". However as has always been the case, a Wikimedian who works with the chapter or group that brought it to the meeting, could be asked to look at the label, or just say where they bought it from. The burden of evidence for copyright remains on the uploader, not the few Commons volunteers with an interest in verifying copyright of our collections. --Fæ (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- yeah, it is the burden to continually justify an upload 2 years later. and uploader bears the risk of lawsuit. which of course is why you waited, since attentions move on.
- Fæ - you went to wikimania london; i take it you are never going to a meetup again? because dumping on those who do, might get you unloved? i invite you to enter into a spirit of collaboration, helping uploaders meet your standards beforehand, not deleting years after the fact. you can continue down this road, but it will be a lonely one. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- This looks like a rather personal and threatening sounding attack on the nominator, don't you think? A pattern of "scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations" should be avoided as unhealthy. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- not an attack: a prediction. we have a surplus of battleground deletionists; we see the continual scaring aware of new uploaders. we know what a broken, unhealthy community looks like - perhaps you would care to behave in a healthy way. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are wrong Slowking4. When you wrote "Fæ - you went to wikimania london; i take it you are never going to a meetup again?", this appears threatening and personal, a comment you would expect to come from someone stalking you.
- The wording appears deliberately chosen to make me feel unsafe to ever physically attend a Wikimedia funded event to meet other Wikimedians, and implicitly anyone else that might be interested in Wikimedia funded events and might think it reasonable to create a deletion request about copyrighted toys at Wikimedia events.
- This is not an overreaction, this a factual reading of your text above, and the words you are choosing fit every conventional definition of harassment. --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- there are consequences for behavior: if you do not play nice with others, you should expect others not to play with you. you want to call that harassment, go for it. it is an environment of your own making. your lack of attendance is notable. the world wonders. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- not an attack: a prediction. we have a surplus of battleground deletionists; we see the continual scaring aware of new uploaders. we know what a broken, unhealthy community looks like - perhaps you would care to behave in a healthy way. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This looks like a rather personal and threatening sounding attack on the nominator, don't you think? A pattern of "scare away our few unpaid volunteers that help out with identifying copyright violations" should be avoided as unhealthy. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:TOYS, and PRP. Copyright law trumps "photos of Wikimedia events are inherently in scope". — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Per Carl Lindberg, I'd focus this DR on the photos which are unquestionably dominated by a toy and which clearly reproduce most of it, namely lion 1, 2 and 3, giraffe, grey animal. Nemo 16:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all those which do not have the toys dominate the image, and Crop any where there is actual use of enough of the toy image to rationally be used as a copyright infringement claim. Including all those where nothing other than the toy is featured. I suspect virtually all of the images are fully salvageable, to be sure. Collect (talk)
Deleted: I kept some photographs because a reasonable de minimis related argument can be made for them. I deleted the obvious cases. We have long established that community toys/mascots aren’t excluded from com:TOYS or even com:licensing. I understand that some might find it hurtful to see photographs of their mascots deleted but that as well isn’t a reason to keep a file. If someone disagrees with a file being kept: please feel free to re-nominate the file(s) on an individual basis or in smaller batches. If someone has a reasonable/valid argument why one off the stuffed animals on one off the deleted photographs is de minimis. My talk page is always open. If I agree that your argument could have merit I’ll undeleted and re-nominate the file so we can have a separate discussion for that specific file. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The toy would need verification as to copyright, per COM:TOYS. Fæ (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Natuur12 at 14:00, 7 April 2019 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikimedia Cuteness Association at Wikimania 2017 --Krdbot 18:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
copyright violation 86.141.99.189 09:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete "Press Photo 2019 by Segraphy" + not used. --E4024 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted press clipping. Trizek from FR 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative work; no info given on clipping photographed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Old photograph, real author not specified, obviously not "own work" as claimed. Sitacuisses (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted False date, false source statement. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Per File:Fabiana Rosales.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
How can we make a crop when we have the following note by the copyright holder? "This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House." E4024 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is cropping not a "manipulation"? --E4024 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- If we have no right to crop the image then it's not free and the original, File:President Donald J. Trump Meets with Fabiana Rosales de Guaido 1.jpg should be deleted as well. --bjh21 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why not? Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iett.png and what the closing admin wrote there. Or do we have double standards? --E4024 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question. I just pointed out that by your argument the original was non-free, so either you, or the closing admin, or someone else, might like to nominate it for deletion as well. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not confident that the {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} on the original is incorrect (but I'm also not confident that it's correct, which is why I'm not voting “Keep” here). --bjh21 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Manipulate" vs "modify". Then "my file" should have been kept "lejos, con creces". (Sorry for Spanish, more expressive language. :) "I do not let you manipulate this bread" means "you cannot even touch it with hygienic gloves". Whereas, in the case I indicated, an institution let their emblem be used "freely" and simply requested "not to modify" it... --E4024 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question. I just pointed out that by your argument the original was non-free, so either you, or the closing admin, or someone else, might like to nominate it for deletion as well. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not confident that the {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} on the original is incorrect (but I'm also not confident that it's correct, which is why I'm not voting “Keep” here). --bjh21 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why not? Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iett.png and what the closing admin wrote there. Or do we have double standards? --E4024 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Closed as Kept. Per previous discussion, such US Federal Gov't photos from Official White House photographers are PD-US Gov. Disclaimers do not modify the PD status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
−
Out of scope. — regards, Revi 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ℯxplicit 01:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Not own work. EXIF does not have proper data ~AntanO4task (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not the author's original work, missing metadata. Edjoerv (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not own work. Non-trivial logo, likely copyright-protected. Paul_012 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
low resolution and quality, so doubtful to be own work PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Paul 012 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copied from Facebook I can't find it via google images and there is nothing in the metadata Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I said Facebook because it was in the uploader's original description. That said, it actually looks more like an old Instagram photo, with its border, square dimensions and 612px size. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, uploader is himself depicted. Probably not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
© Quim Roser, permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Claim of own work is not credible. This image of rapper Nasty C is clearly a selfie. The description stating "It was taken on Facebook" would indicate it may have been copied from the subject's facebook page. Whpq (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom Ceethekreator (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2019 © Fosna-Folket. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Spam (see here) + possible Copyvio --Alaa :)..! 14:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused web site screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:Calidad-del-Aire-en-Barrancabermeja-santander-cambio-climatico-contaminacion-Alexander-Mateus-Rodriguez.pdf
- File:El principio de igualdad fuente obligatoria de derecho. Estudio de Caso Empresa ECOPETROL S.A. Colombia.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:19, 10 June 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) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:18, 10 June 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) 15:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:18, 10 June 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) 15:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:17, 10 June 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) 15:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
copyright violation, artist died 2007 Ersatzersatz (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Old photograph, real author not specified, obviously not "own work" as claimed. Sitacuisses (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Old photograph, real author not specified, obviously not "own work" as claimed. Sitacuisses (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
vermutlich ein Youtube-Screenshot Ersatzersatz (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
non free media file Ma▀▄Ga 18:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
No exif data. Low-res picture. Unlikely own work. Used by Begoña Villacís in social media. COM:PRP. COM:OTRS permission needed. Asqueladd (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
UPF and OoS. E4024 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- + Self promo submission declined in WP. --E4024 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Original enough to be copyright protected. Paul_012 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Although giving the telephone numbers makes sense locally, putting this picture online may inadvertendly invite misuse. Schlosser67 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; privacy issues and dubious scope. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Obvious hoax (slander). The white man is not Montanelli. Capannoreso (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the photo must be deleted because is a lie the person framed is not indro montanelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walshevans1 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Túrelio. --DMacks (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- File:Male orgasmic contractions.gif
- File:Male orgasmic contractions (recumbent).gif
- File:Male masturbation without lubricant.gif
- File:Male masturbation without lubricant and ejaculation.gif
- File:Male masturbation with lubricant.gif
- File:Male masturbation with lubricant and ejaculation.gif
- File:A 29-year-old male is getting a handjob.gif
- File:A closeup video of semen.webm
- File:A 29-year-old male getting a handjob.webm
- File:A male masturbating and ejaculating outdoors.gif
- File:A 29-year-old male ejaculating.gif
Ronhjones (Talk) 18:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete These are all redundant. I get you need some of these but the ones marked for deletion are parts of other files or him ejactulating which he has at least 50 different files.
- Keep, all are high quality images and we don't have that many .gif and video files of this subject, "COM:PENIS" only applies to redundant and/or low quality files, these files are neither. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, I just watched a sample of these files as pornographic images physically disgusts me (I get the feeling as if I have to vomit when viewing it, nothing personal to this person, all pornography does this to me so it's not a personal attack towards the uploader), but the sample I observed were all high quality and perusing the categories in which they are included (not something I like to do, to be honest) I did not find as much similar files. I think that those in favour of deletion should link to similar files of higher quality before any of these could be deleted and those without any alternative should be kept. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete I would not call these "high quality". Worthless, poor quality, out of scope and lacking in educational value. AshFriday (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not high quality, nor with educational value, as said by AshFriday, thanks to Ronhjones, Pippobuono (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep There aren't too many gif-animations of male masturbation and ejaculation for different purposes. Similar animations have educational value because many of them are widely in use. Images and a video of handjob are used in many national Wikipedias and there is not much media in that category. The quality is over the average that is seen in other similar animations. This kind of mass deletion request without specific reasons reflects only nominator's personal attitudes, it's not argumented how these are out of scope and how they lack educational value in comparison to other similar animations/videos. Richiex (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As stated above, these files are not of sufficient quality to be of realistic educational value. In addition, none of these files are currently in use on any wikimedia project; subsequently, their deletion will not harm any existing mainspace article. Lacking educational value, they are, by definition, out of scope for the project and should therefore be removed under COM:PORN and COM:NUDITY. Commons is not an amateur porn site and should never be used as such. AshFriday (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's very rare that files are used in Wikipedias after 9 hours of publishing, it often takes months or years. If this user is concerned of quality and educational value he/she should do thousands of deletion requests across the Wikimedia before commenting here. Richiex (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thousands of files have already been deleted, sometimes within a few hours of uploading, depending on the circumstances. If you wish to share images & animations of your genitalia, I suggest you do so through the blogs posted on your userpage. Commons is not here to promote amateur porn sites: this is made very clear in COM:SPAM, COM:NUDITY and COM:PORN. AshFriday (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You have a fixation to claim that I'm using Wikimedia Commons as a porn site. Many of my images and videos are or have been used in Wikipedia projects, so my work here hasn't been useless or lacking educational value. My recent uploads didn't differ from the existing files in the sense of the nature of the content. It's sad that a grown up Wikimedia user expresses strong, personal, biased and omniscient opinions about another user's purposes.
Wikimedia Commons is not cencored: "Commons will not censor or remove media that users find objectionable or offensive.". Uploaded files have a clear scope of illustrating certain sexual practices and functions. These are subjects written about worldwide in Wikipedias and increasingly with media attached to them.
If you have something further to say, please use unbiased and valid arguments. Richiex (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You have a fixation to claim that I'm using Wikimedia Commons as a porn site. Many of my images and videos are or have been used in Wikipedia projects, so my work here hasn't been useless or lacking educational value. My recent uploads didn't differ from the existing files in the sense of the nature of the content. It's sad that a grown up Wikimedia user expresses strong, personal, biased and omniscient opinions about another user's purposes.
- Thousands of files have already been deleted, sometimes within a few hours of uploading, depending on the circumstances. If you wish to share images & animations of your genitalia, I suggest you do so through the blogs posted on your userpage. Commons is not here to promote amateur porn sites: this is made very clear in COM:SPAM, COM:NUDITY and COM:PORN. AshFriday (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's very rare that files are used in Wikipedias after 9 hours of publishing, it often takes months or years. If this user is concerned of quality and educational value he/she should do thousands of deletion requests across the Wikimedia before commenting here. Richiex (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I don’t believe these files are vulgar or harmful to the public. People will always have an interest in sex and sexuality. The videos by this individual are done with discretion and are tastefully done. He includes extremely informative captions that provide an insightful view into these sexual topics and add an educational element. I actually believe removing videos like his create more harm than good. People will always seek answers to their queries, and his videos provide a supportive, thoughtful answer without the vulgar fictional element pornographic sites use. His videos are an honest and open representation of some very sensitive topics, but I feel he approaches them with a great deal of grace, poise, and honesty that cannot be found on other sites. Please do not remove them. S.Liera (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.20.173.233 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete You got way to many of the same things. And some pointless videos. Like a 29 year old man getting a handjob. What form of education does that serve. And others are just part or another video that's just shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:152:4600:2183:B9D6:46F9:FF7E:FD2C (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: redundant. See {{Nopenis}}. Kept the video. --Ruthven (msg) 06:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- File:Male masturbation without lubricant.gif
- File:Male masturbation with lubricant.gif
- File:A 29-year-old male is getting a handjob.gif
- File:A 29-year-old male getting a handjob.webm
Pilerk (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete These are all redundant. I get you need some of these but the ones marked for deletion are parts of other files or him ejactulating which he has at least 50 different files. Many of the files marked for deletion are purposeless because richiex has uploaded a newer or better file. And also keep in mind none of the ones marked are actually used in more than 1 article. So its not a personal attack. And pilerk kept many others that are useful and educational.
- Delete Per COM:Scope and Com:Porn. Educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Please, block user Pilerk instantly. He/she is just doing mass deletion request basing on his/her personal opinions and messing file pages. Some of these files are in use. In my opinion, every file suggested for deletion should have individualised arguments. Richiex (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't block people for placing DRs on out of scope images. If you're demanding "individualized arguments," you should provide a list of the files currently in use. AshFriday (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Files in use are automatically within scope so it's nominator's job to check it. It's a strong evidence of a fixation if someone does a mass deletetion request (and if someone votes for it too) without checking individual files first whether they are in use or not. You are claiming that files nominated for deletion are out of scope. It's not nominator's or your decision, it's only a suggestion. You haven't understood the basics. Richiex (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See {{Nopenis}}. Kept severalper Hannoloans. Ruthven (msg) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- File:A male masturbating and watching a video.webm
- File:A 34-year-old recumbent male ejaculates.webm
- File:Location of human testicles.jpg
- File:A male bulge in jeans 2.jpg
- File:A male bulge in jeans 3.jpg
- File:A male bulge in jeans.jpg
- File:A male with partially unbuttoned jeans.jpg
- File:A male opening his zipper.jpg
- File:A male with open zipper.jpg
- File:A male masturbating and fingering his anus.jpg
- File:A male fingering his anus 2.jpg
- File:A male fingering female's vagina.jpg
- File:A male fingering his anus.jpg
- File:A female giving a handjob to a male.jpg
- File:A male fingering female's vagina 2.jpg
- File:Male buttocks seen through clothing.jpg
- File:Male buttocks and scrotum.jpg
- File:A nude male holding a lily pad.jpg
- File:A male with erect penis wearing wet white underpants.jpg
- File:A male wearing wet white underpants.jpg
- File:A male wearing fishnet underpants.jpg
- File:A nude kneeling male with legs apart.JPG
- File:A 37 year old male wearing a cock ring 2.JPG
- File:A 37 year old male wearing a cock ring.JPG
- File:A bottomless male kneeling.JPG
- File:A sitting male masturbates.webm
- File:A male masturbating with his flaccid penis.JPG
- File:A male uses a vibrator with cock and ball rings under his clothing.webm
- File:A male masturbating with a flaccid penis.webm
- File:Tenga Egg.webm
- File:Cock and ball ring with clitoris stimulator.JPG
Pilerk (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete These are all redundant. I get you need some of these but the ones marked for deletion are parts of other files or him ejactulating which he has at least 50 different files. Many of the files marked for deletion are purposeless. Like why is a pocture of an unzipped fly helpful. Or a pocture of him nude holding a lily pad. Some of these are just showoffs. Keep in mind none of the ones marked are actually used in more than 1 article. So its not a personal attack. And pilerk kept many others that are useful and educational.
- Delete Per COM:Scope and Com:Porn. Educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Please, block user Pilerk instantly. He/she is just doing mass deletion request basing on his/her personal opinions and messing file pages. Some of these files are in use. In my opinion, every file suggested for deletion should have individualised arguments. Some of these files are very old and have never been problematic before. Richiex (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- It makes no difference how long they've been stored on the site, they're still subject to deletion if they're found to be out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Educational. We don't have videos of using a vibrator with cock and ball rings and tenga eggs. --Hannolans (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See {{Nopenis}}. Kept several per Hannoloans. Ruthven (msg) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- File:An unintentional ejaculation.JPG
- File:A pre-ejaculatory fluid soaked glans penis.JPG
- File:A male masturbating with lubricant.JPG
- File:A male masturbating with lubricant.ogv
- File:Usage of vibrating cock and ball ring.ogv
- File:A recumbent male masturbating with lubricant.ogv
- File:Male masturbating with vibrating cock and ball ring.ogv
- File:Male cameltoe and erection.JPG
- File:Erect penis (length 7 to 8 inches) seen through clothing.jpg
- File:Unabridged video of male masturbation.ogv
- File:Masturbating with condom and no lubricant.ogv
- File:Intact penis with retracted foreskin and circumcised penis in comparison.jpg
- File:Frontal view of erect human penis, length range 7 to 8 inches.jpg
- File:A masturbating male with vibrating cock and ball ring.jpg
- File:Cock and ball ring.jpg
- File:Shorts cameltoe (male).JPG
- File:Lycra pants cameltoe (male).JPG
- File:Jeans cameltoe (male).JPG
- File:Track pants cameltoe (male).JPG
- File:Finalizing genitalia shaving.jpg
- File:Male genitalia, partially shaved.JPG
- File:Semi-erect penis, shaved genitalia.jpg
- File:Male genitalia, shaved.JPG
Pilerk (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete These are all redundant. I get you need some of these but the ones marked for deletion are parts of other files or him ejactulating which he has at least 50 different files. Many of the files marked for deletion are purposeless because richiex has uploaded a newer or better file. And also keep in mind none of the ones marked are actually used in more than 1 article. So its not a personal attack. And pilerk kept many others that are useful and educational.
- Delete Per COM:Scope and Com:Porn. Educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Please, block user Pilerk instantly. He/she is just doing mass deletion request basing on his/her personal opinions and messing file pages. Some of these files are in use. In my opinion, every file suggested for deletion should have individualised arguments. Some of these files are very old have never been problematic before. Richiex (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See {{Nopenis}}. Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope, Com:Porn
- File:Male genitalia, age 30.JPG
- File:Male ejaculation.JPG
- File:Unshaved and shaved male genitalia.JPG
- File:Standing male masturbating.JPG
- File:Male genitalia, age 31.JPG
- File:Male erogenous zones.JPG
- File:Female and male genitalia.jpg
- File:Erecting human penis.jpg
- File:Erect human penis, age 30.JPG
- File:Semi-erect human penis.JPG
- File:Partly shaved male's pubic area.JPG
- File:Partly shaved male genitalia.jpg
- File:Hairless genitalia of human male.JPG
- File:Male's anus.JPG
- File:Male urethral opening location.JPG
- File:Male's scrotum.jpg
- File:Visible erection through clothing.jpg
- File:Shaved male.JPG
- File:Sexual arousal.JPG
- File:Epididymis, marked.JPG
- File:Frontal wedgie (cameltoe) of a male.jpg
- File:Cameltoe and anatomy.jpg
- File:Male sexual arousal - erection.JPG
- File:After ejaculation.JPG
- File:Female genitalia.JPG
- File:Foreskin retraction.JPG
- File:Female genitalia.jpg
- File:Penis anatomy.jpg
- File:Penis flaccid penis erected.jpg
- File:Testicles marked.jpg
- File:Foreskin of the penis.jpg
Pilerk (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all per COM:CENSOR, Donald, Richiex, and S.Liera. 68.194.210.136 06:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete These are all redundant. I get you need some of these but the ones marked for deletion are parts of other files or him ejactulating which he has at least 50 different files. Many of the files marked for deletion are purposeless because richiex has uploaded a newer or better file. And also keep in mind none of the ones marked are actually used in more than 1 article. So its not a personal attack. And pilerk kept many others that are useful and educational. He shouldn't be removed. And I'm fine with the account only being created for this deletion. He very likely used the visual file editor which you need to be signed in to use.
- Keep per comment directly above. Pilerk should be instant-blocked or taken to checkuser as it's obviously a sock (created just to add more DR to this page). --Denniss (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep we need pictures and videos that illustrate sex. Technical quality of this material is good (sound, light, background, filenames, models, privacy). --Hannolans (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Educationally worthless. Redundant, out of scope images do not get a free pass simply because they feature human genitalia. AshFriday (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Please, block user Pilerk instantly. He/she is just doing mass deletion request basing on his/her personal opinions and messing file pages. Some of these files are in use. In my opinion, every file suggested for deletion should have individualised arguments. There are very old files that have never been problematic before. Richiex (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, these DRs are based on official policies, not personal opinions. AshFriday (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, files in use are automatically within scope. It's always personal opinion to say if files not in use are out of scope or not. Wikimedia is not censored. You haven't understood the basics. Richiex (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Provide us with a list of the files currently in use. AshFriday (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Deleted redundant ones; see {{Nopenis}}. Ruthven (msg) 13:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The person died in 1993 and our uploader took an "own work" pic in 2014. E4024 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
adult content Train256 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- We have no problem with adult content (we do, but not with this kind of innocent images); however, IMHO, when your model is just an unknown person, for me it is out of scope. A person is out of scope dressed or undressed, from the Subcontinent or Western Europe, beautiful or not. Delete --E4024 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Image is high quality and freely licensed. Commons is a repository of freely licensed images. I don't see an issue with this image and its been here since 2014 Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep "adult content" is not a reason for deletion (besides, this image is not pornographic), but I see two other issues: Are the quite prominent posters in the background really de minimis? And there is no {{Consent}} present - although I know that many Commons users have a rather lenient take on personality rights as long as everything is in order copyright-wise... At least {{Personality rights}} should be added if the image is kept. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have added {{Personality rights}}. IMHO is OK enough with regard to scope issues (we don't need that in every picture in Category:Recumbent women looking at viewer (prone)...the woman depicted is famous, same with Category:Women's G-strings and so on), although I cannot shake the feeling that if the picture (with the same "quality") had displayed an almost-nude, chubby and unshaved recumbing barefoot male... it would have been quickly terminated. Strakhov (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You say that "the woman depicted is famous" - then why is there no name mentioned? Who is this supposedly famous person? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: I must have expressed badly. I meant we don't need women (or men) in that categories to be "famous" or "notable", as E4024 apparently suggested. Strakhov (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, I read your comment wrongly (probably because of the ellipsis dots: ...); thanks for the explanation. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: I must have expressed badly. I meant we don't need women (or men) in that categories to be "famous" or "notable", as E4024 apparently suggested. Strakhov (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
i was porn 117.204.63.140 05:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Not porn (and even if it was, this is not a reason to delete. Image in scope and kept in previous deletion. And nomination seems to be either a prank or vandalism. Tm (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense. --Strakhov (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo actualmente en desuso, reemplazado por uno de más calidad. Lobo kun mfc (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Non-trivial elements, probably copyrightable. Does not fall under currently tagged licence. Paul_012 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
There was an error on the upload and I'd like to reupload it. See grey bar at the bottom of the picture. Ranenparry (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is possible to reupload overwrite it. --Love Krittaya (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that the toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that the toy is not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mediablackbeard (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted screenshots.
- File:2018-12-26 15 41 28-Map - YouTube.jpg
- File:2018-12-26 14 36 11-Plateau - YouTube.jpg
- File:2018-12-26 14 28 37-Trio - YouTube.jpg
- File:2018-12-26 14 33 14-Product - YouTube.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded in error Mauve Orange (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
instagram picture, out of scope Migebert (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not a meaingful contributor. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
_MillonariosFC2017h Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
_MillonariosFC2017h Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Official document. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Low quality, not used picture maybe of the turkish model Hasan Huseyn. No metadata available. Very probable copyright violation. Harlock81 (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Photo on user page. If the user is active, it may be kept. (I doubt he or she is.) The depicted person is not a "Turkish" model BTW. --E4024 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- You are right. I thincked it was a sandbox. Anyhow, picture and user page seems both out of the purpose of our projects. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 16:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bring it again, but this was uploaded by the depicted person (per their AZ:WP user page). If they are looking at their own tripod, how come the result is a profile pic? Does EXIF help us? E4024 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: no longer in use, now out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Bad taste. Damiens.rf 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- ok. I will correct--Almanaque Lusofonista (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: For whatever reason, this appears to be in use on four separate ptwiki articles, and has been for a significant length of time. Until ptwiki decides the file has no encyclopedic value, this cannot be deleted on scope grounds. --Storkk (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Fake cover of a true document, personal artwork - out of scope Darwin Ahoy! 19:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no longer in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Fake cover of a true document, personal artwork - out of scope Darwin Ahoy! 19:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by P199 at 16:16, 29 Juli 2019 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit body mfc13h.png --Krdbot 18:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Archivo en desuso, reemplazado posteriormente por otro Lobo kun mfc (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by P199 at 16:16, 29 Juli 2019 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit socks mfc14a.png --Krdbot 18:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Db-author}} rock4 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: does not qualify for courtesy deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a scan from a book, it is not your work Stok (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a scan from a book, it is not own work Stok (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
MyNewsDesk.com is a Bad source per this Deletion Request The metadata gives Ivohercik.com as the copyright web source. I doubt Commons can keep this image. Leoboudv (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Historical painting. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: old enough, changed license. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Photographer unknown, not own work as claimed. Sitacuisses (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not own work as claimed. Sitacuisses (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Das Bild befindet sich in Familienbesitz der Familie Heim, ich wwqurde beauftragt, dieses hochzuladen und im Artikel einzusetzen.--Typodubber (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not a media file, out of scope. Universalamateur (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PRcoords Cheatsheet.pdf. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PRcoords Cheatsheet.pdf. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not a media file, out of scope. Universalamateur (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- To me it looks like educational/informative content that is beyond raw text due to the cheatsheet-size typesetting (that I did). It certainly advances Common's aim by not duplicating those files. --Artoria2e5 contribs 20:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the typesetting and colors seem to go beyond raw text. Therefore, Keep. In fact it has to be kept regardless because it's in use. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:INUSE 5.104.90.107 00:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Waddie96 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Walk Like an Egyptian as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: uploader requesting unused file for deletion — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- File:Vladimir Putin (2018-03-01) 03 (cropped1).jpg is not used either. I understand too many crops have been made from an original image. I would delete the unused ones. --E4024 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Very poor quality - FlightTime (open channel) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Why ? I don't get it..Please powers that be..override this 'deletion request'..the person died almost 2 decades ago so it's really hard to find good orignal pictures of him..when I do I'll upload ...but I think this current one can remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by AROO8 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: The file is in use on en:Willie Haggart. So long as it remains in use there, COM:INUSE applies: Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. --bjh21 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can not even make out the face of the person in the image, hardly encyclopedic. - FlightTime (open channel) 10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you think that the picture is inappropriate for use on English Wikipedia, you should take that up at English Wikipedia (probably on en:Talk:Willie Haggart). Here on Commons, the fact that English Wikipedia is using it is enough for us to treat it as being of educational use. --bjh21 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- You can not even make out the face of the person in the image, hardly encyclopedic. - FlightTime (open channel) 10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - small, no EXIF; dubious own work. --E4024 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I was inclined to vote Keep since image in use, illustrating a notable person who is now dead compensates for the poor quality. However I note that the uploader claims the date of the photo is 27 March 2019, while the person shown died 18 April 2001. User:AROO8, please provide actual date of the photo, and information on the source of the photo (are you the photographer? Why is the image so small?) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
it is a very old picture from a family album..obviously the date wouldn't be March 2019..was taken in the 1990s — Preceding unsigned comment added by AROO8 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @AROO8: Thanks. I've corrected the date on the picture. The other critical question is whether you were the photgrapher. --bjh21 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no longer in use. Moreover, taken "from a family album", so dubious if uploader holds copyright. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Closing as kept; looks a rather generic toy. Closing as 3 months without comment or decision; if more information suggesting some sort of problem is presented I'd have no objection to relisting. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted looks to be a copyrightable character image. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country. There has been no evidence presented that the toys are public domain.
For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests: Petit tigre, Erminig, Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush, Wikimania 2014 Day 1, Jimmy Wales meeting Mr Penguin. Fæ (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:TOYS, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikimedia Cuteness Association at Wikimania 2017, and COM:PLUSHIES. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Includes at least a couple of copyrightable characters. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
video projection not de minimum, image either needs to be altered or deleted SecretName101 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Clear derivative work. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted work by Albert Kostin (d. 1984), permission of his heirs needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyright was given by son when catalogue was published in 1995. Catalogue since then in library of City Museum of Amsterdam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artieques (talk • contribs)
- @Artieques: It's not sufficient. First Commons doesn't accept permission from third parties (which you are); secondly artist's son must send a permission himself (including commercial use) via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Artieques (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Son has since deceased. No other heirs known I'm afraid. Btw does this mean that secondhand bookstore f.i. couldn't advertise with this catalogue as well? It is after all a publication, included in the Library of the City Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artieques (talk • contribs)
- @Artieques: As explained here not free until 2055. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Second hand bookstore might be able to reuse in catalogue under Fair use, but Wikimedia Commons must adhere to stricter standard of either copyright expired or free license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Son has since deceased. No other heirs known I'm afraid. Btw does this mean that secondhand bookstore f.i. couldn't advertise with this catalogue as well? It is after all a publication, included in the Library of the City Museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artieques (talk • contribs)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The map is factually incorrect: it depicts electoral districts as they were in 2014, but they have been completely rearranged since then (both their layout and numbering are different now). For example, on this map 212th district can be seen in Chernihiv Oblast, but, according to governmental website, now 212th district is in Kyiv. The image with correct data was already uploaded - File:Результати Виборів Президента України 2019 за округами.svg. The same applies to File:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2019 Map.png. -- Tohaomg (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The map shows the electoral districts as they were in 2014. That is no reason to delete it. Sure, a map of the current districts is needed, and the documentation and name need to be changed. But this map should be retained. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Maproom Piotr Bart (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. (If distracts have changed, it might be helpful to add text explaining that to the image page.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted. Fæ (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, this is hard. The teddy bear is a generic bear plushy, isnt from any brand or copyrigthed licence from movies, etc.; it was purchased at walmart, COM:TOYS is a valid motive to delete it? 子君 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: , can you explain me if this file violates COM:TOYS? Its has a lot of pooh bears on it that «needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted» 子君 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be no significant doubt. Commercially made toys are always going to be a copyright problem.
- A photo where toys are a negligible component fall under de minimus. --Fæ (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- No problem... The copyright patrol at Commons is attacking! Apparently only important users can upload without problems, the new ones are scared by veterans, as always... 子君 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: , can you explain me if this file violates COM:TOYS? Its has a lot of pooh bears on it that «needs to be verification that toys are not copyrighted» 子君 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Majora (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
copyrighted sculpture not de minimum (Cloud Gate) SecretName101 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Real Estate Agent Robert (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from game artwork.
- File:THE GAME OF RICH UNCLE in red box with stripes..jpg
- File:GAME OF RICH UNCLE made in the USA..jpg
- File:RICH UNCLE USA interior view..jpg
- File:RICH UNCLE UK.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Majora (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This youtube video has no CC BY 3.0 license. Therefore, the default license must be All Rights Reserved. Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: see COM:WHERE LICENSE --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per http://archive.fo/rhVAk, https://imgur.com/a/JUlQM0b (HTML code cc-by license info) --こんせ (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per こんせ. --ƏXPLICIT 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:PD-TH-exempt (seals)
[edit]These are political party logos published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette. The rationale for tagging them as PD here is that they are published as part of official government notifications, which are exempt from copyright according to section 7(3) of the Copyright Act. However, while the entire document would be PD, I'm not really convinced that this automatically means any media incorporated into the document will lose its copyright protection. The question here is, if a copyrighted work is quoted in a document which by law is ineligible for copyright, what is the status of said copyrighted work?
- File:Great People's Party.png
- File:Love Thailand Party.png
- File:PTP Logo.png
- File:Thai Forest Land Reclaimation Party.png
- File:THAI LIBERAL PARTY.png
- File:พรรคคนธรรมดาแห่งประเทศไทย.png
- File:พรรคชาติไทยพัฒนา.png
- File:พรรคประชาชาติ.png
- File:พรรครวมพลังประชาชาติไทย.png
- File:พรรครักษ์สันติ.png
- File:พรรคสังคมประชาธิปไตยไทย.png
- File:โลโก้พรรคกิจสังคม พ.ศ. 2517.png
- File:โลโก้พรรคเพื่อชาติ.png
- File:โลโก้พรรคเสรีนิยม.jpg
Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CoffeeEngineer (talk · contribs)
[edit](Sorry french) Couvertures et/ou coupures de magazines de catch d'avant 1977 avec PD-US sans preuve que les photos ne sont pas libre de droit. Je n'ai pas tout mis car il y a des programmes de spectacles de catch et en les consultant je n'ai pas vu de mention de l'auteur.
- File:Inside Wrestling Magazine - March 1972 cover.jpg
- File:Jack Brisco, Buck Robley and Terry Funk - Inside Wrestling - December 1972 cover.jpg
- File:Pedro Morales vs Bruno Sammartino - Wrestling Monthly - January 1973 cover.jpg
- File:Dory Funk, Jr. and Jack Brisco - Wrestling Revue - April 1975 cover.jpg
- File:Bruno Sammartino Wrestler of the year - Wrestling Annual - n.11 1975 Magazine cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Dory Funk Jr. vs. Jack Brisco Match of the year - Wrestling Annual - n.11 1975 Magazine cover.jpg
- File:André the Giant and Édouard Carpentier - Wrestling Revue - December 1973 cover.jpg
- File:Chief Jay Strongbow - Inside Wrestling - February 1976 cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Ernie Ladd, André the Giant and Chief Jay Strongbow - Inside Wrestling - February 1976.jpg
- File:The Kangaroos - Wrestling Monthly Magazine - April 1972.jpg
- File:Complete cover - Inside Wrestling Magazine - November 1972 cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Blood! and brass knuckles - Inside Wrestling - November 1974 cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Dory Funk - Wrestling Revue - October 1973 - cover.jpg
- File:Ernie Ladd vs. Ox Baker - Inside Wrestling Magazine - August 1973 cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Chief Jay Strongbow - Inside Wrestling Magazine - August 1973 cover (cropped).jpg
- File:Bruno Sammartino vs. The Invader - Inside Wrestling Magazine - August 1973 cover.jpg
Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello All, I find no notice on copyright for Inside Wrestling as per https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Inside-Wrestling-June-1973-Sex-Symbols-Superstar-Graham/232935271986?hash=item363c062e32:g:skEAAOSwjXZbo~rj . Can somebody advise, please? Thank you in advance. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Again, and for Wresting Revue the same https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sept-1973-9-73-WRESTLING-REVUE-Yukon-Eric-Kowalski-Gorgeous-George-Ray-Stevens/372382236842?hash=item56b3b600aa:g:85YAAOSwrFxbWg-F
- And for Wrestling Annual, I have that https://www.ebay.fr/itm/GREAT-shape-Wrestling-1974-Magazine-WWF-ladies-annual-Andre-BLOOD-Albano-Ladd/323678885991?hash=item4b5cc3d867:g:FJEAAOSwS4Vb6wx9:rk:19:pf:0
- Hello All, I find no notice on copyright for Inside Wrestling as per https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Inside-Wrestling-June-1973-Sex-Symbols-Superstar-Graham/232935271986?hash=item363c062e32:g:skEAAOSwjXZbo~rj . Can somebody advise, please? Thank you in advance. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
it is scan from book Stok (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Należy go usunąć--keriM (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a scan from a book, it is not own work Stok (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a scan from a book or screen, it is not own work Stok (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Violazione copyright. Si tratta di una riproduzione non autorizzata (probabilmente tratta da un libro) di un documento conservato presso l'Archivio di Stato di Trento. L'utente non dispone dei permessi per poterla utilizzare né specifica la sorgente nella descrizione del file. Digioman (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS there needs to be verification on the image page that toys are not copyrighted. The 'own work' statement appears to apply to the photograph, but there is no statement about the toy, or its pattern if home made. Fæ (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have clarified the licensing situation. Valhallasw (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. The pattern is copyrighted under all rights reserved, from what I can see of the website. As the product is 'non untilitarian', it is probably not free of copyright. This sets an awkward precedent, unless a legal case for objects made against crochet patterns has an existing precedent in French law. --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The copyright clause includes a release for handmade derivative works: "However, you can sell items from this pattern provided that they are handmade by yourself and by adding the following lines to your item description : “this item is handmade by .......... from a design and pattern by Ahooka / ahookamigurumi.com". I would consider this photo to also fall under that exemption (especially given that the author suggests sharing photos of created work on their facebook page). Valhallasw (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The copyright clause includes a release for handmade derivative works: "However, you can sell items from this pattern provided that they are handmade by yourself and by adding the following lines to your item description : “this item is handmade by .......... from a design and pattern by Ahooka / ahookamigurumi.com". I would consider this photo to also fall under that exemption (especially given that the author suggests sharing photos of created work on their facebook page). Valhallasw (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Majora (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. Paul_012 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:THAILAND. Improper use of {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag. --Majora (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. Paul_012 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:THAILAND. Improper use of {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag. --Majora (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. Paul_012 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for your attention. I understand the 14th section of the copyright act. But we cannot apply section 14 to information which can be referred to section 7: "Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units". This image (SuvarnabhumiT1MS1.jpg) have been used in official efficiency report of Ministry of Transport. (รายงานผลการดําเนนงานของกระทรวงคมนาคม ป ิ ี 2559 รอบ 6 เดอนื). I am not well expirienced in thai law. I just suppose that we can use this type information. Please feel free to correсt me. Nord794ub (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Nord794ub. Is the report available online somewhere? If not, could you provide full citation details and indicate the pages in which the photos appear? Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:THAILAND. Improper use of {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag. The possible exemption in another section is unclear here and COM:PCP applies. --Majora (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. Paul_012 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:THAILAND. Improper use of {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag. --Majora (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thai government units own the copyright to works created under their employment, per section 14 of the Copyright Act. This image is from a Facebook post and is not an official legal document (which would be exempt from protection). Paul_012 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:THAILAND. Improper use of {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag. --Majora (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like there might be some sort of copyright issue here, due to the presence of a watermark logo on bottom left of the picture. If so, this picture should be deleted, in my opinion. Glorious 93 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- The uploader assured me that the image is in fact his own work and gave a plausible reason for the watermark. Richard 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The explanation given implies that the copyright is owned by the company, not by the uploader. We would need a release from them. --Majora (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A scan of the front page of Pravda from 1941. Soviet/Russian copyrights are complex, but the text is readable, so I'd think there's several author copyrights to worry about here, at least one of which is probably not PD-70 (+ wartime extensions?). Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The license tag added not by the author. Previously Damibot had marked it as untagged file, then NyenyecBot requested license from the author. As he not tagged the license Szajci did – without permission. I noticed it only after moving to Commons. Possible copyvio, per COM:PCP. Please delete this file. Thank you. Regasterios (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)