Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/01/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Per source page on Flickr, image is CC BY-NC 2.0 Trivialist (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:50, 6 Januar 2020 UTC: This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use. Under Commons licensing policy, files must be published under at least one license which permits unrestricted commercial use. The file will be deleted without notice unless it is relicensed or multi-licensed in accordance with the Commons licensing policy. --Krdbot 13:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not know it would be publicly visible Mnaoir mnaoir (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: housekeeping -- no image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Meshal Amin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, obviously out of scope. Taivo (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
All seem to be in agreement. GMGtalk 00:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: INVALID LIC. © 2020 City of Key West, FL GMGtalk 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, this is not an exempted government agency under Florida law and would be free. GMGtalk 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct! I had find this clarification: "Florida’s Public Records Law, Ch. 119, F.S., provides a right of access to the records of the state and local governments as well as to private entities acting on their behalf. In the absence of a statutory exemption, this right of access applies to all materials made or received by an agency in connection with the transaction of official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge." Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- No worries @Secondarywaltz: . I actually deleted this before I realized my mistake. If you're fine with it, I'll just go ahead and close this so as to not bother anyone else. GMGtalk 00:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Metadata credits Harold Hinson, no evidence that uploader owns the copyright Ytoyoda (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 17:28, 6 Januar 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: (C) HHP/HAROLD HINSON --Krdbot 01:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Article by journalist Elin Wägner (1882 - 1949) Thuresson (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I just undeleted this file, since the author of the text died in 1949, and the text is now PD in the country of origin, Sweden. However, (i) I have no idea about the date of publication, and if it is after 1924, the file is not PD in the US (ii) there is also a photograph, and the author has not been indicated, I am afraid it needs to be blanked. Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Mrs Wägner writes about the 14th annual meeting of the en:National Association for Women's Suffrage (Sweden) who worked for the introduction of women's suffrage in Sweden from 1903. She also mentions activity in the local chapters during 1916. The annual meeting took place on January 8-9, 1917, in Stockholm. The weekly magazine Veckojournalen does not seem to be available online but the article can be presumed to have been published in early 1917. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that clears the URAA issue, but we still need to do smth about the photograph (find the author and make sure they died before 1950 or cut it out or decide it is fair use).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- From 1919 photographs were protected by copyright for a limited time of 15 years from publication. The time was extended to 25 years in 1961 and extended again in 1994 to 50 years from publication. For photographs who are considered to have artistic value the time is 70 years from the year of death of the photographer, or 70 years since publication if the photographer is unknown. Photographs who were public domain before 1994 did not become protected again when the new law was enacted in 1994. See {{PD-Sweden-photo}} for basic information.. Thuresson (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. I withdraw my nomination based on this information. (Technically, it is best iof uninvolved admin would close it).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- From 1919 photographs were protected by copyright for a limited time of 15 years from publication. The time was extended to 25 years in 1961 and extended again in 1994 to 50 years from publication. For photographs who are considered to have artistic value the time is 70 years from the year of death of the photographer, or 70 years since publication if the photographer is unknown. Photographs who were public domain before 1994 did not become protected again when the new law was enacted in 1994. See {{PD-Sweden-photo}} for basic information.. Thuresson (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, nomination withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Own will, please delete. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo at 12:13, 9 Januar 2020 UTC: author's request --Krdbot 13:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Peter H. Feist
[edit]
I withdraw my nomination Permission from Peter H. Feist's heirs needed via COM:OTRS.
- Permission at https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/ikb_mediathek/pages/search.php?search=!collection5343&bc_from=themes
- File:ALADZA MON. Felskloster - 044.66.jpg
- File:ARBANASI Christigeburt-K.-Fresko 1632-49-Dreifaltigkeit-Bulgarien-044.71.jpg
- File:Arbanasi, Haus (Museum) - 044.73.jpg
- File:ASENOVGRAD - Festungskirche v. N - im Čepelare-Tal. 1231 - 1958 - 045.01.jpg
- File:ATHEN Akropolis - vom Pnyx (Pressekonfer. AICA) - 16.9.84 - 073.37.jpg.png
- File:Baltimore - 19. Jh, Denkmal USA - Washington-Säule - 138.68.jpg
- File:BARLACH - Lübeck, Katharinenkirche - W.-Fass. - 139.80.jpg
- File:BARLACH Engel - Güstrow Dom - 139.83.jpg
- File:BAČKOVO - Friedhofskapelle - Unterkirche - 12. 11. Jh. OWand, Narthex 58 - 045.08.jpg
- File:BERENDE- Kirchlein 13-14 Jhdt 045-20.jpg
- File:Bern. Münster - historische Plastik Schweiz. Kanzel - 138.05.jpg
- File:Blick auf Sofia vom Witoscha.jpg
- File:BOJANA, Kalojan-Ki. - v. NO 1958 - 045.43.jpg
- File:Budapest - Denkmal Vörösmarty - 138.24.jpg
- File:BUDAPEST Burg - 69 043.06.jpg
- File:Budapest Heldenplatz - Gyorsy ZALA Milleniums-Dkm. - Detail Relief zu Kalman 1896 ff. - 138.14.jpg
- File:BUDAPEST, - Okt.61 - Ungarn - 043.01.jpg
- File:Charlottesville - Karl BITTER (USA) - Th. Jefferson 1905 - 138.60.jpg
- File:CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - Universität - 85.jpg
- File:Chicaco Lincoln Park - Ernst RAU Modell vor 1875 - Schiller-Denkm., 1886 enth. - 138.51.jpg
- File:CINCINNATI Blick auf - Zentrum - 85.jpg
- File:Cretulescu - Kirche 18. Jh.jpg
- File:DELPHI Heil. Bezirk - 84 - 073.67.jpg.png
- File:Der Prophet - Pablo GARGALLO (1881-1934) - 142.06.jpg
- File:Dessau 1977.jpg
- File:Dessau Georgium 1977.jpg
- File:DJERAŞ - Jordanien 64 - 074.33.jpg.png
- File:DRAGALEVCI b. Sofia- Kirche v. NO - 1958 - 045.45.jpg
- File:Eila HILTUNEN Sibeliusdenkmal - 1967 - Helsinki - 1969 - 143.09.jpg
- File:Eisenhüttenstadt 092.63.jpg
- File:Eisenhüttenstadt Hotel Lunik 092.65.jpg
- File:Eisenhüttenstadt-092.64.jpg
- File:Ewald MATARÉ - Dompolrtal Köln - '64 - 147.14.jpg
- File:Faenza - Museo della - Ceramica - Denkm. General Pasi 064.01.jpg
- File:Ferrara - Italien, Emilia-Romagna 064.08.jpg
- File:Flug v. Sofia n. Gorna Orja - chovica. 19.9.56. - 044.59.jpg
- File:Franz VOGL Raimund-Dkm. - Wien 1898 - 83 - 137.38.jpg
- File:G. G. SCOTT) - Albert Memorial 1862-76 - Patrick Maddowell Europa - London - 87 - 137.01.jpg
- File:G. MANZU - Porta della Morte - 1949-64 - ROM - St. Peter - 063.22.jpg
- File:G. SEITZ K. Kollwitz - Feier am 7.7.67, Dr. Hougen - Norwegen - 150.10.jpg
- File:GORNA ORJACHOVICA-Flugplatz-Bulgarien -044.54.jpg
- File:H. MOORE Large Lock. Piece - 63-64 - 1971 - London, Millbank bei Tate Gall. - 148.05.jpg
- File:HAMBURG - Ehrenmal von Barlach, Rathaus - 139.60.jpg
- File:Haus in Arbanassi, Bulgarien -044.74.jpg
- File:Henry M. SHRADY (USA) - Gen. Grant-Denkmal, 1902-20 - Washington - 150.32.jpg
- File:Henry MOORE - Liegende, 1957-8 München, Mus. - 1964148.35.jpg
- File:Henry MOORE - Locking Piece 1964 - London, Millbank - 87 - 148.02.jpg
- File:Henry MOORE - Reclining figure, 1957 - Zürich, Kunsthaus, 1978 - 148.46.jpg
- File:Hotelanlage "DÜNY" bei Leningrad, Juli 1970, 018.41.jpg
- File:HRDLICKA (A) - Golgatha - Berlin Treptow, Skulpt. im Park 88 - 143.34.jpg
- File:HRDLICKA (Österr.) - Marsyas III, 1964-66 - 72 - Ffm. 76 - 143.38.jpg
- File:Hugo LEDERER, Emil Schaudt - Bismarck. 1901-06 Hamburg 80 - 145.24.jpg
- File:I. BÖRSEN Denkmal Geijer 1887 - Uppsala, vor Universität (Det.) - 138.03.jpg
- File:Ital. Plastik 19. Jh. -- Rom, GNAM - 89 - 137.24.jpg
- File:IVANOVO. Tal d. Höhlen - klosters 58 - 045.51.jpg
- File:Iw. P. MARTOS Denkm. Minin u. Požarskij, 1804- - 18 -- Moskau, Roter Platz - 88 - 137.78.jpg
- File:Jürgen WEBER (BRD) - Die große Verweigerung -- Besitz d. Künstlers Braunschweig - 81 151.15.jpg
- File:Kapitol, Palazzo, Rom.jpg
- File:Karel NIESTRATH, Denkmal f. Ermordete in DORTMUND-BITTERMARK - 148.69.jpg
- File:KARL-MARX-STADT Bauplastik - an Schule - 1977 151.69.jpg
- File:Kloster Batalha, Portugal 053.46.jpg
- File:KOPRIVŠTICA-Außenansicht Oslekov-Haus, Bulgarien-045.76.jpg
- File:KOPRIVŠČICA-Bulgarien-046.04.jpg
- File:LEDERER Bismarck - Hamburg 74 - 145.23.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Admiralität, 1975 018.29.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Blick vom Finnischen Meerbusen aus , 1989 018.20.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Eremitage, 018.62.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Eremitage, 1962, 018.50.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Eremitage, 1970 018.51.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD - Winterpalais, 1959, 018.64.jpg
- File:LENINGRAD Ermitage, Raffael-Loggien, 1977 018.65.jpg
- File:LISSABON-BELÉM - Jerónimos-Kloster - Kreuzgang 76 053.51.jpg
- File:M. MIKEŠIN Bogdan - Chmelnickij, 1888 -- Kiev, Pl. D. Chmelnickogo - 88 - 137.67.jpg
- File:MADARA, Grotte - '63 046.16.jpg
- File:Madrid, vor Prado - Mariano BENLLIURE Goya - 138.09.jpg
- File:Mailand, Dom - 79 - 137.20.jpg
- File:MAILLOL 3 (durchgestr. Grazien) Nymphen - Paris, vor Louvre 1930-37-81 - 145.65.jpg
- File:MAILLOL Der Fluß - 1938-43 - Paris 1968 - 145.63.jpg
- File:Mesembria, Alte Metropolis - 052.30.jpg
- File:MESEMBRIA. an Kirche Johannes - Aleiturgetos - 051.49.jpg
- File:MOORE - Der Bogenschütze. 1964 - Berlin W, NG - 89 - 148.56.jpg
- File:MOORE Liegende - WBerlin, Akad. d. Kte. - 79 - 148.44.jpg
- File:MOORE Two Piece Reclining - Figure Points 1969-70 - New York Central Park 85 - 148.36.jpg
- File:MOORE, Knife Edge Mirror - Two Piece, 1977-78 - Washington NG East Bdg. - 85 - 148.57.jpg
- File:Moskau - Hotel Peking - bei Nacht - 1.1958 - 026.04.jpg
- File:MOSKAU Blick v. Leninbergen - 10.63 - 025.53.jpg
- File:MOSKAU Denkmal V. O. Sevud - Befreier Bulgariens, 1887 - 75 - 137.51.jpg
- File:MOSKAU Gewerkschafts - haus am Ochotnyj-Rjad - (Adelsklub) v. M. Kasakow 59 - 025.57.jpg
- File:MOSKAU Wohnhäuser am Stadt - rand Jan. 58 - 025.16.jpg
- File:MOSKAU, Roter Platz - Mausoleum, Schlange - 1962 - 025.35.jpg
- File:NAM JUNE PAIK - Arc double - face, 1985 (Det.) Paris MNAM 86 156.02.jpg
- File:Neseber Erhohlungsheime -052.15.jpg
- File:NESEBER. Blick gegen - d. Festland. 1958 - 051.48.jpg
- File:Nessebar (Bulgarien) 053.06.jpg
- File:NESSEBAR, Insel Ge- - samtansicht - 1961- Bulgarien - 051.71.jpg
- File:NESSEBAR, Pantokrator-Kirche - 051.53.jpg
- File:NEW YORK - von Central Park aus - 084.01.jpg
- File:NEW YORK Empire State Bdg. - 85.jpg
- File:NEW YORK Mayor Koch - eröffnet Museum Mile Festival - Cooper-Hewitt-Museum - 084.02.jpg
- File:New York, Madison Square - Augustus SAINT GAUDENS (USA) - Denkm. Admiral Farragut - 138.35.jpg
- File:NICOPOLIS - 046.20.jpg
- File:Nielson Petersen - Hamlet, 1900 - Helsingor, Hotel Marienlyst - 75 - 137.88.jpg
- File:NIKI de SAINT PHALLE - L'Euphorie Riehen 80 - 148.81.jpg
- File:Niki de Saint PHALLE - L'Euphorie, Wohl E, 60er Je. - H 300 aus Slg. Tinguely - Gartenpavillon Richm. - 150.65.jpg
- File:PADUA - 071.10.jpg.png
- File:PARIS, Père Lachaise - L. und J. GALLO Denkmal f. 3500 span. Republikaner - 142.05.jpg
- File:PARMA - 071.36.jpg.png
- File:PAWLOWSK - Schloss 1977, 018.16.jpg
- File:Philadelphia - Rathaus - 084.14.jpg
- File:Philadelphia, vor Mus. of Fine Arts - John GREGORY (USA) - General Athony Wayne, 1937 - 138.37.jpg
- File:Plastik 19. Jh. - Denkmal f. Kronpr. Carl Gustaf - -1826 Kvidinge, Schwed. - 76 - 137.84.jpg
- File:PLASTIK SKULPTUR - 163.01.jpg
- File:PLASTIK SKULPTUR - 163.02.jpg
- File:PLASTIK SKULPTUR - 163.03.jpg
- File:PLASTIK SKULPTUR - 163.04.jpg
- File:PLASTIK SKULPTUR - 163.05.jpg
- File:PLOVDIV, Blick vom Zimmer im Trimontium - 58 - 046.44.jpg
- File:PLOVDIV, Moschee - 046.50.jpg
- File:POKROV NA NERJ v. unles. - 1956 1959 - 028.11.jpg
- File:POTSDAM Nicolaikirche - KF Schinkel - 1966 102.17.jpg
- File:POTSDAM, Nicolai- - kirche - 1973 102.07.jpg
- File:POTSDAM, Sanssouci. - Bibliothek, Fußboden. 1960 102.12.jpg
- File:POTSDAM-Sanssouci - Blick nach Charlottenhof 72 102.08.jpg
- File:Preobrazenski Monastir 20.09.56 - 047.07.jpg
- File:PRESLAV, Rundkirche 922-7 - gg. SW. 21.9.56. - 047.10.jpg
- File:PUSCHKIN - Katharinenpalast 1977, 018.03.jpg
- File:Pécs (Ungarn) - 19. Jh. Plastik Ungarn n. 1900 - Denkmal Zsolnay (Keramik-Fabr.) - 138.11.jpg
- File:RAVENNA - Baptist. d. - Arianer u. S. Spirito 064.17.jpg
- File:Rich. SERRA (Plastik, USA) - Terminal 1977, documenta 6 - 150.22.jpg
- File:Rich. SERRA (USA) - Berlin-Curves, 1986-87 - W-Berlin 87 - 150.28.jpg
- File:Richard SERRA (USA) - Berlin block - Chaplin 1979 - Berlin-W., Neue NG - 150.25.jpg
- File:RICHMOND, Va. - 85.jpg
- File:RILA-Kloster - 047.49.jpg
- File:Rila-Kloster, Kirche von Nahen - 047.22.jpg
- File:Rimini - S. Francesco - Tempio Malatestiano 064.48.jpg
- File:ROM - St. Peter - 063.17.jpg
- File:ROM - VATICAN - Giardino Quadrato - 89 - 063.24.jpg
- File:Rom, Campo di Fiori.jpg
- File:ROM, Forum Romanum - gegen den Palatin.jpg
- File:ROM, Forum Trajani - Trajanssäule - '64 062.78.jpg
- File:ROM-VATICAN St. Peter - Kuppel - 89 - 063.20.jpg
- File:Rom. Fosse Ardeatine 1964.jpg
- File:Rotterdam (Niederlande)-Ossip ZADKINE Die zerstörte Stadt 151.36.jpg
- File:Röm. Plastik - Augustus von Primaporta ~0 - Rom - Vatican - 89 - 063.28.jpg
- File:SACHARIS ZOGRAF, Fresko - Jüngstes Gericht im - Preobraženie-Kloster 1958 - 046.77.jpg
- File:SAGORSK - Jan. 58 - 028.34.jpg
- File:Samokov, Turm der Kirche - 047.53.jpg
- File:SANSSOUCI, Springbr., - Treppe u. Schloß. - 9.63 102.15.jpg
- File:Schloss Mogosoaia, Brinco - veanu - Palast.jpg
- File:SEITZ - Kollwitz-Denkmal - Berlin - 150.11.jpg
- File:Semen, Johannes Evangelist-Kirche, 1963.jpg
- File:Slatn Pjass, Freilichtkino, 1963.jpg
- File:Smoljan-Rajkowo, Straße 1963.jpg
- File:SOFIA - Reste e. mittelalt. Hauses - bei H. Georgios - 1958 - 048.55.kpg.jpg
- File:SOFIA, Hg. Georgios, Rundkirche - 048.52.jpg
- File:Sofia, Nationalgalerie (Königl. Schloß), 1963.jpg
- File:SOFIA, Parkanlage - 1958 - 049.10.jpg
- File:Staatsrat u. Kongreßhalle (Palast d. SRR).jpg
- File:STADLER - Große Sitzende, 1951-52 - Berlin W., Kolbe Mus. Stadler-Ausstellung - 150.55.jpg
- File:STOCKHOLM Stadthaus, ges. von Riddarholm, 76 - 001.62.jpg
- File:TINGUELY - SAINT PHALLE - Stravinsky-Brunnen - Paris, vor Centre Pompidou - 150.67.jpg
- File:TINGUELY, de SAINT PHALLE - Sacre du Printemps - 1983 - Paris, Place I. Stravinsky - 150.63.jpg
- File:TIRNOVO. 40 - Märt.- Kirche - 58 - 049.13.jpg
- File:Toni STADLER (BRD) Torso - München, vor d. Lenbachhaus 1971 - 150.60.jpg
- File:Unser Flugzeug beim Hinflug in Budapest-Férihégy.-Ungarn-044.58.jpg
- File:Urbino - Italien, Marken - Marche 065.23.jpg
- File:V. O. Servud Denkm. f. Befreier - Bulgariens (Garde) 1887 Moskau 84 - 137.52.jpg
- File:VASSALLI Denkm. Carlo Battagli - Lugano (Schweiz) -?- 78 - 137.15.jpg
- File:Victor TILGNER Mozartdkm. - 1896 Wien Burggarten - 80 - 137.48.jpg
- File:VLADIMIR, Dimitrij- - Kath. 1194-97 - Detail S Seite 1959 - 028.06.jpg
- File:WARNA- röm- Thermen 049-53.jpg
- File:WARNA- röm-Thermen 049-53.jpg
- File:Washington - John Qu. Ad. WARD (USA) - Denkmal Präsident James Garfield - 138.65.jpg
- File:Washington - Lot FLANNERY (USA) - Abraham Lincoln - 138.59.jpg
- File:WEBER Ringerbrunnen - 1974-5 Braunschweig - 82-151.18.jpg
- File:WIEN, Moz. Denkmal - Viktor Tilgner 1960 - 137.43.jpg
- File:Wohnbauten Rom.jpg
- File:ZADKINE - Naissance des Formes, 1958 -- Paris, Musée Quai St. Bernard - 86 - 151.39.jpg
- File:ZAGORSK - Jan. 58 - 028.32.jpg
- File:ZAGORSK Uspenskij sobor - 1559-85 59 - 028.23.jpg
- File:ÉVORA Kathedrale - 12.-13.Jh. 76- 053.67.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: DR revoked, files will be reviewed and tagged again if probs regarding depicted objects. --Achim (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the author (getty images) [1] Tyseria (d) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Arthur Crbz at 08:48, 11 Januar 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 19:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See [2] Q douglasii (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's not copyright violation. That source of the file was created in 1890. (Hugo Gerhard Ströhl: Wappenrolle Österreich-Ungarns. Erste Auflage, Wien 1890) And I made the SVG file based on that Hugo Gerhard Ströhl's works. --Samhanin (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not only that, he also changed the description in an attempt to further invalidate this file. I have reverted this. I also noticed that many of this user's own uploads contain unattributed elements taken from CC-BY-SA files, which is an actual copyright violation, but in light of how commonplace that is I'm not going to bother pursuing it. Tom-L (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)- I have started a thread on the Administrators' noticeboard for user problems in the hope of getting this quarrel resolved before more unrelated files get caught in the crossfire. Tom-L (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've done much damage to Wikipedia and Wikimedia by overhelming by inaccurate and ugly pictures in wrong format and by starting editing wars. Replacing accurate files by your inaccurate and fictional ones is vandalization of Wikipedia. It is so indecent, selfish, mean and superior to replace the various files created by the members of community by own failed/amateur creations. Samhanin's artwork is high-quality and historical accurate, this one is the graphic masterpiece. Stop removing your discussion page with our conversation, that's tricky and deceptive behavior. – Dragovit (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Ridiculous rationale, no copyvio. --Achim (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Photo of unknown person with obscene filename and description (removed). In any case, out of COM:SCOPE. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shikha Khandal (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Youth icon -Raja Saheb.jpg
- File:Raja Saheb.jpg
- File:Raja Saheb offering Yatharth Geeta to Traffic Policeman.jpg
- File:Raja Saheb offering Yatharth Geeta to Policeman.jpg
- File:Gold Iphone User -Raja Saheb.jpg
- File:Raja Saheb offering Yatharth Geeta to Ashok Gehlot.jpg
- File:Grand Welcome to Upcoming youth leader in Rajasthan -Raja Saheb.jpg
- File:Umesh sir.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, personal photos out of COM:SCOPE. - FitIndia Talk Mail 15:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bodoland sweet (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:In beach from dbi.jpg
- File:Enjoing movment.jpg
- File:With my friends.jpg
- File:Group photo in bramhaputra beach.jpg
- File:Marry and francisca my best friends from myanmar.jpg
- File:DBI group photo.jpg
- File:Dbi group photo.jpg
- File:Prem kanta Boro bodoland sweet.jpg
- File:Mary susan and francisca.jpg
- File:Prem kanta boro.jpg
- File:Prem kanta Boro.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, personal photos out of COM:SCOPE. - FitIndia Talk Mail 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused promotional images, out of scope, and historical images, not own work as claimed.
- File:Gamme dans la nature.jpg
- File:Publicité Margerie 1984.jpg
- File:Première étiquette.png
- File:Jean et Hubert Margerie.jpg
- File:Presse- 1980.JPG
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
potential licensing issue PenulisHantu (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden at 07:53, 14 Januar 2020 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) --Krdbot 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The unused and uncategorised file. Looks like some sort of personal artwork. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture, not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shankar regar editor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion, out of project scope. No contributions to any wm project. Commons is not a private photo album.
- File:Shankar regar & Mahesh bhat.jpg
- File:SHANKAR REGAR.jpg
- File:Shankar regar & zeeshan ayyub.jpg
- File:Shankar regar director.jpg
- File:Shankar regar 07.jpg
- File:Manish Paul , Khalid Mohamed & Shankar Regar.jpg
- File:Shankar regar film editor.jpg
- File:Shankar regar 02.jpg
- File:Shankar regar 05.jpg
- File:Shankar regar.jpg
Achim (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Self-promotion, out of project scope. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo for non-Wikipedian (Out of Scope)
- File:PolaWagih.jpg
- File:الكاتبة هند عبدالله.jpg
- File:38258-هند-عبد-الله.jpg
- File:Paulaw.png
- File:Paula wagih.jpg
--Alaa :)..! 20:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Transipack (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional images, out of scope, and uncertain copyright status. Only used on a promotional userpage.
- File:Gallery inge 1.jpg
- File:Transipack.png
- File:Bras articulé.png
- File:Convoyeur à chaîne.jpg
- File:Convoyeur à chaine agroalimentaire.jpg
- File:Convoyeur industrie pharmaceutique.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of a personal construction project (?), no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no educational value, out of scope. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Unused personal logo, out of scope. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Advertising, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Advertising, out of scope. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal images, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Eneagrama de Juegos - Ludismo.PNG
- File:Eneagrama de Actos - Ludismo.PNG
- File:Eneagramas Basicos.PNG
- File:Eneagrama de Juegos.jpg
- File:Eneagrama de Actos.jpg
- File:Gansosmigratorios.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 06:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Product advertising, out of scope, and likely copyvio, taken from the web.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Filename and description do not correspond to the person depicted. File was used in the fake article "Artrómedes" in the Spanish wikipedia (meanwhile deleted). The person "Artromedes" did not exist. The picture shows the emperor of Rome, "Nero" . see https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d5/bc/7d/d5bc7d4dd417f369d74209d048a3aa23--roman-sculpture-art-sculpture.jpg Jkbw (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Info: Image source seems to be https://latunicadeneso.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/neron-el-reino-del-terror/. --Achim (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: no license. --ƏXPLICIT 09:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 03:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Castillo blanco as no source (No source since) सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Castillo blanco: As the books were scanned, I have added source - Scanned book from original published copy - to all the files. Hope, it will suffice.--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: looks OK now. --JuTa 08:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
screenshot in (probably) copyviol - no indications about an "own" or free-licence frame. — danyele 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
screenshot in (probably) copyviol - no indications about an "own" or free-licence frame. — danyele 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]- File:KEN00009 (36614546273).jpg
- File:KEN00010 (37426335505).jpg
- File:KEN00012 (36614548193).jpg
- File:KEN00013 (36614548793).jpg
- File:KEN00014 (36614549343).jpg
- File:KEN00015 (36614550093).jpg
- File:KEN00016 (37237097046).jpg
- File:KEN00017 (36614551093).jpg
- File:KEN00018 (37237097366).jpg
- File:KEN00019 (36614552483).jpg
- File:KEN00020 (36614552923).jpg
- File:KEN00021 (36614553403).jpg
- File:KEN00022 (36614553843).jpg
- File:KEN00023 (37237099976).jpg
- File:KEN00024 (37237100716).jpg
- File:KEN00025 (36614555483).jpg
- File:KEN00026 (36614556123).jpg
- File:KEN00027 (36549235764).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted work.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:KEN00058 (37027894740).jpg
- File:KEN00059 (37283843601).jpg
- File:KEN00060 (36549250894).jpg
- File:KEN00067 (36549256524).jpg
- File:KEN00091 (37212050226).jpg
- File:KEN00168 (36549326504).jpg
- File:KEN00169 (36549326474).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted characters. [3]
- File:KEN00114 (37212062476).jpg
- File:KEN00115 (37212063346).jpg
- File:KEN00119 (37259119671).jpg
- File:KEN00120 (37259120171).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ~ Nahid Talk 17:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted character. [4]
Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ~ Nahid Talk 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2017
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ~ Nahid Talk 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2014
[edit]- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15108642849).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15108845637).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15109057718).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15292153381).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2014
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15108648588).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15272587876).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15292470641).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15294863532).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15295579145).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2014 (15295580225).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2014
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted character.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
私が表示することを希望していなかった、撮影日時以外の記録（撮影機器名・編集ソフトウェア名等）が、残っている。個人の特定に繋がりかねないため削除を希望する。 港北の乱 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:DSC 9019 (31012575888).jpg
- File:DSC 9021 (43968638835).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2018 (TGS) (44799623531).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted characters.
- File:DSC 8834 (43073692470).jpg
- File:DSC 9039 (43073687260).jpg
- File:DSC 9040 (43068227590).jpg
- File:DSC 9043 (43968638065).jpg
- File:DSC 9044 (31012573518).jpg
- File:DSC 9049 (43073685720).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2015
[edit]Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2015
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tokyo Game Show 2015
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2015 (21161207563).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2015 (21161280853).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2015 (21594064150).jpg
- File:Tokyo Game Show 2015 (21791542171).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted characters. Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Ratchet & Clank
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted character.
- File:PAX 2009 - Ratchet cosplay (3899562562).jpg
- File:Wondercon 2016 - Ratchet Cosplay (26014608851).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:PAX 2009
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted character. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:PAX Prime 2010
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:PAX Prime 2010
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Fallout 3 Vegas (4958358139).jpg
- File:Han Solo Frozen in Carbonite (4958964664).jpg
- File:PAX 2010 (4970612054).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:PAX Prime 2011
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted character.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:PAX Prime 2011
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6106717103).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6106717397).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6107262856).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6107264512).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6107267218).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6124832151).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6125340286).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6125367380).jpg
- File:Skyrim (6083680849).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Borderlands 3
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:E3 2019 (48045182836).jpg
- File:E3 2019 (48050487381).jpg
- File:E3 2019 (48050491171).jpg
- File:E3 2019 (48050534523).jpg
- File:PAX West 2019 (48650111182).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Monster Hunter
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted artwork. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Halo: Reach
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:E3 2010 (4718988850).jpg
- File:E3 2010 (4719003696).jpg
- File:E3 2010 . . (4704877975).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6124828205).jpg
- File:PAX Prime 2011 (6124829835).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. GMGtalk 16:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This would seem to be pb-text-logo, that is, presuming the community doesn't consider it promotional in nature. The article on id.wiki looks pretty suspicious, re: excessive use of external links and zero sources provided on a BLP. It was deleted once before, but that was in 2010. GMGtalk 16:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 轻语者 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://zh-cn.facebook.com/badmoonborn/photos/a.806234316112616/2266535820082451/?type=3&theater GMGtalk 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This can be found at facebook as indicated in the speedy nomination, but evidently wasn't taken from facebook as it still has the original meta data in tact. The uploader claims to be some type of official person, and they may own the copyright as indicated, but we should need permission sent in accordance with instructions at COM:CONSENT. GMGtalk 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Photo with useless and outdated caption ("2012 is about to end...") on it. Syrio posso aiutare? 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Bot upload with extremely low quality -> no realistic educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Bot upload with extremely low quality -> no realistic educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
File:Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, President of Mongolia and Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.jpg
[edit]Small image without sufficient EXIF data, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
File:President Elbegdorj speaking at the Community of Democracies VII Ministerial Conference.jpg
[edit]Small image without sufficient EXIF data, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Small image without sufficient EXIF data, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Small image without sufficient EXIF data, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
irrelevant Somanahu (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. --ƏXPLICIT 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining uploaded photo (all others were deleted due to copyright problems). Watermark "Jesus Roldan" in bottom right. I suspect again copyvio. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Not needed anymore, uploaded a better svg-file with the same contents: here TheBartgry (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. --ƏXPLICIT 00:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The original owner ( @_alpho__) declared that these two images were reprinted without permission from his own blog[5].--JNR 201 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope – low-grade image of a non-notable person Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2012
[edit]These photos contain copyrighted works.
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Le Scorpion - P1420052.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Le Scorpion - P1420055.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420037.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420038-P1420039.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420042.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420043.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420044.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420045.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420047.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Expo Naoki Urasawa - P1420048.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Stand Aoji - P1410999.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Stand Aoji - P1420001.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Stand Aoji - P1420002.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Stand Aoji - P1420003.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - 2012-0708- Stand Le Visiteur du Futur - P1420049.jpg
G I Chandor (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep subject is the cover of the convention in general and those specifics expositions in general. Per COM:DM. Esby (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)- Delete If the the copyrighted materials are included intentionally and the main focus of the images, then COM:DM does not apply. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Blanks walls with copyrighted art -- cannot possibly be DM. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2012
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted characters / copyrighted works.
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420016.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420022.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420023.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420024.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420025.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420026.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420027.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420029.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2012
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420061.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420062.jpg
- File:Japan Expo 13 - Ambiances - 2012-0708- P1420063.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
© 2015 James Boardman. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Fantasy party names, no country stated, most probably out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Election diagram of an election that did not occur, with thus made-up results. Commons Files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
unused test file, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
unused test file, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Voino does not exist. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The unused and uncategorised file. Out of the project scope? The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted posters A1Cafel (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- No : accessories theory. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete De minimis cannot reasonably apply here. — Racconish 💬 13:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be ownwork. Found on Google. Saayeeh (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be ownwork. Found on Google. Saayeeh (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be ownwork. Found on Google. Saayeeh (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
One of the photos in the montage was copyrighted A1Cafel (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
One of the photos in the montage was deleted A1Cafel (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a sophisticated logo Ytoyoda (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stephen Cocjin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete invalid licenses. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 16:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucas Latosinski Araujo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Araujo in Kiev.jpg
- File:Araujo no Programa do Jô.jpg
- File:Araujo entrevista Blair, 2013.jpg
- File:Luiz Antônio Araujo no Paquistão, 2001.jpg
- File:Luiz Antônio Araujo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Personal essay, out of project scope. Maybe suitable for wikibooks? Achim (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is not a book publisher. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Bad photo and there is a better one: File:INTERIEUR, WOONKAMER, TEGELTABLEAU - Vlist - 20302709 - RCE.jpg JopkeB (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Bad photo and there is a better one: File:INTERIEUR, WOONKAMER, TEGELTABLEAU - Vlist - 20302710 - RCE.jpg JopkeB (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Outside project scope, low quality. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I (as the owner) am not anymore satisfied with this image being online. I'd like it removed. TatraTram 15:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I want to remove this image I made as there are privacy concerns to it. TatraTram 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Unused statistics image, should be wiki markup if needed, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
CopyVio, uploader obviously isn't the autor. j.budissin+/- 20:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
CopyVio, uploader obviously isn't the autor. j.budissin+/- 20:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Unused image of text-only sign, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree - Rudolphous (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the author (REUTERS/Christian Hartmann) ([6]) Tyseria (d) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
no permission from the author ([7], [8]) Tyseria (d) 21:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the author ([9]) Tyseria (d) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the author ([10]) Tyseria (d) 21:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the author (French "Parti communiste maoïste" I think) [11] Tyseria (d) 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Максим Казанлы (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Derivative / COM:PACKAGING VLu (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is not like the linked Coke bottle, as that is simple text. --ƏXPLICIT 01:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation & out of project scope Michael F. Schönitzer 22:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Image uploaded under false copyright. It's claimed as CC/own work, but it's the subject's official headshot from the Parliament of Canada website — which means it's under Crown copyright, not public domain, which means we can't use it at all because Crown copyright does not permit reuse in commercial contexts. The uploader's username verifies on Google as a staffer in the subject's office — but the copyright on an official MP headshot belongs to the government, not to Patzer personally, so it's not Patzer's or his staff's prerogative to reupload it here as CC in defiance of the fact that it already has preexisting non-CC copyright restrictions on it. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Arthur Crbz for missing permission. --ƏXPLICIT 01:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
画像の品質が悪いため削除を依頼します。 Rebirth10 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Kept, uploader's request, quality is really not particularly good. But the file is nevertheless used in ja.wiki and should be kept per COM:INUSE. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The image quality is very bad. Request removal as uploader. Rebirth10 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The file is in use on ja:亀田駅. Commons' policy, COM:INUSE, is that used files should not be deleted just because of their poor quality. --bjh21 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: If it is just for the image quality, Keep. Saayeeh (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 01:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by John196618 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploads by new user one of which is sources from LinkedIn and another has its exif data missing. Likely not to be own work
Vera (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Unclear copyright claims: photographer is Steven Seniw, not Bianca Miller. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Permission of each photographer (Iolo Penri and Kristen McTernan) needed via COM:OTRS.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France, COM:DW of https://www.coachbuild.com/forum/download/file.php?id=20361&sid=788afbd0d1b62db09e0731a04352c6ec&mode=view. Please explain why image is public domain in France. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The Polish painter died in 1967, would need OTRS TFerenczy (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Prakhar Agrawal (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and we only have two other images of this structure. ƏXPLICIT 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; license is irrevocable. --Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
No es el presidente Fernández, es Steve Buscemi 170.79.183.15 18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sous copyright (https://lapresse.tn/39433/habib-karaouli-pdg-de-la-cap-bank-tunisie-plus-detat-pour-mieux-detat/) Hyméros {◕◡◕}✌ 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyméros (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect photo posted. Jacy Lucier (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by QueerEcofeminist as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 COM:CSD#F10, Personal photos of or by non-contributors. Let's discuss it for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Uploads many copyvios (Related to w:B. R. Ambedkar and w:Buddhism) otherwise productive. See Special:CentralAuth/Sandesh9822. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Now he is a Long Term Abuser(locked globally, violation of lock by creating socks). -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by QueerEcofeminist as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 COM:CSD#F10, Personal photos of or by non-contributors. Let's discuss it for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- But {{Delete}} Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandesh9822 -- Eatcha (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Now he is a Long Term Abuser(locked globally, violation of lock by creating socks). -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- But {{Delete}} Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandesh9822 -- Eatcha (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Works of the Minnesota state government are protected by copyright, see https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/data/types/copyright/government-owned/ Ytoyoda (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Not used anywhere. Possibly out of project scope. Not sure how this has anything to do with system software. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be subject of the image, but this is evidently not a selfie. Need more information about who the author and copyright holder of this image is. GMGtalk 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't specify exact source, likely copyright violation. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If added to ixfd64 user talk page that they can remove it if it violate the rules of Wikimedia coommons.tbiw (talk) 12:38am, 12 January 2020
- I think this is taken from the WWE facebook page. In this case, written permission from WWE is required if this photo is to stay on commons.U1 quattro ★ 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tbiw. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Poor composition, unused and superseded by File:Ganesh hil16.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Regasterios as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a logo of an organization. The logo was not made in 1891. It is only the year of establishment of the predecessor. GMGtalk 21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we probably need more information from pretty much anybody about when this logo was actually first published. I'm not totally sure who to reach out to though. We don't have a single local administrator who is fluent in Hungarian. GMGtalk 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I am an admin on Hungarian Wikipedia. You can be sure this is a copyrighted logo. As you can see in the article (hu:Eötvös Loránd Fizikai Társulat), this organization was founded in 1949, so the logo is not older. See their webpage, too. I don't know who designed the logo and when, but I strongly suspect it happened not in the year of foundation. --Regasterios (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Regasterios: Oh. My bad. I guess we do have two local hu speaking admins at COM:ABL. Not sure what I was looking for that I missed it. I suppose there is still a possibility that this apparent etching is an older work, but it may also just be designed to resemble an etching. I suppose Delete in the absence of other information. GMGtalk 11:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I assume that the uploader took the photograph of the cover but not the photograph that is on the cover. Book covers can't be uploaded if the cover contains copyrighted artwork/images. kyykaarme (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, many better analogs -> no realistic educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Saayeeh (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, many better analogs -> no realistic educational use, out of COM:SCOPE. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Saayeeh (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Sissel-Jo Gazan modtager De Frankofone Ambassadørers Litterære Pris 2012. Ud over forfatteren (o grøn kjole) ses H.K.H Prinsesse Marie, forfatterens mor Janne Hejgaard og Belgiens ambassadør Hr. Jean-Francois Branders.jpg
[edit]Image sourced as from the website international-club-copenhagen.blogspot.com, and by Hasse Ferrold. No clear permission. TherasTaneel (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Sissel-Jo Gazan modtager De Frankofone Ambassadørers Litterære Pris 2012 for sin roman Dinosaurens Fjer, overrakt af H.K.H Prinsesse Marie. Foto Hasse Ferrold.jpg
[edit]Image sourced as from the website international-club-copenhagen.blogspot.com, and by Hasse Ferrold. No clear permission. TherasTaneel (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Lacking essential source information; also low quality, blurred MPF (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: I think permission is needed because of the "©Koos Breukel" title Encycloon (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dear sir/madam,
- Working for the publishing house of Saskia de Coster (Das Mag), I'm trying to update her profile on wikipedia. Yesterday I changed her picture on the page according to her own request.
- Today I see that the picture is deleted again, because of possible copyright violation. This is not the case as the copyrights are property of the publishing house Das Mag.
- I want to ask you to repost the previous picture to the wikipedia page of Saskia de Coster.
- Kind regards,
- Roos | Das Mag
- (Roosdasmag44) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosdasmag44 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloon (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Permission has been received from the photographer. ticket:2020010710005522. Elly (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Now has OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it isn't. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP, no meaningful exif, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it isn't. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP, no meaningful exif, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
no educational value. non-notable subject. self-promotional item only. Quakewoody (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The person in the picture has Wikipedia articles in three languages.
Keep.-- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)- Well, wait. He HAD Wikipedia articles in over a dozen languages. There are only 2 remaining (plus Wikidata), but are awaiting deletion. He had articles in the past, which were also deleted. And, he is a globally blocked sock puppet vandal. So, now, knowing the rest of the story, do you still want to keep it? Quakewoody (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't know that story. So I retract my keep vote. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry is not yet in public domain as he « died for France » he has extension until 2032. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Le Petit Prince (1943 book) for a recent related DR. VIGNERON (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 08:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This was added in error and depicts a non-notable person Nick Number (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 16:29, 22 März 2020 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 19:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramaeschlimann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small files, no EXIF, all marked "own work" (i.e. claim that the uploader is the photographer), yet seemingly all findable elsewhere on the net (or at least the first six that I spot checked), so all appear copied off the net.
- File:Fnh boston.jpg (Source: [12])
- File:FNH-6505.jpg
- File:FNH-6503&4.jpg
- File:Fnh-6502 Goascoran.jpg (Source: [13])
- File:FNH-7601 YOJOA II.jpg
- File:FNH6504 ULUA.jpg (Source [14], same as one of the above)
- File:FNH1051 GUAYMURAS.jpg (Source: Captain Ted at shipspotting.com)
- File:FNH-7303 WARUNTA.jpg (Source: [15])
- File:FNHPCX.png
- File:FNH-8501 CHAMELECON.jpg (Source: [16] or [17])
- File:FNH-1402 GENERAL MORAZAN.jpg
- File:FNH-3213.jpg
- File:Fnh-3601.jpg (Source: [18] or [19])
- File:Fnh-1071.jpg
- File:FNH-1611 Fuerza Naval de Honduras Gracias a Dios.jpg
Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not delete them yet. I only want to enrich the information of: "https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerza_Naval_de_Honduras". Maybe someone could help me to upload them right without delete them (it took me a lot of work to find those photos through the Internet). Please see that the information provided is correct. Do not delete them please.
Ramaeschlimann (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's understandable that we want illustrations for articles. However, we have to follow copyright. Just like we ask people to write their own words on Wikipedia articles and not copy them from elsewhere, we also need to have them take their own photographs -- copying them from the Internet is usually a copyright violation and always against Commons policy. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. When tagging a file "own work", you are claiming you actually took the photograph and own the copyright, not found someone else's photograph. To use someone else's photograph, either the copyright needs to have expired (usually an extremely long time, 70 to 120 years is common), or the photographer needs to license it under a "free" license. Sometimes those can be found on Flickr or other places, but it's rare, and we need to see those licenses on a website. While we do appreciate efforts to improve articles, Commons:Licensing means we also need to follow copyright fully (and Commons itself cannot use a fair use rationale). Making a "free encyclopedia" can sometimes be harder than just making an encyclopedia, unfortunately. The "free" is not really free of cost, but mainly free to be copied by others without needing to worry about copyright, so we need a very liberal license for the files, which unfortunately we do not have here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ramaeschlimann: It might be possible that you could upload them to es-wiki directly, but looking at es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, they only allow copyrighted illustrations in very limited circumstances. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tengku Ani Soraya bt Tengku Sulaiman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:SUKMALINDO 2017.jpg
- File:Persembahan sempena Pra Pelancaran Festival Gamelan Sedunia.jpg
- File:Pengacara Jemputan Pertandingan Gamelan Melayu Kebangsaan 2013.jpg
- File:Pengacara Jemputan MAKE UniSZA.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. Caption placed on en-wiki by the uploader (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Rockefeller-Silvia&direction=next&oldid=866669126) says "Ocean Drive Magazine". Uploader's other image File:Rick Rockefeller-Silvia & Sakramenter.jpeg was claimed as own work but sourced to both fireandearthphoto.com and www.RickRockefeller-Silvia.com - it seems unlikely that uploader is the photographer and/or copyright holder for all three publications. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Keine enzyklopädische Verwendung denkbar, Persönlichkeitsrechte, Urheber ist sicher nicht die dargestellte persone Kein Einstein (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Keine enzyklopädische Verwendung denkbar Kein Einstein (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Keine enzyklopädische Verwendung denkbar, Persönlichkeitsrechte, Urheber ist sicher nicht die dargestellte Person (links) Kein Einstein (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not own work. Picture is still copyrighted. Buidhe (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Sieht nach Agenturfoto aus, keine Freigabe durch den Fotografen ersichtlich. Mögliche URV? Jbergner (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Sieht nach Agenturfoto aus, keine Freigabe durch den Fotografen ersichtlich. Mögliche URV? Jbergner (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Die Witwe des Bildhauers C.J. Hoffmann möchte das Foto dieser in Privatbesitz befindlichen Plakette gelöscht haben. Sie entzieht mir ihre Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung der Datei. Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Die Witwe des Bildhauers C.J. Hoffmann möchte das Foto dieser in Privatbesitz befindlichen Plakette gelöscht haben. Sie entzieht mir ihre Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung der Datei. Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Die Witwe des Bildhauers C.J. Hoffmann möchte das Foto dieser in Privatbesitz befindlichen Plakette gelöscht haben. Sie entzieht mir ihre Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung der Datei. Bärwinkel,Klaus (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Logo of not notable company in Sweden. Not in use, never been categorized, and no educational value. Ketil3 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 02:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Copyrights violation. Nanahuatl (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 02:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I took that photo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.181.152.173 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Not found outside wikiworld and 1280px isn't that small. --Achim (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 02:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Usuario nuevo. Foto tomada de la página web (© 2014 GALALIRICA - Todos los derechos reservados) Victorgibby 06:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 02:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Not found at URL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The templates marks files from Journal of Islamabad Medical & Dental College, in which their Submissions stated that their files are licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0. As the template itself is unfree, meaning that files using this template is also unfree, so it should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd: If you dig deep with the URL provided in the website, you find the CC-BY-NC-4.0 license. The image of the license (dollar sign with a cross) also shows clearly that it is a noncommercial license. So it is very clear that the license provided is noncommercial.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, if the publisher can clarify their license via OTRS, it will be the most undoubted and clearest way to declare their license.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I emailed Prof. Dr. Naila Irum Hadi, the principal of the JIMDC as stated here and asked them to change the license. Ahmadtalk 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per ticket:2020010810001006 and COM:PCP, which clarifies that the content has been published under CC-BY-NC. Ahmadtalk 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Does the ticket say JIMDC responded to the request and confirmed NC-status? FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the email comes from an official email address. I can also confirm that they have confirmed that the text of the website is published under CC-BY-NC. I replied back (with my personal email, not OTRS) and asked them to change the license available on the website. As a result, they have changed the link's "title" (which was CC-BY) to CC-BY-NC. I know that the text on the website still needs clarification (it's a mixture of CC-BY and CC-BY-NC), but I think we can delete the template considering COM:PCP. However, I can ask them to correct the current statement, if you think that is needed. Ahmadtalk 15:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, they should just because it's proper - but your e-mail exchange is sufficient to convince me to support deleting the template; apparently the treasure trove is not a treasure trove after all. FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the email comes from an official email address. I can also confirm that they have confirmed that the text of the website is published under CC-BY-NC. I replied back (with my personal email, not OTRS) and asked them to change the license available on the website. As a result, they have changed the link's "title" (which was CC-BY) to CC-BY-NC. I know that the text on the website still needs clarification (it's a mixture of CC-BY and CC-BY-NC), but I think we can delete the template considering COM:PCP. However, I can ask them to correct the current statement, if you think that is needed. Ahmadtalk 15:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Does the ticket say JIMDC responded to the request and confirmed NC-status? FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
unlikely "own work". TherasTaneel (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
unlikely "own work". TherasTaneel (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Who is the painter? Permission? Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. After the GI status achieved by Odisha, Only Banglar Rosogolla is a Bengali sweet; the diagram needs to be specific about that and not entirely display Rasogolla as Bengali sweet. Soumendrak (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The file is in use on several Wikipedia pages, from ar:مطبخ بنغلادشي to uk:Бангладешська кухня. Under COM:NPOV, that means we shouldn't delete it just for being inaccurate. --bjh21 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's being used on many pages, and the distinction can just be added to the description with discretion from people using it, can't it? Bug2266 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. per above & GI status achieved by Odisha doesn't mean the name is their property now to use. For example in Bangladesh, no one says Banglar Rosogolla, people simply says Rosogolla. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thumb| Mnaoir mnaoir (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused sunset photo, no context/location, little educational value over similar images already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
With the watermark of @ AMINI82 on the bottom left, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- But those are my pictures i took them and i would like to share it for the ppl who got ADHD and dyslexia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim ameeni (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Assuming Ameeni = Amini. --Achim (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then the watermark should be remove from the photography. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
With the watermark of @ AMINI82 on the bottom left, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Assuming Ameeni = Amini --Achim (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 09:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Usuario nuevo. Foto tomada de la página web (© 2014 GALALIRICA - Todos los derechos reservados) Victorgibby 06:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 09:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Does not match the specified license. A shot from the 1953 film, less than 70 years have passed since the film was produced. There is no evidence that the film is in the public domain under Kazakh law. GAndy (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 09:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Dubious licensing, no evidence of NASA copyright. VLu (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 09:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Orphan with better version available Bender2k14 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Demmo (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
PNG duplicate of File:Flag of Nepal.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --ƏXPLICIT 09:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Low quality Tom354 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Low quality; publicity in the center Tom354 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, watermark spoils the photo. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion the boy spoils the photo, so it is out of project scope. Commons has more than 500 photos about the same house. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This file is derivative work of text and photo. Who is author of text? Who is author of photo? Do they agree to publish under free license? Taivo (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Sealle (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The source page says says "I am Maria Zverintseva professional photographer from Prague that provides photography services in Europe along with my young, artistic, and friendly team." No evidence of a free license. Leoboudv (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: The uploader's talkpage is filled with DR and copyright violation notices and on July 17, 2017, he/she was warned to stop uploading copyright violations, I notice. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Leoboudv, free license added (website footer). --Goo3 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment at the bottom it says "All materials featured on this site are is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". But I can't find the photo at the website. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: not found at the source provided. --Sealle (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vladimir Shukhov gold medal
[edit]As per COM:Currency, the photographer’s permission required.
VLu (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Encik Tekateki as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:OOS. Pics taken without permission.
This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion and it is not obvious that this is a copyright violation. There is EXIF data. Please only use the copyvio button for obvious cases or cases where you can provide proof of your claims. Majora (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence of copyvio; in use = in scope. --Sealle (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
With the watermark of Rakesh Photography on the bottom left, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I believe that KP Rakesh is the author (User:Kprak09). He just used the abbreviation. --219.78.191.160 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per disc. --Indeedous (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
"tagen fra berlingske.dk"/"taken from berlingske.dk" doesn't make it own work. TherasTaneel (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Indeedous (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it isn't. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: No reasonable amount of doubt that this is not own work by uploader. Facebook metadata means that they might have upoaded the photo to Facebook and then downloaded it or sent it to themself from their phone to using Messenger. But given same location as other uploads, and not found elsewhere online (using Google Images and Tineye) I don't see any reason to doubt that the uploader is the copyright owner. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Zoom Earth images are copyrighted, see © Zoom Earth on the website A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
fake miserable-quality image with inaccurate/unhistorical crown Dragovit (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This crown combined with electoral hat does not belong to the kings of Bohemia. The original name of the file of this royal crown is the "King of the Romans". The original crown of Bohemian kins is the Crown of Saint Wenceslas, it is a part of the Bohemian Crown Jewels. The author was alerted about this on his personal talkpage, but deleted it all. Therefore, I suggest you delete this file. Dragovit (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, inaccuracy is not grounds for file deletion. You are free to upload a more accurate version of the file. DiegoAma (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless (and not in use) low quality file. Kathisma (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope / see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent quality, no other version exist. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spen their last 500 edits (!) spamming and attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted in another nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This combination of shield and realistic imperial (carolignian) crown is not known from any medieval illustration. This began to be used in late times (German Empire). Add sources or fix it. Dragovit (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless (and not in use) low quality file. Kathisma (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, possible COM:DW for crown. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, possible COM:DW for crown. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This combination of shield and realistic imperial (carolignian) crown is not known from any medieval illustration. This began to be used in late times (German Empire). Add sources or fix it. Dragovit (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted in another nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it isn't. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it isn't. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up prior to it being uploaded to Commons. Will be very difficult to get another photo of this. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Likely", "likely", "likely" - it's all supposition, completely unsupported by a shred of evidence. I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written those words in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia? Bookscale (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as transferrer. Good catch. Probably futile/unneeded to wait for w:User:Meganesia (original uploader), as they've been indeffed on enwiki for socking. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as transferrer. Good catch. Probably futile/unneeded to wait for w:User:Meganesia (original uploader), as they've been indeffed on enwiki for socking. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as transferrer. Good catch. Probably futile/unneeded to wait for w:User:Meganesia (original uploader), as they've been indeffed on enwiki for socking. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Question What Facebook page is it claimed this image comes from? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - exactly. Bookscale (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Without any evidence that this image is not the uploader's own work I see no reason to delete. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before (including of Pemulwuy itself where this photo is taken) which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written it in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia. Bookscale (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above link show that COM:AGF is suppressed by COM:PRP. As mentioned before, there are so many ways that this image may not be his own work. IMO there is significant doubt of the ownership of this image. You cannot prove this is his own work as well. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
We have already discussed these issues in several talk pages.
1) It is absurd to consider Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc part of the Spanish empire simply because Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was also King of Spain (among his many titles). No book or historian ever made that claim. It would be like saying that Spain was part of the Holy Roman Empire. It's factually false.
2)The borders of several areas and of the spanish road are wrong and exaggerated. See also talk page of this file.
3)We already have correct maps of the Spanish empire, as detailed as this one but without the wrong informations. Barjimoa (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep until the uses on de:Spanisches Kolonialreich and vi:Đế quốc Tây Ban Nha have been permanently replaced with corrected versions. COM:NPOV says that we don't delete files that are in use simply for being inaccurate. --bjh21 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- bjh21. In that case, we have a bigger problem. I just realized that the main file is not this one i asked to delete, but this one: File Talk: Imperio Español Completo.svg. I guess that the whole file should be replaced with File talk:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg, where they routinely check the correct borders. There are unfortunately a number of articles using File Talk: Imperio Español Completo.svg and it's going to take time to replace all of that. I'm confident that everything not coinciding with File talk:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg is incorrect orginal research, likely agenda-driven. I'm comparing the two and it's evident that someone just decided that the size of the Empire was not big enough and decided to add expand its borders everywhere. The problem is that now we are in front of a disaster.
- So, could you replace File Talk: Imperio Español Completo.svg with File talk:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg? Unfortunately i'm on mobile and can't upload new versions of SVG files. Barjimoa (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Barjimoa: No. Commons' policy (in COM:OVERWRITE) is that files should only be overwritten for minor improvements. Completely replacing a file with a duplicate of another very different file is not a minor improvement. Instead, all three versions should be kept here so that Wikipedias (and other projects) can decide for themselves which ones to use. If the disputed maps become permanently disused, then they can be deleted from Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the creator of one of the original maps. I just changed the map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg and also I changed this map to include the same info, so both do not currently include the HRE borders so this request has no sense right now. Check the talk page of the files for further info. A new map with a new name is provided in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Spanish_Empire_and_Empire_of_Charles_V.svg which includes the information of this map. Nagihuin (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I vote to keep it. This map is a good reference of the Empire. I think all faults can be repaired and fixed.NACLE (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The problems posed to me have been fixed. There may be others, but I am not aware of them. I think it's keep for now. So i have removed the request at the talk page. Barjimoa (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- And I readded it because the request is not decided yet. PS: I reverted the last uploaded version because that was a duplicate. --JuTa 12:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Uhm, JuTa, it's your upload that now restored the unrepaired version and duplicated File:Spanish_Empire_and_Empire_of_Charles_V.svg. I didn't upload a new file. I thought you mistakenly reproduced the wrong version on good faith.Barjimoa (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I assume the discussion is over, due to myself applying the neccessary and consensual changes so I proceded to remove the indication in the file page. Nagihuin (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: See previous DR: 1, 2, 3. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - copied from a Dailymail site here. Bookscale (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per Bookscale. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep nothing shows up on a reverse image search or anything else to suggest it is not the uploader's own work. Bookscale (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with "FBMD" in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - you've got no evidence that the photo isn't the user's own work. The user has uploaded the photo and confirmed in the summary it is their own work. You have nothing to show that that isn't accurate - show some good faith. The link you have provided does not show a consensus policy that such photos should be deleted or are copyright violations. Bookscale (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in a wider geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Low quality, possibly a low-resolution reproduction from a printed source, writing across the image; a better version exists as SVG file. Schlosser67 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: INVALID LIC. ©2019 Official City of Jacksonville and Duval County Government Website, All Rights Reserved. It doesn't appear on first glance that the City of Jacksonville or Duval County is made exempt from Florida Sunshine laws by the Legislature(and thus able to claim copyright on public records). Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, yes, the works of local government in Florida is free under state law. GMGtalk 20:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct! I had find this clarification: "Florida’s Public Records Law, Ch. 119, F.S., provides a right of access to the records of the state and local governments as well as to private entities acting on their behalf. In the absence of a statutory exemption, this right of access applies to all materials made or received by an agency in connection with the transaction of official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge." Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: license is valid. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Unnecessary PNG copy Macucal (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Useless rasterisation of File:Escudo de Martín de Ascargorta.svg. Kathisma (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm uncertain whether one of Michael Jackson's signatures has sufficient artistic merits for copyright protection. One of materials containing the iconic signature was deleted at English Wikipedia implicitly for being non-free and extraneous. If the material is deleted, what about the signature? Even when most signatures would not be eligible, is the signature artistic sufficiently for copyright? George Ho (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Almost forgot to say that the deleted material, the cover of the 2008 Kanye West remix of "Billie Jean", contains just text and plain black background with cursive "Thriller" logo overlapping "25". The material looks apparently simple, but the image is deleted, anyway. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: As a US signature, {{PD-signature}} applies. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the screenshot contains pictures of people who might not have put their pictures licensed as CC-0. Thus the chosen license might be a problem. However I am no a lawyer and not sure. I put a deletion request so that the community and the author can double check if everything is without problem. Renepick (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC).
- I agree on this, should be replaced with a censored picture.Emil Engler (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GitHub. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted character. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom but transwiki or re-upload to other projects where it is used according to local fair-use policy. Davidwr (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan/Mike Godwin mail. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
permission Geert Klok is missing, uploader agrees with removal, moreover there are alternatives see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Monument_Jacob_Klok and https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Bekemawarffum&diff=prev&oldid=55391378#Jacob_Klok_(2) Gouwenaar (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: {{FoP-Nederland}} applies. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and illustrations. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Azəri Türk dərgisi.jpg
- File:Azərbaycançılığın işarəsi.jpg
- File:Şimalı və cənubi azərbaycanlılar.jpg
- File:Qarabağ müharibəsi plakatı.jpg
- File:Xalq hərəkatı 1989.jpg
- File:Əhməd Yaşat.jpg
- File:Səməd Ağaoğlu Türkiyədə.jpg
- File:Səməd Ağaoğlu Şuşa.jpg
- File:Mizəbala Məmmədzadə.jpg
- File:KerimOdər.jpg
- File:Azerbaijani emigration 1926.jpg
- File:Əziz Alpoud 1943 il.jpg
- File:Əziz Alpoud 1940 il.jpg
- File:Əbdülvahab Yurdsevər.jpg
- File:Mamed Ali Rasulzade 1938.jpg
- File:Almas Ildyrym.jpg
- File:KabulMap.jpg
- File:Shahqulu.jpg
- File:Shusha1911.jpg
- File:AbbasquluKazimzadeinTurkey.jpg
- File:Abbasgulu Kazimzade in Istanbul.jpg
- File:Azərbaycan Milli Hökümətinin başçıları.jpg
- File:Pəhləvinin öldürdüyü Azərbaycanlılar.jpg
- File:Azerbaijani emigration in Turkey 1931.jpg
- File:Abbasgulu Kazimzade.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- EugeneZelenko, well, I’ll indicate the date of creation, but some photos are publicly available and taken from books, and their authors are completely unknown. But at the same time they are used by different media and authors.
- Ulvimamedov57 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- At least country of origin and approximate date of creation/publication for cases when authorship could not be find out. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I have designated everything I know about files, they are also publicly available. Ulvimamedov57 (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and publications. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Meydan 1989.png
- File:Xalq hərəkatı.jpg
- File:Azəri Türkü jurnalı.jpg
- File:Azərbaycançılığın rəmzi.jpg
- File:Qulamrza kitab.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- File:Qulamrza kitab.jpg - I've fixed license --Butko (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept: File:Qulamrza kitab.jpg per Butko. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs)
[edit]NBC news footage, copyrighted
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no indication this is in the public domain as claimed. Elli (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs)
[edit]© Gilles Peress | Magnum Photos https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/conflict/telex-iran-in-the-name-of-revolution/
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no indication this is in the public domain as claimed. Elli (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Iranian newspaper clipping from 2006, protected until 2036 per Iranian law.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no indication this is in the public domain as claimed. Elli (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Catherine Laurence as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://bloominthepark.com/about/ GMGtalk 17:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- COM:TOO Ireland is not very clear cut guidance on this. This would almost certainly be under TOO for the United States. If one and not the other, then the file could be retained locally. Having said that, the article to go along with the logo is pretty cringy advertorial. GMGtalk 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep solicito manter, pois se trata de obra de domínio publico, conforme legislação brasileira vigente. O licenciamento foi inserido de forma equivocado pelo usuário e já foi corrigido (I request to keep, because it is a work of public domain, according to the current Brazilian legislation. Licensing was mistakenly entered by the user and has already been fixed). Ajmcbarreto (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader needs to provide evidence why it is PD and properly attribute the file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20.. (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
o editor não é o autor da imagem: Autor Luiz Carlos 1979-20..imagem oficial de uma instituição - VDA (The publisher is not the author of this image: Author Luiz Carlos 1979-20 ..-official image of an institution - VDA) O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Visually identical to File:Star Wars Russian Crawl logo.png, which was uploaded less than an hour later by the same user. PNG format is preferred for logos. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
File:Jarosław Górnicki zawiązujący welon Piotrowi Sobańskiemu na XX Rajdzie Ekologiczno-Przyrodniczym Orli Staw 2018 w Mycielinie..jpg
[edit]Chciałbym aby plik został usunięty ze względu na ochronę danych osobowych osób zamieszczonych na zdjęciu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JargurG (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 Jan 2020 (UTC)
- English: I would like the file to be deleted for the sake of protecting the personal data of persons included in the photo- Google translate.Jonteemil (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- To note is that JargurG is the uploader of the file.Jonteemil (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Miwako Sato as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Falsely or incorrectly dated: The photo was actually taken in 1982 (when she was 50 years of age), not 1962 (when she was 30 years of age). The copyright does not expire yet (50 years after publication according to the licence tag). See Category:Sirikit Kitiyakara in 1962 also. GMGtalk 21:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Converting this to DR not because I think the nomination is necessarily wrong, but because it's probably too complex of a rationale to qualify as abundantly obvious as normally required for speedy deletion. GMGtalk 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stop removing your discussion page with our conversation, that's tricky and deceptive behavior, you've done much damage to Wikipedia and Wikimedia by overhelming by inaccurate and ugly pictures and by starting editing wars. Replacing accurate files by your inaccurate and fictional ones is vandalization of Wikipedia. It is so indecent, selfish, mean and superior to replace the various files created by the members of community by own failed/amateur creations. – Dragovit (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This file is in use on en:Prince-elector, so under COM:NPOV and COM:INUSE, it should not be deleted merely for being inaccurate or of poor quality. The question of which picture to use on en:Prince-elector should be dealt with on English Wikipedia, not here on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tha author of this file replaced another one on en:Prince-elector, which explains everything. The author inserted his files into the article without discussion. I see no reason why he can replace foreign files without discuss and no one else can replace his files by same way. – Dragovit (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fictitious and miserable-quality image without historical sources, only based in the mind of the author Dragovit (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fictitious and miserable-quality image without historical sources, only based in the mind of the author Dragovit (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep under COM:INUSE so long as it is used on en:Prince-elector. --bjh21 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just kidding? The file was inserted into the article on 4.1.2020. Don't you care, that the previous ones have been there much longer? Don't you mind that one person User:Q douglasii has transformed the article en:Prince-elector as his personal gallery of his-made pictures? Ridiculous and childish. – Dragovit (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The factual accuracy of the file is disputed
[edit]- Please have a look at these historical thalers. It's show a real historical Coat of arms of the Electorate of Hanover.
-7242.jpg)
-2279.jpg)
-1117.jpg)
-2271.jpg)
-2273.jpg)
And now please compare these pictures, which is closer to them?
-
(current)
-
-
-
-
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![152 File:Bray wyatt "the fiend".jpg](#File:Bray_wyatt_"the_fiend".jpg){kind=link}
_ses_H.K.H_Prinsesse_Marie,_forfatterens_mor_Janne_Hejgaard_og_Belgiens_ambassadør_Hr._Jean-Francois_Branders.jpg){kind=link}
_2020.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2020_2.png){kind=link}
_(5822105233).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_044.73.jpg){kind=link}
_-_16.9.84_-_073.37.jpg.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Th._Jefferson_1905_-_138.60.jpg){kind=link}
_-_142.06.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Albert_Memorial_1862-76_-_Patrick_Maddowell_Europa_-_London_-_87_-_137.01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Gen._Grant-Denkmal,_1902-20_-_Washington_-_150.32.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Golgatha_-_Berlin_Treptow,_Skulpt._im_Park_88_-_143.34.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Marsyas_III,_1964-66_-_72_-_Ffm._76_-_143.38.jpg){kind=link}
_-_138.03.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Die_gro%C3%9Fe_Verweigerung_--_Besitz_d._K%C3%BCnstlers_Braunschweig_-_81_151.15.jpg){kind=link}
_Nymphen_-_Paris,_vor_Louvre_1930-37-81_-_145.65.jpg){kind=link}
_v._M._Kasakow_59_-_025.57.jpg){kind=link}
_Paris_MNAM_86_156.02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_053.06.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Denkm._Admiral_Farragut_-_138.35.jpg){kind=link}
_-_General_Athony_Wayne,_1937_-_138.37.jpg){kind=link}
_-_19._Jh._Plastik_Ungarn_n._1900_-_Denkmal_Zsolnay_(Keramik-Fabr.)_-_138.11.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Terminal_1977,_documenta_6_-_150.22.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Berlin-Curves,_1986-87_-_W-Berlin_87_-_150.28.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Berlin_block_-_Chaplin_1979_-_Berlin-W.,_Neue_NG_-_150.25.jpg){kind=link}
-Ossip_ZADKINE_Die_zerst%C3%B6rte_Stadt_151.36.jpg){kind=link}
,_1963.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Torso_-_M%C3%BCnchen,_vor_d._Lenbachhaus_1971_-_150.60.jpg){kind=link}
_1887_Moskau_84_-_137.52.jpg){kind=link}
_-%3F-_78_-_137.15.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Denkmal_Pr%C3%A4sident_James_Garfield_-_138.65.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Abraham_Lincoln_-_138.59.jpg){kind=link}
_Tafel_03.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(44799623531).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/01/06#c-Ixfd64-2020-01-06T20:37:00.000Z-File:Bray_wyatt_"the_fiend".jpg){kind=link}
![17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/01/06#c-U1Quattro-2020-02-19T17:04:00.000Z-File:Bray_wyatt_"the_fiend".jpg){kind=link}
![11:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/01/06#c-Gbawden-2020-03-02T11:01:00.000Z-File:Bray_wyatt_"the_fiend".jpg){kind=link}
_ses_H.K.H_Prinsesse_Marie,_forfatterens_mor_Janne_Hejgaard_og_Belgiens_ambassad%C3%B8r_Hr._Jean-Francois_Branders.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ses_H.K.H_Prinsesse_Marie,_forfatterens_mor_Janne_Hejgaard_og_Belgiens_ambassad%C3%B8r_Hr._Jean-Francois_Branders.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[15]](https://diarioroatan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/WhatsApp-Image-2018-08-24-at-1.28.20-PM.jpeg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e1sO40pXHgw/T6cIAwGByWI/AAAAAAAAB8s/ALLUBZnvO6U/s1600/sdsdsdj.jpg){kind=link}
_2020.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2020.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2020.png){kind=link}
_2020.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2020_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2020_2.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2020_2.png){kind=link}
_2020_2.png){kind=link}
_(5822105233).jpg){kind=link}
_(5822105233).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(5822105233).jpg){kind=link}
_(5822105233).jpg){kind=link}
Exactly, the first one with the simple Lower Saxon steed is really far away. Unfortunately, this is the same with all other author's files. – Dragovit (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fictitious and miserable-quality image without historical sources, only based in the mind of the author Dragovit (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep under COM:INUSE so long as the file remains in use on en:Prince-elector and en:Electorate of Bavaria. --bjh21 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable-quality image that the author replaces better ones Dragovit (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- No other such file exists. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep under COM:INUSE so long as it remains in use on en:Prince-elector and en:Margraviate of Brandenburg. --bjh21 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
All my artwork is adapted from existing, free-use licensed art on Wikimedia Commons. As a formally trained and employed historian, I can vouch for the paleographic historicity and provide links to primary sources.
All the artwork is referenced to primary historical sources on numerous articles throughout Wikimedia and Wikipedia. For example, [20] depicts a few primary sources just like the my artwork. Moreover, Commons Categories such as subcategories of the Holy Roman Empire, and Electorates of the Holy Roman Empire (with subcategories) group together these primary sources, but Dragovit deletes the evidence and vandalizes the art. They also delete all categories from Media and Articles constitutes [21].
A simple glance at my Talk pages, his history of his edit wars with many Wikipedians over time, multiple, rapid reversion to non-substantive Vandalism further violates Wikipedia policy—harassment, name-calling, insults—in particular [22].Q douglasii (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality coat of arms which the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
fake coat of arms invented by author has no support in history, the author replaces better ones by it Dragovit (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is spam. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This violates copyrights and plagiarizes from a commercial website on American family names, [[23]]. Q douglasii (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The file in question ultimately derives from a scan of a page from the official Austro-Hungarian roll of arms (Österreichisch-Ungarische Wappenrolle; see Ströhl - Österreichische Wappenrolle (1890) Tafel 03.png). It was created for the Austro-Hungarian state in 1890 by Hugo Gerard Ströhl, who died in 1919. The copyright is not owned by some American website, and indeed cannot be as it is in the public domain in the US (70 years after the death of the author if memory serves). It is also worth noting that the link supplied does not even support the claim. Alphathon /ˈæɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I can't find any remotely similar arms on the referenced page, while they clearly do appear on File:Ströhl - Österreichische Wappenrolle (1890) Tafel 03.png. --bjh21 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep traced from Ströhl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathisma (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:SCOPE, COM:INUSE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Miserable poor-quality ugly image and author's imitation of the file Arms_of_East_Prussia.svg Dragovit (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am fascinated by how creepy and ugly this file is. Anyone see those blue spots on the white field? Fascinating that someone created and published it. Shame. – Dragovit (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality image with historical inaccuracies (wrong crown), the better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Excellent quality, no other version exists. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stop removing your discussion page with our conversation, that's tricky and deceptive behavior, you've done much damage to Wikipedia and Wikimedia by overhelming by inaccurate and ugly pictures and by starting editing wars. Replacing accurate files by your inaccurate and fictional ones is vandalization of Wikipedia. It is so indecent, selfish, mean and superior to replace the various files created by the members of community by own failed/amateur creations. Dragovit 10:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
fake-fictitious miserable-graphic amateur poor-quality image, by which the author replaces better and more accurate files, which mean reducing the level of information on Wikipedia or simply I call it - vandalization of Wikipedia! 194.213.41.2 09:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC) File:Albrecht Altdorfer 044.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. @Dragovit and Q douglasii: Please sort this out on en:Talk:Holy Roman Empire, not here. Under COM:NPOV, Commons should not delete files that are in use on Wikipedia, and this file is currently in use on en:Holy Roman Empire. If Wikipedia decides not to use this image, then we can consider deleting it. --bjh21 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- user:Dragovit is a spam account. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is spam. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is spam. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent IP ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is spam. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is spam. Also, RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. User makes no substantive contributions, but spent their last 500 edits attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Out of a thousand edits, Dragovit, has only hounded other users. RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit.
- No other version of the file exists.Q douglasii (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
File:Sissel-Jo Gazan modtager Læsernes bogpris 2014, uddelt af Danmarks Biblioteksforening og Berlingske, overrakt af Søren Kassebeer.jpg
[edit]
Image sourced as from the website berlingske.dk, and by Palle Peter Skov. No clear permission. TherasTaneel (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neither the electorate nor the elector ever used this coat of arms, never existed. Also the electoral hat is also inaccurate. — Dragovit (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:SCOPE, COM:INUSE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. User makes no substantive contributions, but spends all their time attacking and Wikihounding the community and vandalizing random pages. Request permanent ban for Dragovit. Q douglasii (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:INUSE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. Q douglasii (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:INUSE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RM vandalism by user:Dragovit, note the Wikihounding and Personal Attacks. Categories are necessary for Wikis to function, stripping them is Vandalism. Above makes no substantive edits to wikis, but spends time attacking others. No better version exists. They have problems with centering, but otherwise are the same. Q douglasii (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:INUSE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
miserable poor-quality picture with historical inaccuracies, a better vector version already exists Dragovit (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted to version by user:LutzBruno. user:Dragovit on a campaign of Personal Attack, agressive Vandalism, and Wikihounding, all major violations of the rules. No productive contributions, and the user has a history of conflict against the community on Wikipedia. Extremely disruptive of the community everywhere. Request they be permanently banned.Q douglasii (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Stop removing your discussion page with our conversation, that's tricky and deceptive behavior, you've done much damage to Wikipedia and Wikimedia by overhelming by inaccurate and ugly pictures and by starting editing wars. Replacing accurate files by your inaccurate and fictional ones is vandalization of Wikipedia. It is so indecent, selfish, mean and superior to replace the various files created by the members of community by own failed/amateur creations. – Dragovit (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted to version by user:LutzBruno. user:Dragovit on a campaign of Personal Attack, agressive Vandalism, and Wikihounding, all major violations of the rules. No productive contributions, and the user has a history of conflict against the community on Wikipedia. Extremely disruptive of the community everywhere. Request they be permanently banned.Q douglasii (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dragovit: Please can you point to the "better vector version"? I can't see one in any of this file's categories. --bjh21 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, here is. Kingdom of Saxony, is that right? The file is called Königreich Sachsen, so I guess so. – Dragovit (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- That would be File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Saxony 1806-1918.svg? That's a completely different coat of arms, so it can't possibly be a vector replacement for this one. File:Small Arms of the Kingdom of Saxony 1806-1918.svg is more plausible, though the addition of supporters seems like it might be significant (unless that's one of the inaccuracies you're complaining about). --bjh21 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, here is. Kingdom of Saxony, is that right? The file is called Königreich Sachsen, so I guess so. – Dragovit (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:NOTUSED. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Wiktionaries show prononciation of a different word thanks to this redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunstück von Slotermeyer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Not valid reason. --SCP-2000 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:SCP-2000. --Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)