Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/02/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_1).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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._-_Graphic_work_-_Royal_Library_of_Belgium_-_S.V_63059.jpg){kind=link}
![179 File:ד"ר גדעון מנליס.jpg](#File:ד"ר_גדעון_מנליס.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Lieutenant_A.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![239 File:Logo "Bergisches Wetter".png](#File:Logo_"Bergisches_Wetter".png){kind=link}
Non-English page.Not a gallery. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - housekeeping -- note that non-English galleries are permitted, but they must have images. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Bogus license, the license available at the source provided is a non commercial license, and that is not allowed here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, my error.Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Film poster presented as “own work”. Copyright issues obvious. Kleuske (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:54, 22 Februar 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: movie poster --Krdbot 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
this is my private picture Abhinavday (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
please delete these media Anureza (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
this is my private photo which is uploaded by mistake Abhinavday (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
this is my private photo which is uploaded by mistake Abhinavday (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
delete this photos ,its voilate my community Abhinavday (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Screenshot of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zdiiaypP5O8, not own work Ytoyoda (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
From https://promolover.com/dubai/promos/mcgettigans-presents-the-coronas-live-in-concert/photos Ytoyoda (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Herbythyme for violating copyright. GFJ (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free work, see Jonteemil's campaign. See museodelmarchioitaliano for the history of the original. Renardo la vulpo (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:EugeneZelenko for violating copyright. GFJ (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Gabocharria (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Own work? Lexy iris (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Nope[1]. --4nn1l2 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:El uniforme de tecnico.jpg
- File:El dedientes2.jpg
- File:Mi perrito chiquito.jpg
- File:Las imagenes de avatar o pefil.gif
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: low resolution photos of domesticated dog. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 11:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the photo's subject cannot be the author; so missing permissing Velocitas (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore SohaibAhmadu (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, uploader request. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The categories clarify the purpose of this photo. In combination with the dried fruit and the books it seems to show two vollunteers or employees of the Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque fulfilling their duties. Please keep, as it might become useful. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep Per NearEMPTiness. Image in scope and educational, as much as File:Grand Mosque Muscat (46086234111).jpg. If the former is deleted, so should this last. Tm (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Keep not a 'personal photo'. --Fæ (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep a date seller in Oman seems like a useful image to keep. Ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Leshlegakwa (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images here are possible copyvio's
- File:Okovango delta.jpg
- File:Rock River Africa.jpg
- File:Botswana Animal.jpg
- File:Gaming mouse.jpg
- File:Women solider.jpg
- File:Female lion in African.jpg
- File:Elephants found in Maun.jpg
- File:Botswana Elephant.jpg
- File:Gaming Desktop.jpg
Zaxxon0 (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: inconsistent sizes, metadata. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
wrong picture uploaded JunreyAmas90 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zaxxon0 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I think that this is a borderline case for me, the image is of a low quality, but this is most definitely not a speedy deletion as a personal image. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zaxxon0 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep I believe that this is of a reasonably good quality to be potentially useful. Although I do understand that this is a borderline case. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Santrie Salafie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Only used on the Bahasa Indonesian Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted on August 2019 as spam. Out of project scope.
ƏXPLICIT 08:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Zaxxon0 (talk · contribs) nominated the photo for speedy deletion as out of scope. This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular deletion request. Maybe the file is usable in category:Corsair Components? Taivo (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The scope CSD is weak, this is illustrative for the conspiracy theory or conspiracy theories in general. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: categorized, kept. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmadulwadud (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo for non-wikipedian. Out of scope
--Alaa :)..! 13:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo for non-wikipedian. Out of scope
--Alaa :)..! 13:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 04:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Párkányi Tamás (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 05:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 Non-Commercial restriction. Leoboudv (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: pic of a not-noticeable band, not used anywhere, uploaded as part of a promotional campaign L736E (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amir reza D.P.C (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and movies stills. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Actors picture.jpg
- File:Bus fire.jpg
- File:Mahgereftegi1.jpg
- File:Articles-328-77822.jpg
- File:اخراجی 3.jpg
- File:Gtrtr.png
- File:The murder scene.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE personal image. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 11:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not a selfie, photographer's permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
car pas de copyright Hannelore cayre (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Gunofficial1998 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014906320945&lst=100000187477908%3A100014906320945%3A1582351666&sk=photos
Can't find the photo at the given link. It's an album with way too many photos to sift through. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The given link brought to Facebook profile of ourselves.
I also find that her English Wikipedia biography was deleted . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RJFF/Thita_Manitkul
https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thita_Rangsitpol_Manitkul [1]
Her biography might also be deleted because of false information.223.24.186.100 06:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. Uploader is a sockpuppet. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, not educationally helpful. Sole contribution of the uploader. GFJ (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, lacks educational relevance. 89.144.219.167 09:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; the person in the picture doesn't seem to be notable. --Ahmadtalk 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted characters.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, see {{Costume}}. Electron ツ ➧☎ 12:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, {{Costume}} --Cody escouade delta (d) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, {{Costume}} --Clodion (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per comments (COM:COSTUME). --Ahmadtalk 18:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
taken from Instagram, low resolution, no Exif data Threecharlie (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; can also be found elsewhere on the web using Google search by image. --Ahmadtalk 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Наталья Лорд
[edit]- File:Сергей Бурунов на премьере фильма.webp
- File:Данила Поперечный.jpg
- File:Катя Адушкина.jpg
- File:Эван Питерс.jpg
Looks like all of them are copyright violations. — Vort (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; all of them can be found elsewhere on the web using Google search by image/TinEye. --Ahmadtalk 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. File:Solonik.png can also be found elsewhere on the web. --Ahmadtalk 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. File:Kevin Sinnott.jpg can be used to illustrate an article/a page about Kevin Sinnott, but the painting needs OTRS permission. --Ahmadtalk 22:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Filename translates as "16 year old Chinese high school student's penis". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjrmtg: You categorized this 10 days ago, shortly after it was uploaded. Any comments? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't know the translation. I'd nominate it for deletion. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Educationally worthless and quite possibly illegal. AshFriday (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Child pornography.--運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I will also contact Wikimedia Legal and ask them to take action, if necessary. --Ahmadtalk 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation, the images are derived from Youtube videos.
GFJ (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Low-re images, probably not own work. Other uploads by user are copyvio.
- File:AZİZAGA MAMMADOV.png
- File:TALEH XALİLOV.png
- File:RAMİZ HASANLİ.png
- File:ADİL CEFAKESH.png
- File:KAMAL CAMALOV.png
- File:Afet Xalilova.png
- File:ILDIRIM EKBEROGLU.png
- File:ShainM.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment If you consider 300*500 as low resolution, you should have a look at the images in Category:Scientists. There are many smaller images I have been unable for years to categorize by scientific field and/or country; I'd be glad if some of them could be deleted. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Vintage low-re images, probably not own work.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
These are all small with no EXIF. The uploader has a history of uploading without regard to copyright.
- File:ABRAHAM RUSTAM.png
- File:EHTIRAM ILHAM.png
- File:Əlish bey Keremli.png
- File:FAXRU.png
- File:K QADIM.png
- File:K GAHRAMAN.png
- File:Mahmud Ustaclı.png
- File:Zaur USTAC.JPG
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Unused selfie, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Source is as indicated, but there is no evidence at the source that the image is available under the license stipulated. Further, there is no apparent state government wide license that applies to all works of that government that would make this cc-by-sa-4.0. Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Of note: the uploader has now removed the license on the image, leaving it without a license. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copy vio. The bottom of the source page clearly says " © 2020 State of West Virginia". Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I uploaded this in a batch Flick upload; there are two better photos of this bus (File:Atlantic Nationals Antique Cars (35232581611).jpg and File:Atlantic Nationals Antique Cars (35362463995).jpg) without the individuals obstructing the view. Mindmatrix 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete. Uploader request. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 01:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is my own work. Personal archive, I scanned the pictures and uploaded them myself. Skribos (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; you didn't take the photos. --Gbawden (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Also:
- File:Titanic Slipways 20180914 103113 (46881112935).jpg
- File:Titanic Slipways 20180914 103710 (47008197654).jpg
- File:Titanic Slipways 20180914 103714 (32853954277).jpg
- File:Titanic Slipways 20180914 103714 (32853954277).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
File is no longer at Flickr so we cant verify license. MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination Flickr user and uploader is the same person per https://www.flickr.com/people/156154181@N07/ where it says "Also User:Iridescent on Wikimedia projects" and User:Iridescent is the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be a selfie. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- All of the files were uploaded by User:Salimmehmet1991 have copyvios actually:
- File:Presidential Library Cihannuma Hall.jpg
- File:Erdogan in Presidential Library.jpg
- File:July 15 exhibit, Cihannuma Hall, Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Rare Items in Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Dome Cihannuma Hall Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Shelves Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Entrance Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Reading lounge Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Lounge in Presidential Library.jpg
- File:Milli Kutuphane.png
--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused file. Looks like random picture of a window in unidentified location. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Huntersopak2005 (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, lacks encyclopedic relevance. GFJ (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Unused file without meaningful description. Looks like some sort of personal artwork. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pelinq-Arleston (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Arleston&Alwett.jpg
- File:Arleston officiel 01.jpg
- File:Arleston aux fourneaux.jpg
- File:Arleston Danthrakon.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: These are images of writer Christophe Arleston. So I keep all the proposed files here. --Érico (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Non-Commercial restriction. Leoboudv (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_1).jpg){kind=link}
- I am interested in posting several images that I think are good. I am looking for images that have this license. However, if there are errors in the uploads, I don't mind that images are deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I don't have all the knowledge about copyright and I don't care about deleting any of them. Mário NET (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I must warn you that perhaps this other image may have the same problem. Mário NET (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am interested in posting several images that I think are good. I am looking for images that have this license. However, if there are errors in the uploads, I don't mind that images are deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I don't have all the knowledge about copyright and I don't care about deleting any of them. Mário NET (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by User:Majora, failed license review and requested by uploader. GFJ (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
_-_iNaturalist_(photo_1).jpg){kind=link}
User Graten Zarubezhniy loadead some files. It seems that he just took them from the network, not paying attention to the restriction of the license. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
not free MisterXS (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Sealle, failed license review. GFJ (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Unused low-resolution logo replaced by File:Radio Chemnitz logo.svg. 213.147.166.200 22:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Uploaded 6 years ago, no need to delete. --Achim (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by superior file at File:Antenne-Thueringen.svg. 213.147.166.200 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Uploaded 4 years ago. --Achim (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this photo screenshot in youtube no own work. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by CptViraj as Fair use (Fair use) Strakhov (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This file may be under COM:TOO. Or may not (because of the publisher logo. Is that one COM:De minimis? Probably it isn't, but the file IMHO not suitable for speedy deletion). Strakhov (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Morgankevinj as copyvio. -- CptViraj (📧) 07:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Всі права захищені © Національна бібліотека України імені В. І. Вернадського, please explain why public domain in Ukraine. Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ответ: На сайте библиотеки никоим образом не указано на каких правах сама библиотека разместила это изображение и на каких условиях можно его использовать. Кроме того в правилах библиотеки "ПРАВИЛА КОРИСТУВАННЯ КОМП’ЮТЕРАМИ В ЧИТАЛЬНИХ ЗАЛАХ" (http://nbuv.gov.ua/node/3151) сказано, что "3. 3. Користувачі мають право: 4. Тимчасово зберігати файли зі знайденою інформацією тільки у спеціальній папці «User Documents»; файли, залишені користувачем в інших місцях, підлягають видаленню (збереження власної інформації у папці не гарантується). 5. Здійснювати копіювання знайденої інформації на власний змінний носій; пересилати необхідні документи, використовуючи власні електронні поштові скриньки." при этом администрация библиотеки отсылает пользователей к закону Украины "4. Обов’язки користувачів: 4. Дотримуватися Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» при копіюванні та використанні повнотекстової інформації (відповідно до ст.. 22, 23 вищеназваного Закону України від 23. 12. 1993 №3792-XXII)."
"Стаття 23. Вільне відтворення примірників твору для навчання
Допускається без згоди автора чи іншої особи, яка має авторське право:
1) відтворення уривків з опублікованих письмових творів, аудіовізуальних творів як ілюстрацій для навчання за умови, що обсяг такого відтворення відповідає зазначеній меті; 2) репрографічне відтворення навчальними закладами для аудиторних занять опублікованих статей та інших невеликих за обсягом творів, а також уривків з письмових творів з ілюстраціями або без них за умови, коли:
а) обсяг такого відтворення відповідає зазначеній меті;
б) відтворення твору є поодиноким випадком і не має систематичного характеру;" IahThoth (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @IahThoth: What you are refering to is a permission to "use" (personal and educative), not to license. Besides and as you say yourself Law No. 3792-XII of December 23, 1993 is still applying and this image is not public domain unless it has been published before January 1, 1951. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Вот я его и использую, в образовательных целях. Если это не правильно, тогда скажите, как использовать фотографию умершего 61 год назад писателя на его странице? Где и каким образом мне искать её автора, чтобы спросить о правах на распространение? Судя по отсутствию любой другой информации в интернет, я думаю, что это наверное единственное прижизненное фото писателя в электронном виде. Как оно вообще попало в сеть для меня загадка. IahThoth (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @IahThoth: You are just allowed to use it privately; copying it here is a "re-license" and you are not allowed to because it's against Commons rules and illegal in your country. The only way to have this image hosted here is to provide evidence that it has been published before January 1, 1951 (the date of death of the person pictured is irrelevant) or to ask electronic library "Ukrainica if they want to release it under a valid license. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Вот я его и использую, в образовательных целях. Если это не правильно, тогда скажите, как использовать фотографию умершего 61 год назад писателя на его странице? Где и каким образом мне искать её автора, чтобы спросить о правах на распространение? Судя по отсутствию любой другой информации в интернет, я думаю, что это наверное единственное прижизненное фото писателя в электронном виде. Как оно вообще попало в сеть для меня загадка. IahThoth (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: still no valid license. --JuTa 14:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kianooshnikkhah (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Images are small and without EXIF and have been uploaded by a user who has once uploaded a file without obtaining necessary permissions. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
ファイル間違いのため てにかね (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
- File:סימונה.jpg
- File:'אישה אחת' .jpg
- File:אישה אחת. צלמות- אביגיל שפרבר, רותם בכר, נעה שחם, זיו ממון, עירית שרביט.jpg
Didym (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Published here: https://www.gdansk.pte.pl/aktualnosci/prof-dr-hab-henryk-edel-krynski
- speedying. Ankry (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ankry (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Lots of user uploades are copyvios. Deleted per nomination. --Tarawneh (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Google Street View Images are copyrighted Ytoyoda (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio at 20:47, 5 April 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: unfree Google content --Krdbot 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Umakant Bhalerao (talk · contribs)
[edit]Tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}, but the design of these logos are far too complex to fall below the threshold of originality.
- File:Dhilwan International Public School.png
- File:KKEL logo.jpg
- File:S.K. Mother International School.gif
- File:Unison World School.png
- File:South City International School.png
ƏXPLICIT 00:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Text-only biography of a person who do not have an article on English Wikipedia. If in scope a proper article with wiki markup should be created instead. Thuresson (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"6 advantages of using WordPress". Not in use, the same text can be created with wiki markup. Thuresson (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion: specify why it is under copyright. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion: specify why it is under copyright. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Image is widely available on the web. It might be free, but it’s likely not own work: https://www.google.com/search?q=us%20syria%20bombardment&tbm=isch&hl=en-us&hl=en-US&safe=active&safe=active&tbs=rimg%3ACbZhzR_1_1ZxXyIkBWGhsxVN8MfgWLpVyAe-Dwg8_13aKR7m7yZdN7WXsK-u9ADp4Nmq_1wPjE4TZmkY_1bFaCcZlhhQolHcxVRYpds5dKhIJVhobMVTfDH4RvYy7ItQMqgYqEgkFi6VcgHvg8BF9dJt9qxnsFyoSCYPP92ike5u8EQtALEyEvRZ-KhIJmXTe1l7CvrsRb2WSgKRY_1xEqEgnQA6eDZqv8DxFJLTivUom9vioSCYxOE2ZpGP2xESYAzrwNwSB-KhIJWgnGZYYUKJQRS_1uAxcPXHAMqEgl3MVUWKXbOXRGj1R90oW_1eQ2H5CdZdI-c6Dw&client=safari&prmd=niv&ved=0CBIQuIIBahcKEwiQ15PmguTnAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQCA&biw=375&bih=553#imgrc=jE4TZmkY_bEKgM Ytoyoda (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Its obviously a fake anyway. Delete it. Alexpl (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Previously published at http://todoelfutbolensandiego.blogspot.com/2016/09/inauguran-micro-estadio-de-basquet-en.html?m=1 Ytoyoda (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Previously found at http://blogestadios.blogspot.com/2011/09/estadio-modelo-alberto-spencer-de.html?m=1, unlikely to be own work Ytoyoda (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion this is not a simple logo, so OTRS-permission from company representative is needed. Taivo (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is All Rights Reserved at the source. Does the uploader know copyright? Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused selfie of non-notable person (not mentioned neither in es.wiki nor on pt.wiki), out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No metadata. Very low resolution. May be cropped from original picture. Clear copyright violation of the original photographer. Also this person is a living person so there are good chances to get a good picture of this person without any problems. Suggest to delete this picture. Ranjithsiji (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unreliable uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Dunstall123
[edit]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nat Gold.jpg. 
- File:Natalie Gold 2019.png
- File:Natalie Gold Birthday.jpg
- File:Natalie Gold Galla.jpg
- File:NG 2019.png
- File:Natalie on her birthday.png (NB! uploaded using username Dunstall)
unused, uncategorized. Notability? Commons is not the private media repository. --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Poor quality, small, no EXIF, no evidence of a license . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Om mogelijke problemen met pdf bestanden te vermijden. Frans90245 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
outside of scope Lexy iris (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:INUSE. @Lexy iris: How is this image out of project scope? Per policy: "if it is in use, that is enough." --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 06:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not because it's out of scope (it falls within the project scope per Nat), but because it can be found here, published in February 16, 2020. The photo uploaded to Commons was uploaded in February 22, 2020. It's small and it lacks EXIF data, so this is almost surely a copyright violation. Needs OTRS permission. Ahmadtalk 22:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Ahmad252. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE (es:Míriam M. Ramírez). Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel: ¿Cuál es el motivo por el que se solicita el borrado?
- Trabajo de Miriammramirez
- Licencia CC-BY-SA 4.0.
- ¿Dónde está establecido que si la imagen no tiene enlace a Wikipedia debe ser borrada? CX147 Cristal (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel: What is the reason for the deletion?
- Work of Miriammramirez
- License CC-BY-SA 4.0.
- Where is it established that if the image has no link to Wikipedia it should be deleted? CX147 Cristal (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Patrick Rogel:
- No estoy cuestionando la relevancia o no para que haya una página en Wikipedia. Estamos conversando sobre la permanencia de la imagen. Cumple con todos los requisitos legales de licencia.
- Con precisión: ¿qué se está incumpliendo? He leido la política y no encuentro dónde se la está incumpliendo.
- Por favor, transcríbeme el párrafo donde se considera que se incumple con la política. Gracias. Saludos. CX147 Cristal (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Patrick Rogel:
- I'm not questioning the relevance or not for there to be a Wikipedia page. We're talking about the permanence of the image. It complies with all legal licensing requirements.
- Precisely: what is being breached? I have read the policy and I cannot find where it is failing.
- Please transcribe to me the paragraph where the policy is deemed to be violated. Thank you. Greeting. CX147 Cristal (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, non-notable person, COM:WEBHOST. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE (es:Míriam M. Ramírez). Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel: ¿Cuál es el motivo por el que se solicita el borrado?
- Obra derivada de This file was derived from: Bcneta.jpg: File:Bcneta.jpg
- Licencia CC-BY-SA 4.0.
- ¿Dónde está establecido que si la imagen no tiene enlace a Wikipedia debe ser borrada? CX147 Cristal (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Obra derivada de This file was derived from: Bcneta.jpg: File:Bcneta.jpg
.png){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel: What is the reason for the deletion?
- Work derived from This file was derived from: Bcneta.jpg: File:Bcneta.jpg
- License CC-BY-SA 4.0.
- Where is it established that if the image has no link to Wikipedia it should be deleted? CX147 Cristal (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Work derived from This file was derived from: Bcneta.jpg: File:Bcneta.jpg
.png-1){kind=link}
- Patrick Rogel:
- No estoy cuestionando la relevancia o no para que haya una página en Wikipedia. Estamos conversando sobre la permanencia de la imagen. Cumple con todos los requisitos legales de licencia.
- Con precisión: ¿qué se está incumpliendo? He leido la política y no encuentro dónde se la está incumpliendo.
- Por favor, transcríbeme el párrafo donde se considera que se incumple con la política. Gracias. Saludos. CX147 Cristal (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Patrick Rogel:
- I'm not questioning the relevance or not for there to be a Wikipedia page. We're talking about the permanence of the image. It complies with all legal licensing requirements.
- Precisely: what is being breached? I have read the policy and I cannot find where it is failing.
- Please transcribe to me the paragraph where the policy is deemed to be violated. Thank you. Greeting. CX147 Cristal (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, non-notable person, COM:WEBHOST. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical publication. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused homework of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reason pure speculation, no valid reason for delteion given. --Zenwort (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: blatant copyvio, grabbed from [2], where available in a bigger size since October 2018; and it is User:Zenwort's comment, what is real pure speculation here. --VLu (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, self promotion? Lotje (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image of low resolution, out of scope. GFJ (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Low quality unused private photo, out of scope. VLu (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused low resolution logo, replaced by File:Radio Lausitz logo.svg. 2001:4BB8:258:C64:8415:98E8:D048:75C3 22:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
advertisement Gunofficial1998 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Claim to being the copyright holder is dubious, This looks to be an image from a photoshoot. A crop of this image is used on the subject's official Facebook page and was posted before the upload to Commons. OTRS confirmation of permission would be required. Whpq (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Person in photo no longer wants image to be on Wikicommons Ymlacio (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: We rarely take images down at the request of the subject and never at the request of tird parties, who may be vandals, enemies, or others. The subject himself may send a request using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Spain is Life + 80 for authors who died before 1987 and Federico Beltran Masses died in 1949. UK doesn't have FOP for 2D art, and Spain appears to be country of origin unless I'm missing something. Abzeronow (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: According to the file description, the painting was first exhbited publicly in Madrid, in 1916, so I agree that Spanish law applies. The uploader's argument that there are no heirs and therefore no copyright is not valid -- there is always an heir, if only the Spanish government. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See metadata: Facebook notice. See images: fotopapa.com Mhhossein talk 06:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is CC BY NC 4.0 at the source. Leoboudv (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Gunofficial1998 as no source (No source since)
File has a source: own work. Is that correct? Don't know, the low resolution, lack of EXIF and the fact that this is the only upload of the user are some red flags. But there is a source. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" like murals in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep：It's very unfair! Why are you always picking on my works? But these photos you ignore it. Besides, freedom of panorama extends to works of artistic craftsmanship, and we usually treat these kind of work as being works of artistic craftsmanship. According to Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to take photographs the images of buildings and artwork--Wpcpey (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: It is on a fixed structure. See Cap. 528 Article 5, 71(1)(a) and 71(2)(b) for further details. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 09:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted characters A1Cafel (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- there don't have any evidence to proof that is copyrighted characters.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Wpcpey: It doesn't matter if the characters are copyrighted or not as long as they are not the focus of the image. feminist (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM. The mouse characters are only incidental to the focus of the image, which is the queue. They are not essential to the subject. feminist (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - You can crop the copyrighted works out and resubmit, if you wish. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, what is the problem with this foto? There are many other fotos of different users in the same Category also showing details of the Mosque, which is free accessable to public. Also there is no sign at the mosque forbidding to take pictures. --Muck50 (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- The image infirnges on the copyright held by the architect. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, what is the problem with this foto? There are many other fotos of different users in the same Category also showing details of the Mosque, which is free accessable to public. Also there is no sign at the mosque forbidding to take pictures. --Muck50 (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cplakidas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Clearly a modern work, and clearly not PD under the license claimed Strakhov (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this is clearly modern artwork, scanned from a book. The license clearly is bogus, and the uploader does not claim it is his own work either. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- The alleged source is 1918-dated. I'm not sure as Cplakidas about the impossibility of this illustration being created in 1918, at least the one on the right side. Strakhov (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - The work cited as the source is not illustrated. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Duke Nukem (character)
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Duke Nukem statue at The Gadget Show Live 2011 (5616993698).jpg
- File:San Diego Comic-Con 2012 - Duke Nukem statue in the Slideshow Booth (7586348084).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama doesn't apply? --Trade (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not permanently. FOP does not apply to these. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
There are no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine and no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
British FOP excludes 2D Graphic works 219.78.191.177 10:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The file bears a PD-Italy copyright tag that is clearly wrong since it applies only to simple photos while this is a book with sheets music. Apart from the wrong template, the work seems not to be in the public domain. The music - not necessarily published for the first time in Italy- is credited to Mexican composer en:María Grever (1885 -1951) and so her works will be copyrighted in Italy until 2022 (1951 + 1 +70). The Italian lyrics is credited to it:Riccardo Morbelli (1907-1966) so they will be copyrighted in Italy until 2037 (1966 + 1 +70). It should be taken in account also the copyright of illustrator of first and last pages (the first page bears a signature -unreadable in this picture- on the right corner -probably the name of illustrator) Civitas13 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation because the artist Médard-Siegfried Tytgat (1916–1997) was mistaken for is his grandfather also named Médard Tytgat (1871 – 1948). So this work is still under copyright. Please delete this file. WouterKBR (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the reason mentioned above, I agree with the deletion of this file. Apologies for the mistake --TobiasMoMu (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Médard Tytgat - Damme. Vue partielle. - Graphic work - Royal Library of Belgium - S.V 63058.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation because the artist Médard-Siegfried Tytgat (1916–1997) was mistaken for his grandfather also named Médard Tytgat (1871 – 1948). So this work (date 1954) is still under copyright. Please delete this file. WouterKBR (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the reason mentioned above, I agree with the deletion of this file. Apologies for the mistake --TobiasMoMu (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Scala copyright DilletantiAnonymous (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - see Bridgeman. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Médard Tytgat - Les premières fraises (Repas). - Graphic work - Royal Library of Belgium - S.V 63059.jpg
[edit]._-_Graphic_work_-_Royal_Library_of_Belgium_-_S.V_63059.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._-_Graphic_work_-_Royal_Library_of_Belgium_-_S.V_63059.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation because the artist Médard-Siegfried Tytgat (1916–1997) was mistaken for his grandfather also named Médard Tytgat (1871–1948). So this work is still under copyright. Please delete this file. WouterKBR (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the reason mentioned above, I agree with the deletion of this file. Apologies for the mistake --TobiasMoMu (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Médard Tytgat - Irène Montal. Jeune fille, à mi-jambes, de profil . à gauche, la main sur la hanche. - Graphic work - Royal Library of Belgium - S.V 63061.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation because the artist Médard-Siegfried Tytgat (1916–1997) was mistaken for his grandfather also named Médard Tytgat (1871–1948). So this work (date 1954) is still under copyright. Please delete this file. WouterKBR (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- For the reason mentioned above, I agree with the deletion of this file. Apologies for the mistake --TobiasMoMu (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
website copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no copyright at all. This is an old and historical picture of a bishop, victime of Khmer Rouge genocide. This is the only known picture of him, and the Catholic Church of Cambodia has no problem with the publication of this image. Please, do not destroy this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleguidonensis (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- You use wrong license you must use PD-Cambodia but If you use PD-Cambodia , This photo is copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Subject was born in 1937, so it is unlikely that this was taken before 1950. If it cn be proven that the photographer died before 1970, this could be kept, but as an anonymous image, the copyright lasts 75 years, so if it is anonymous, it is still under copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
website copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
New orthographic rule: It is written now like this https://www.lod.lu/?ANGELSBIERG1 Soued031 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- file renaming is not a reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leon Zanella (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted press articles from various newspapers and various journalists. No authorization from them.
- File:Journal La provence - 2001 - Tatouage.jpg
- File:Déclaration Monsieur le Maire de Bedoin, 1974, Exposition de Léon Zanella.jpg
- File:Déclaration de P. Ambrogiani, 1974, Exposition de Léon Zanella.jpg
- File:Exposition Mairie de Bedoin, 1974, Léon Zanella à 17 ans.jpg
- File:PARIS-MATCH mars2003.jpg
- File:041011-La Provence 30 ans d'exposition.jpg
- File:030201-La Provence--.jpg
- File:030202-Univers des Arts-Pour quelques heures le George V-par Jean Louis Avril.jpg
- File:030128-La Provence-Les 8 octobre seront désormais jours Zanella.jpg
- File:011206-Le Dauphiné Libéré-Les Tableaux de Zanella à Genève.jpg
- File:011209-La Provence-pagenintérieure.jpg
- File:011206-La Tribune-Zanella expose à l'ONU.jpg
- File:0208-09-L'accent de Provence 1.jpg
- File:0208-09-L'accent de Provence 2.jpg
- File:0204-Villages du Ventoux Magazine-num9-page intérieure.tif
- File:0201-UN Special-Magazine de l'O.N.U. page intérieure 2.jpg
- File:0201-UN Special-Magazine de l'O.N.U. page intérieure 1.jpg
- File:0111-Villages du Ventoux Magazine-num7-page intérieure.jpg
- File:0112-La Provence-Zanella, le Peintre, L'ONU et le record.jpg
Jules78120 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leon Zanella (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Léon Zanella à l'âge de 15 ans.jpg
- File:Léon Zanella dans son atelier en 1995 à Vaison-la-Romaine.tif
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leon Zanella (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official documents. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
- File:Maire de Bedoin-2002-02.jpg
- File:Oscar Goodman-Maire de Las Vegas-Proclamation officielle.jpg
- File:Diplome Guinness.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
New orthographic rule: https://www.lod.lu/?BROUDERBUER1 Soued031 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- no copyright violation, just wrong lic. easily correctable --Zenwort (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Appears without free license at https://board.postjung.com/1159849. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GFJ as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10|Unused personal image without encyclopedic relevance. Uploader has 17 global edits, the last in 2014. GFJ (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Being unused on sister projects is not a speedy deletion rationale, neither is being of "encyclopaedic relevance". Fæ (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unused personal image, out of scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
New orthographic rule: https://www.lod.lu/?BIWESCH1 Soued031 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Rosa Mauro
[edit]- File:Giuseppe Conte Ponte Polcevera 2019.jpg
- File:Giuseppe Conte e Marco Bucci plastico Ponte per Genova.jpg
- File:Posa primo impalcato Ponte Genova 2019.jpg
Wrong license. All these photos are tagged as CC-BY-SA 4.0 but in fact according to weblink used as source they are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 IT which it is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Please note that generally contents from website Governo Italiano - Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri are licensed under CC-BY 3.0 unless otherwise noted but in this case the different license is clearly shown on the page --Civitas13 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted character A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The person shown in the photo cannot be its author. This is not a selfie AleUst (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- “This is not a selfie“ but can be taken on her request using her camera. I rather see lack of relevance of person depicted. --Zenwort (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Zenwort, see Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie – this is not a valid policy. Don't you think that many of your comments show you're not good at Commons' rules? --VLu (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This map is not accurate since it presents the area as being a separate entity with no relation to the Spanish Republican State (see catalonian boarder and ESPANYA (Spain) on the Aragon Region. In reality, Catalonia was a region inside the Spanish Republican State which was being attacked commonly by Franco's forces, even if this map shows the particular case of the catalonian offensive. It is an incorrect representation that might let to think that Catalonia was an independent state during the War. Actually, its president (Companys) had claimed its independence, but no official independence had been established, and that was in 1934. The region was always part of the Spanish Republican State, and later on, the Spanish State under Franco's dictatorship domination. JJKIL (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use, cannot be deleted for this reason. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Creators are "E. Smith and E. Dixie" (see bottom-left of plate) , not as claimed. Ethel Dixie died in 1973. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- The book was published in 1925 in South Africa and is way out of copyright. I can make no sense of this. It is not "Gone With the Wind".JonRichfield (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JonRichfield: Under which criterion do you believe this work to be out of copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- How many times are images from Marloth's work going to be tagged? This is a waste of everyone's time. Pigsonthewing tagged File:Disa uniflora00.jpg for deletion and I made it quite clear that the copyright of the commissioned artwork for the volumes lay with Marloth and not with the artists he employed. Paul venter (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- How many times? As many as necessary to deal with their copyright-violating uploads. The issue is not who owns the copyright, but whether it has expired. Do you have anything to say on that matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- How many times are images from Marloth's work going to be tagged? This is a waste of everyone's time. Pigsonthewing tagged File:Disa uniflora00.jpg for deletion and I made it quite clear that the copyright of the commissioned artwork for the volumes lay with Marloth and not with the artists he employed. Paul venter (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @JonRichfield: Under which criterion do you believe this work to be out of copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - PD on 1/1/2024 per death of E. Dixie. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded to Pixabay in 2014 so the license is PD. But it seems to be a COM:DW of another work. For example: https://nodinsnest.blogspot.com/2009/10/mommy-guilt.html from 2009 MGA73 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The file was uploaded on pixabay in 2014. Its is a collage. The rings seems to be a Com:DW of https://www.flickr.com/photos/34764263@N02/4708296319 (cc-by-sa-2.0) but I cant find the face. MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not in the project scope, dubious copyright status. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This file is a scan of a drawing by John Travlos. It is not on PD. The person who has scanned the illustration holds no rights. Arnd69 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, in that case I agree to delete. --Davide Mauro (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a selfie, photographer's permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The license is All Rights Reserved I think the uploader is unfamiliar with most acceptable licenses. Leoboudv (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
False date of shooting (person pictured died 1975), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
![21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/02/22#c-Patrick_Rogel-2020-02-22T21:27:00.000Z-File:ד"ר_גדעון_מנליס.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
![19:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/02/22#c-Jameslwoodward-2020-04-11T19:38:00.000Z-File:ד"ר_גדעון_מנליס.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is CC BY NC ND 4.0 It is unlikely that it was ever free. Leoboudv (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The license is CC BY NCND 4.0 The uploader appears to be unfamiliar with Common's licensing policies Leoboudv (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Uzbekistan Dogad75 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
не своя работа 109.184.51.17 11:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: correted. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
_Lieutenant_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Lieutenant_A.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographer is not uploader, no evidence of a free license . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
_Lieutenant_A.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
_Lieutenant_A.jpg){kind=link}
no indication of early enough publication to be PD PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of CC license 190.231.216.58 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Not own work: historical photos and a watermark in the edge 190.231.216.58 19:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
License on Pixabay is PD. But its a COM:DW of the emoticons. Are they PD-ineligible? MGA73 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - If the photographer created the emoticons, then it's OK, but that must be proven. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Problème lisibilité non inscrits Cedric38 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two immediate problems with this file as of right now:
- Incorrect licensing: CC-BY-SA 4.0 won't work on a prison mugshot of a deceased person. I doubt the uploader (Andrejrudz) is the owner of this image as well.
- Incorrect source: Uploader claims this image is own work, but this should be owned by the person(s) that took the photo, or the prison where the person was held. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2020; edited 03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Has possibly been sourced from https://www.businessinsider.com/miguel-angel-felix-gallardo-godfather-of-mexicos-cartel-sentenced-2017-8?r=US&IR=T but the original source is the Associated Press at http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Drug-War-Mexico/9043e6e008d147a08415036ac0124774/1/0 (there are three variants of this photo on their site, so this may not be the exact duplicate). The AP Image licence terms are not compatible with Commons. The image is dated as 1989 so it is still subject to the incompatible licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment by uploader copied from talk page:[4] From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Miguel-Angel_Felix_Gallardo.jpg&oldid=397503434){kind=link}
- Hello, I'm the uploader of the image. Since I didn't understand how the rules worked I just put it as my own work. But I changed the author and the source of the image, is it okay now? I found it on the AP Images site and the image was taken on the tenth of April 1989. The author was uncredited so I just put the prison he was incarcerated at the time of the photo. -Andrejrudz (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrejrudz: Images that are uploaded to Commons must comply with the rules for licensing explained at Commons:Licensing. This is to avoid Wikimedia breaking any laws and ensure that anyone in the world can reuse our images in safety. Unfortunately, the AP Image licence isn't compatible with the Commons licence policy, so we won't be able to keep it. After several more decades, the photo will enter into the public domain and can be uploaded again at that time. I expect that this will be a little frustrating, but we have to comply with the policy. You could try to convince AP Images to release the image under a more suitable licence but as that will go against their business model, I doubt that you would be successful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- To the closing admin, a duplicate of this image can also be found at File:Felix-Gallardo.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
historic photo, probably not own work 190.231.216.58 22:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
historic photo, not own work 190.231.216.58 22:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
not evidence of CC license for a painting of a president 190.231.216.58 22:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
not evidence of CC license for historic photo 190.231.216.58 22:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Claimed to be "Own work" but File:Excellence in Social Responsibility.jpg has a watermark the other pictures don't have. Seems to be mostly material took from Lucy Quist official website.
- File:Lucy Quist 1.jpg
- File:Lucy Quist W.jpg
- File:LUCY QUIST.jpg
- File:GLH Corporate Leadership Award.jpg
- File:MD of Airtel Ghana.jpg
- File:Excellence in Social Responsibility.jpg
- File:Lucy is passionate about mentoring young people.jpg
- File:Managing Director of Airtel Ghana.jpg
- File:MD of Vodafone Wholesale, Lucy Quist, delivering her address.jpg
- File:First female CMO of the DRC.jpg
- File:Lucy Quist, CMO pf Millicom DRC.jpg
QTHCCAN (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Some of the files have already been deleted.--QTHCCAN (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation 2806:10A6:19:CBF3:988:106D:BDDA:C6AA 10:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - This is from a NAtional Geographic video. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
copyright : https://web.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1734425256567862&set=pb.100000012142199.-2207520000..&type=3&theater Gunofficial1998 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
New Orthographic rule: https://www.lod.lu/?LAUTERBUER1 Soued031 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Marking on the image indicates this was taken from the web or it’s a screenshot Ytoyoda (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
ืno own work Gunofficial1998 (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Not own work likely, found at https://www.sutori.com/story/ancient-mesopotamia--BZrzP9Ht7e8vTVMrFNZMUM56 Ytoyoda (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
logo copyright Gunofficial1998 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
From https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/exclusive-video-the-coronas-perform-their-new-single-just-like-that-1.2005528?mode=amp Ytoyoda (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
a slightly different version of File:Manhattan 1931.jpg Vcohen (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be public domain
- File:Анатолий Орлов.jpg
- File:Ангелина Самошина.jpg
- File:Антонина Елисеенко.jpg
- File:Антонина Иванихина.jpg
- File:Антонина Мащенко.jpg
- File:Василий Пирожок.jpg
- File:Виктор Субботин.jpg
- File:Владимир Загоруйко.jpg
- File:Владимир Куликов.jpg
- File:Владимир Лукьянченко.jpg
- File:Владимир Рогозин.jpg
- File:Геннадий Лукашов.jpg
- File:Клавдия Ковалёва.jpg
- File:Лилия Иванихина.jpg
- File:Михаил Николаевич Григорьев.jpg
- File:Надежда Петля.jpg
- File:Николай Сумской.jpg
- File:Нина Минаева.jpg
- File:Нина Старцева.jpg
- File:Семён Остапенко.jpg
- File:Юрий Полянский.jpg
PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted artworks A1Cafel (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this decision as it’s a good social document! Has the person who made this request visited Wales? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.104.136.17 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - The content is irrelevant, it is copyrighted and the image infringes on the copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical painting. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Bernhard von Guérard (1771-1836) is the named artist. It should be obvious this is PD-Old, out of copyright (by totday's laws) 120 years ago. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
https://vk.com/id346466760?z=photo346466760_403205843%2Falbum346466760_0%2Frev coppivo Pazikov1999 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not "Own work".--QTHCCAN (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Not own work. Probably copyrighted. Buidhe (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - artist died 2000. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
No reason to think it's PD - it CLAIMS it was Published in de USSR before 1973, but that doesn't make it PD. We need a source of publication (without author attribution) before 1946 PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
no indication of early enough publication to be PD PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Not evidence of CC license 190.231.216.58 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation: unlikely to be own work. 2001:4BB8:258:C64:8415:98E8:D048:75C3 22:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Low resolution image. No metadata. Might be a cropped version from original image. Clear copyright violation of original photographer. Suggest to delete. Ranjithsiji (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
No longer in use. Jc86035 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus que cette image apparaisse ici. Dylan Kinoo (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Violation des droits d'auteur Dylan Kinoo (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
mistaken uploaded two times with different name. रोहित साव27 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
File:Lb-Aasselbur Soued031 (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC) New orthographic rules see https://www.lod.lu/?AASSELBUER1
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud, which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original booklet in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Zenwort, what do you mean by "corporate author". There does not appear to be any special status for that either in {{PD-Cambodia}} or at COM:CAMBODIA. The only instance in which 50 years applies is if the author or authors are known, which does not appear to be the case here. There is no instance where the rule is 50 years from creation or publication. I think the rule for collective works applies -- which is 75 years from publication. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Zenwort, having read your comment below, I ask again about this. In the copyright world, what you are calling a "corporate work" is known as a "collective work". I would argue that a photograph cannot be a collective work -- it has one photographer -- but even if we assume that it is a collective work, Cambodian law is that 75 years, not 50, must have passed since publication. The only case where a work can be out of copyright in Cambodia within 50 years is if the known author died immediately after the work was created. In all other cases at least 75 years must have elapsed after creation and in most cases more. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no response from Zenwort. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1960 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Scan from a book in my possession, corporate author thus 50 year limit applies. Re: “evidence it has been published.” Instead of constantly adding deletion request (which are beginning to amount to trolling) get yourself a copy of the title mentioned from a library near you!!! WorldCat is a useful resource for that. --18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwort (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Zenwort, you surely know that your comment above is out of line. No Commons editor can possibly be expected to do research away from their desk.
Further, all of Gunofficial1998's requests in the series appear to be entirely legitimate -- unless you can somehow explain "corporate author" as I requested earlier in this long string of DRs, all of them will be closed as "deleted". . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- “No Commons editor can possibly be expected to do research away from their desk.” But they can ask others to do it? This type of reasoning if general practice would turn academic reasoning in general on it's head. Furthermore this would turn any kind of research into an inquisition process. If you doubt a hypothesis posited by an author you'll have to disprove it. Gunofficial doubts the existence! I provide him with a link to conveniently verify it and dsperse his doubts, that is rather helpful and mot certainly not “out of line”. That this may require effort beyond one's desk or the nowadays fashionable 140-letter statemant to run the world -- certainly is not unreasonable. (Which also to positing something is “out of line” without furtgherr ado; your apology for this slur accepted). Further elucidation on your personal question: a “corporate author“ is a usually a group or collective creating/ordering a publication. Standard bibliographic practise is to treat any work with more than three authors as corporate/anon, even when done collectively [I shall not bother you with links and such, you may look for those beyond your desk.] I shall end this discussion here for good --Zenwort (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud (= 75 years), which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original book (given as img source) in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Scan from a book in my possession, corporate author thus 50 year limit applies. Re: “evidence it has been published.” Instead of constantly adding deletion request (which are beginning to amout to trolling) get yourself a copy of the title mentioned from a library near you!!! WorldCat is a useful resource for that. --18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1985 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Scan from a book in my possession, corporate author thus 50 year limit applies. Re: “evidence it has been published.” Instead of constantly adding deletion request (which are beginning to amout to trolling) get yourself a copy of the title mentioned from a library near you!!! WorldCat is a useful resource for that. --Zenwort (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Any evidence it has been published 1961 (if ever). Anyway 75 years have not passed. Gunofficial1998 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Corporate author, thus not anon/pseud, which means 50 years rule applies. Regarding “Any evidence it has been published 1961” scan from original booklet in my possession. If you wish to verify personally use worldcat to find a holding library near you. --Zenwort (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
URV-Verdacht; vgl. https://bergischeswetter.wixsite.com/wetter rolf_acker (talk • contributions • log) 13:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Die Datei gehört dem User, somit nicht URV siehe Impressum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergisches Wetter (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Template:Rolf acker Siehe kein Verstoß. Somit sauber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAlexandros (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
![16:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/02/22#c-Rolf_acker-2020-02-22T13:44:00.000Z-File:Logo_"Bergisches_Wetter".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
![13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/02/22#c-Jameslwoodward-2020-05-04T13:21:00.000Z-File:Logo_"Bergisches_Wetter".png){kind=link}
Credit : Matichon Gunofficial1998 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - license laundering. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Credit : Matichon Gunofficial1998 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
AFP photograph, not under PD-VOA Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
AFP photograph, not under PD-VOA license Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
edit photo : https://web.facebook.com/eggkanawatc/photos/a.132586750991348/132575870992436/?type=3&theater Gunofficial1998 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find the photo from source site. A bigger version exists in Facebook and https://www.arinfo.com.ar/nota/11540/se-acerca-una-nueva-edicin-del-open-house-buenos-aires.htm under non-free license. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE (en:Draft:Chad Johnson (musician)). Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielDorneles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Louiselle E.jpg
- File:Louiselle D.jpg
- File:Louiselle C.jpg
- File:Louiselle B.jpg
- File:Domani e festa.jpg
- File:Louiselle A.jpg
- File:29340128 158979766111louiselle.jpg
- File:Wrtt7louiselle.jpg
- File:Sem título louiselle.png
- File:S-l1600 (3)louiselle.jpg
- File:Sedrtu.jpg
- File:Sedrthu.png
- File:Louisellehjk.jpg
- File:Louisle-piano.jpg
- File:Louiselle (3).jpg
- File:Louiselle (2).jpg
- File:Kihlouiselle.jpg
- File:Jiklouiselle.jpg
- File:Kilouiselle.jpg
- File:Gdslouiselle.jpg
- File:Io-pl.png
- File:Ertuilouiselle.jpg
- File:Cantlouiselle.jpg
- File:Awelouiselle.jpg
- File:Cicciocare.jpg
- File:2949398894louiselle.jpg
- File:43571557 4887285louiselle.jpg
- File:60c3d9cc-103b-4301-98elouiselle.jpg
- File:25399143 1501313989964043 4106louiselle.jpg
- File:Ujikllouiselle.jpg
- File:51421272louiselle.jpg
- File:513975louiselle.jpg
- File:50574103 357978041460933 4186061828909957120 n Colorized.png
- File:R-7088032-1433432259-3416.jpeg.jpg
- File:Il vazio.png
- File:51054dforse.jpg
- File:50932973 2l.jpg
- File:50846371 13247ll.jpg
- File:50606loui.jpg
- File:44louiselle.jpg
- File:44louisele.jpg
- File:476823loui.jpg
- File:PçLouiselle.jpg
- File:51316425 23976Louiselle 7436933116 3975883962147930112 n.jpg
- File:P´´(Louiselle.jpg
- File:47442151Louiselle.jpg
- File:9iolpç.jpg
- File:10jkl.jpg
- File:Louiselle face.jpg
- File:Thereza.png
- File:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies in Art2.jpg
- File:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies.jpg
- File:Pedro II of Brazil1.jpg
- File:Louis Bonaparte.jpg
- File:Pia 2.jpg
- File:PrincesaMariaPia.png
- File:Maria Pia67.jpg
- File:Piahug123.jpg
- File:Princess Théodelinde de Beauharnais 5.jpg
- File:Princess Théodelinde de Beauharnais 3.jpg
- File:Princess Théodelinde de Beauharnais2.jpg
- File:Princess Théodelinde de Beauharnais.jpg
- File:Princess Beauharnais.jpg
- File:Eugenia.jpg
- File:Eugénie de Beauharnais.jpg
- File:Eugénie de Beauharnaisrr.png
- File:Amélie de Beauharnais Leuchtenberg.png
- File:Amélie de Beauharnais.png
- File:Portrait paintings of Maria Leopoldin.jpg
- File:PortraitMaria Leopoldina of Austria.jpg
- File:Januária, Princess Imperial of Brazil346.jpg
- File:Januária, Princess Imperial of Brazil34.jpg
- File:Januarieofbrezil.jpg
- File:Princess Francisca of Brazil66.jpg
- File:PaulaMariana.jpg
- File:Princess Paula Mariana.jpg
louiselle.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielDorneles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:KingAlbertI.jpg
- File:Francisca 2 do Brasil.jpg
- File:Francisca 1 of joinville.jpg
- File:Januaria of brazil young.jpg
- File:PedroIIdoBrasil.jpg
- File:Marie-Louise of Austria, empress.jpg
- File:LuisaDiAustria.jpg
- File:Archduchess Marie Clementine of Austria.jpg
- File:Francisca de Bragança princesa de Joinville.jpg
- File:Candida Maria da Pureza.jpg
- File:Carlos Jose Botelho.jpg
- File:Imperatriz Dona Teresa Cristina por Édouard Viénot.jpg
- File:Imperador Pedro II por Édouard Viénot.jpg
- File:Diogo Antônio Feijó, o Regente Feijó.jpg
- File:Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil young.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep For File:Carlos Jose Botelho.jpg I've been able to find missing data easily and quickly, but that not the case for the other I looked for. QTHCCAN (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielDorneles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Who is (are) the painter(s)? Permissions?
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielDorneles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos, drawings, paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Leopoldina (2).jpg
- File:Leopoldina.jpg
- File:Princesa Dona Leopoldina do Brasil.jpg
- File:Leopoldina do Brasil.jpg
- File:Leopoldine of Brazil 1.jpg
- File:Leopoldine of Brazil.jpg
- File:4 leopoldine of Brazil.jpg
- File:3 leopoldine of Brazil.jpg
- File:2 leopoldine of Brazil.png
- File:1 leopoldine of Brazil.jpg
- File:Empress of mexico anna.jpg
- File:Empress Anna.jpg
- File:Don Pedro du Brésil - Atelier Nadar.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielDorneles (talk · contribs)
[edit]no permission
- File:Tony Marshall 70s.jpg
- File:Tony Marshall in Vinyl Cover.jpg
- File:Tony Marshall and Dog.jpg
- File:Singer Tony Marshall.jpg
- File:Singer Tony Marshall in Concert.jpg
- File:Singer Tony Marshall in Rare Photo.jpg
- File:David Anthony, Actor of TitanMen.jpg
- File:David Anthony TatanMen.jpg
Mutter Erde (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
https://vk.com/id346466760?z=photo346466760_403205843%2Falbum346466760_0%2Frev coppivo Pazikov1999 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- so what is the “reason“? Not obviously sted in request. --Zenwort (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - "copyvio" -- terse but sufficient. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:NIdeas Creations and Productions Pvt Ltd.tif
- File:NIdeas Creations and Productions Pvt Lt.jpg
- File:Mayurakshi.jpg
- File:Mayurakhshi Logo.jpg
- File:Mayurakhshi Logo.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Poster or movie stills: copyrighted. Besides though having a verified account uploader's uploads since 2015 have been deleted.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could someone explain what the point of OTRS:2013101810015603 is, if not a release for their own uploads for the production company? --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Fæ: It seems a few hours ago you knew already what was inside the ticket. Why asking now? By the way are you an OTRS Team member? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Public knowledge User_talk:MITA_PAL#OTRS permission --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Fæ: It seems a few hours ago you knew already what was inside the ticket. Why asking now? By the way are you an OTRS Team member? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Ruptly (Special:Diff/371509898) Hanooz 07:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think they are the same video. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The drone footage is courtesy of Ruptly, not released under CC-BY 4.0 Gyrostat (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously the videos are identical. --mikani (to talk) 08:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Similar but not identical -- there is more than one drone in the world. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I totally disagree with this conclusion. The drone images have the same movements, same angles of view. It’s a bad decision to allow this copyright infringing video to be on Commons. -mikani (to talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I watched the two videos side by side on two screens. I just watched them again. There was perhaps ten seconds when the two viewpoints were similar. The rest was completely different. I also find it hard to believe that Tasnim pirated video and spent the time and effort necessary to remove the watermark. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well they could have bought it, as is a commons practise for TV network. The Guardian did the same, and credited Ruptly ; so did Global News, also crediting Ruply. This is the same video, by the way.
- Furthermore, it looks like a violation of the Tasnim licence anyway, per the licence template: "Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license." Gyrostat (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I watched the two videos side by side on two screens. I just watched them again. There was perhaps ten seconds when the two viewpoints were similar. The rest was completely different. I also find it hard to believe that Tasnim pirated video and spent the time and effort necessary to remove the watermark. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- The mentioned sequences are obviously the same. Even the artifacts on the camera lens are recognizable and identical ! The observations by Gyrostat were relevant. They should have been adressed, not deleted. Also, the file does not meet the condition for the Tasnim license tag, which is to be credited explicitly to the name of a photographer from Tasnim. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I never said that Tasnim had hacked the video. I am a French journalist who works in a large news channel. The only images shot this way and on that date, we were shot by Ruptly who sold them to all the media. The copyright infringement is against Ruptly, not Tasnim if the video was purchased from Ruptly, they have the right to use it, not us. In addition, Gyrostat was kind enough to detail the movements of cameras which are identical, the positioning. --mikani (to talk) 06:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: Could we have a return with all its evidences? --mikani (to talk) 09:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Two things -- first, you keep talking about how the two videos are identical, but they are not. Viewed side by side there is only about ten seconds of material that might be from the same drone. But, leaving that question aside, the one is tagged with {{Tasnim}} and has the watermark necessary for that tag. You are therefore suggesting that Tasnim has freely licensed something that they don't have the right to freely license. Maybe so, but is that our problem? We certainly don't accept license laundering from individuals, but when a major news agency freely licenses a work, I think we can accept that they know what they are doing. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I am very shocked by this answer. Yes, this is our problem if a video does not have the correct license. It is our responsibility only to clean up the media which should not be on commons. It is the responsibility of administrators when they are informed that content infringes a copyright to remove it. --mikani (to talk) 13:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Shocked" -- Really? We rely all the time on professional sources to correctly license the works they post. You don't know that this is a copyvio -- you are assuming that Tasnim did not have the right to freely license it. I am assuming, as we do all the time, that our professional source understands copyright and has correctly licensed the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- We do not claim that Tasnim did not have the right to freely license this video. {{Tasnim}} explains that the work of Tasnim is freely licensed and that other sources reused by Tasnim don't belong in a Tasnim license ; the same way that VOA files are in the public domain, but not AP or Reuters pictures that VOA might reuse {{PD-USGov-VOA}}). The problem is not Tasnim wrongly licensing the file, but Commons assuming that this was Tasnim work when Tasnim used another source. {{Tasnim}} clearly states that an agency photographer must be attributed, not simply the agency. We have no such credit here. Gyrostat (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, Tasnim cannot freely license a video that does not belong to it. In this case, the video belongs to Ruptly, with several users, we demonstrate it by comparing the plans, the sequences, the camera movements. So Tasnim cannot freely license this video which belongs to Ruptly. So we have to delete this file which does not respect the commons licenses because it is a file under copyright by Ruptly. --mikani (to talk) 14:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am able to tell you that the passage of the video inside the cathedral, the zoom out, are images of the BFM television channel. These images are also exclusive. It is possible to consult them at this address if you have an AFP account: http://u.afp.com/3YPd --mikani (to talk) 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, Tasnim cannot freely license a video that does not belong to it. In this case, the video belongs to Ruptly, with several users, we demonstrate it by comparing the plans, the sequences, the camera movements. So Tasnim cannot freely license this video which belongs to Ruptly. So we have to delete this file which does not respect the commons licenses because it is a file under copyright by Ruptly. --mikani (to talk) 14:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- We do not claim that Tasnim did not have the right to freely license this video. {{Tasnim}} explains that the work of Tasnim is freely licensed and that other sources reused by Tasnim don't belong in a Tasnim license ; the same way that VOA files are in the public domain, but not AP or Reuters pictures that VOA might reuse {{PD-USGov-VOA}}). The problem is not Tasnim wrongly licensing the file, but Commons assuming that this was Tasnim work when Tasnim used another source. {{Tasnim}} clearly states that an agency photographer must be attributed, not simply the agency. We have no such credit here. Gyrostat (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Shocked" -- Really? We rely all the time on professional sources to correctly license the works they post. You don't know that this is a copyvio -- you are assuming that Tasnim did not have the right to freely license it. I am assuming, as we do all the time, that our professional source understands copyright and has correctly licensed the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I am very shocked by this answer. Yes, this is our problem if a video does not have the correct license. It is our responsibility only to clean up the media which should not be on commons. It is the responsibility of administrators when they are informed that content infringes a copyright to remove it. --mikani (to talk) 13:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Two things -- first, you keep talking about how the two videos are identical, but they are not. Viewed side by side there is only about ten seconds of material that might be from the same drone. But, leaving that question aside, the one is tagged with {{Tasnim}} and has the watermark necessary for that tag. You are therefore suggesting that Tasnim has freely licensed something that they don't have the right to freely license. Maybe so, but is that our problem? We certainly don't accept license laundering from individuals, but when a major news agency freely licenses a work, I think we can accept that they know what they are doing. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: Could we have a return with all its evidences? --mikani (to talk) 09:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I never said that Tasnim had hacked the video. I am a French journalist who works in a large news channel. The only images shot this way and on that date, we were shot by Ruptly who sold them to all the media. The copyright infringement is against Ruptly, not Tasnim if the video was purchased from Ruptly, they have the right to use it, not us. In addition, Gyrostat was kind enough to detail the movements of cameras which are identical, the positioning. --mikani (to talk) 06:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The drone footage is courtesy of Ruptly, not released under CC-BY 4.0 Gyrostat (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- MZaplotnik? I know you looked into this; did Tasnim use it inappropriately? HLHJ (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: There is a few seconds of similarity, but almost all different. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Identical (except for the logo on the lower right) to File:JuliBaldi.jpg, both files are not in use and potentially also out of scope. GFJ (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Rosa Farbstich, gleiche Datei in besserer Qualität hier File:S-2011-258-015, Landesarchiv Schwerin cropped.jpg AxelHH (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This logo from https://www.rebeccaforleader.org/ may be copyrightable in the UK per COM:TOO UK. The "R" stretches into an arrow, and the other arrow is shaped like some upside-down "L" but longer. Creativity is minimal but sufficient enough for copyright over there. George Ho (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
KeepComment - All the U.S. Democratic Party presidential candidate logos are in Commons mostly using the same PD-logo copyright template, and all will have been subject to more critical analysis than this one. e.g. the Sanders one is of a similar level of artistic creativity, with a subtle curved coloured space overlapping lettering, pointing to the fact that PD-logo is suited to this one. But of course UK law is more demanding, with a lower level of originality required for copyright protection, so the analysis is more tricky. Rwendland (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)- Comment - www.rebeccaforleader.org is actually hosted in Ireland, near Dublin, using Amazon infrastructure. So for a U.S. based uploader COM:TOO Ireland "Unknown" for logos copyright would I think probably apply, rather than UK because of the place of "first publication". (method: https://dnschecker.org/#A/rebeccaforleader.org then feed IPs into https://www.ultratools.com/tools/geoIp ). Rwendland (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm unsure about whether Ireland or UK applies more, and I can't be sure whether the website was first published in Ireland. The website has the following at the bottom of the website: "Copyright © 2020 Long-Bailey for Labour Limited." The notice would extend beyond the website; it may apply to the logo and other kinds of content. The copyright claimant shown in the notice is more UK-based. The website itself is insufficiently transparent about its server locations and such. FWIW, I emailed them about this. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Good point the website might have run from UK initially, but most likely Ireland all the time. And you are right that the place of "first publication" no longer matters a lot (it was crucial pre 1957), see w:en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Qualification for protection. So it is UK copyright law that matters, and my Ireland comment a red-herring. To be honest, I don't think we should make a big deal on this image. It is a transient logo that will in practice be abandoned in 6 weeks time, and Long-Bailey for Labour Limited will almost certainly dissolve itself in about a year and the copyright probably legally be abandoned. It seems likely a borderline call, and I don't really care much if it is left on commons or moved to en.wikipedia like the other candidate logos! I've only commented because I uploaded candidate photos at a hustings so this deletion request popped up on my horizon! Rwendland (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm unsure about whether Ireland or UK applies more, and I can't be sure whether the website was first published in Ireland. The website has the following at the bottom of the website: "Copyright © 2020 Long-Bailey for Labour Limited." The notice would extend beyond the website; it may apply to the logo and other kinds of content. The copyright claimant shown in the notice is more UK-based. The website itself is insufficiently transparent about its server locations and such. FWIW, I emailed them about this. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gunofficial1998 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://ru.citaty.net/avtory/sukavich-rangsitpol/
Can't find a date at that link. Did citaty get the image here? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- An IP has been editing the file and my talk page, suggesting citaty got the image from Wikidata. (I think.. their English is not so good) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The photo is originally yours,l am using your photo .2001:44C8:42C9:CF24:84E8:3FA:BD05:E52F 05:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Sukavich Rangsitpol, education reforms goal to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcrdaen/1/1/1_KJ00006742072/_pdf
The reason Category:Education Reform should be here .2001:44C8:42C9:CF24:84E8:3FA:BD05:E52F 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FurryAsriel as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: C'est une photo de moi qui ne devrais pas étre ici. This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular deletion request instead. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:2016-07-07 15-41-51 ILCE-6300 DSC02893 (27671631313).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-41-57 ILCE-6300 DSC02895 (28208764491).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-42-53 ILCE-6300 2904 DxO (29712034425).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-42-53 ILCE-6300 DSC02904 (27671309464).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-44-25 ILCE-6300 DSC02920 (28183360302).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-44-30 ILCE-6300 DSC02922 (28183370872).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep:
File:2016-07-07 15-41-51 ILCE-6300 DSC02893 (27671631313).jpgFile:2016-07-07 15-41-57 ILCE-6300 DSC02895 (28208764491).jpg- File:2016-07-07 15-44-25 ILCE-6300 DSC02920 (28183360302).jpg
- File:2016-07-07 15-44-30 ILCE-6300 DSC02922 (28183370872).jpg
- as these have been blurred out,
- Delete the other 2 as non-savable. –Davey2010Talk 11:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's not worth to keep photos which are blurred main subjects. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- People browsing through these may want to know what the building sort of looked like..... The blurred images still have some scope and value to them, You nominated these due to characters being present however I have obviously resolved that so at this point there's currently no valid reason to delete them. –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's not worth to keep photos which are blurred main subjects. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, waste of time blurring them, no use now.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- BevinKacon as explained above users may want to know what the building inside looks like inside so as such IMHO there's atleast still some value to them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the question whether there is still sufficient educational value in images where integral parts have been blurred is likely neither a clear yes or no, but to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I agree with BevinKacon and Yuraily Lic that the blurred images are no longer useful and should be deleted, but in the end this is of course up to the the closing admin to decide. GFJ (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've struck 2 images since both of those sort of have the same view in other images, The 2 remaining images don't have that area in it and so for that reason imho those 2 should be kept,
- These images IMHO still have some value to them and regardless of usage readers will want to know what the building inside looks like and the area in both images hasn't been taken in any other images in the main category. –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 13 February 2020
- One image is currently not blurred due to WMF constantly bringing up server errors, Until the WMF get that fixed unfortunately for the time being the image will have to remain unblurred as there's no possible way new versions can be uploaded, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the question whether there is still sufficient educational value in images where integral parts have been blurred is likely neither a clear yes or no, but to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I agree with BevinKacon and Yuraily Lic that the blurred images are no longer useful and should be deleted, but in the end this is of course up to the the closing admin to decide. GFJ (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- BevinKacon as explained above users may want to know what the building inside looks like inside so as such IMHO there's atleast still some value to them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016
[edit]- File:2016-07-08 10-08-21 ILCE-6300 DSC03667 (27674992474).jpg
- File:2016-07-08 10-08-27 ILCE-6300 DSC03668 (28187139292).jpg
- File:2016-07-08 11-46-09 ILCE-6300 DSC04171 (27677750624).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –Davey2010Talk 11:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Close again, page not archiving properly. --Minoraxtalk 08:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:2016-07-08 09-52-55 ILCE-6300 DSC03628 (28186902252).jpg
- File:2016-07-08 09-52-56 ILCE-6300 DSC03629 (28186909032).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails DW and Out of scope anyway. (Not that it needs reiterating but these were all uploaded as part of an album and limitations at Flickr2Commons meant they all had to be uploaded IE couldn't pick and choose). –Davey2010Talk 00:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Infringes on the copyright for the engraved tombstone. No FoP in Azerbaijan . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF. Alsmost all of this uploaders work has been copyvios. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
