Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/07/10
 |
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}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![70 File:Lil"j's" art of clay kustoms.jpg](#File:Lil"j's"_art_of_clay_kustoms.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Querdenken_731_(Ulm)_4._Juli_2020_(12).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
equivocación Clan Alcatraz Official (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ten other tourist-destination photo uploads from this user have been taken from Getty, Alamy or other sources without credit. Same likely goes for this one, I just can't track down where it might have come from. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP - Serial copyvio uploader, unused file. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Logo is not own work, but from here, and it needs to be discussed whether it's really below COM:TOO per U.K. jurisdiction. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as copyright violation. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
i want it removed from my computer 67.225.34.140 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense/vandalism. --Achim (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Clean up 2603:9000:E504:C100:3CAA:A7C6:6331:4791 17:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: If you are User:Albertyanks log in please. --Achim (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
اريد حذفه Saadahmed2010 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
wrong version Totent (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copie d'une image d'un site web. Geralix (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Billinghurst at 01:32, 11 Juli 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: Not own work, taken from this site https://www.alstom.com/fr/press-releases-news/2019/11/le-consortium-alstom-bombardier-est-attributaire-du-contrat-de. --Krdbot 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused images and logos for fantasy land, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:LS Boardroom.png
- File:1955 LS Parliament.svg
- File:2000 LS Parliament.svg
- File:2005 LS Parliament.svg
- File:2010 LS Parliament.svg
- File:MSR LS.png
- File:LS Ministry Infrastructure.png
- File:LS Defence.png
- File:LS Parliament.png
- File:Zach Parliament Sim 3483484.svg
- File:Zach BS Proj.svg
- File:TheCornerLogo.png
- File:Vietnam ZachWorld.png
- File:IS ZachWorld.png
- File:CSEE ZachWorld.png
- File:China ZachWorld.png
- File:Liberstinian Dong.png
- File:LS Exports.png
- File:Reambitions season 13.png
- File:2015 LS Takoh.svg
- File:2015 LS Salsa.svg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Test diagram, out of project scope Slashme (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Test diagram, out of project scope Slashme (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted and appears to have been lifted from here: https://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/general-oscar-mejia-president-of-guatemala-after-the-coup-news-photo/612548250?adppopup=true Jeffrey Beall (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, bad crop. Jonteemil (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Jdx at 01:08, 15 Juli 2020 UTC: Mass deletion of pages added by Germag2213 --Krdbot 08:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, bad crop. Jonteemil (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Jdx at 01:08, 15 Juli 2020 UTC: Mass deletion of pages added by Germag2213 --Krdbot 08:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright Microsoft 136.36.197.89 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism only account - gone. --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Seamenboyz (talk · contribs)
[edit]A lot of low-quality, unremarkable male genitalia.
- File:Gay Brian Stoddard penis getting shaved.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard now very curved penis caused by urethral sounding scaring.jpg
- File:Huge sound in my gay penis.jpg
- File:My just shaved underarms.jpg
- File:My shaved penis 04.jpg
- File:Shaved Male Penis.JPG
- File:Almost Shaved Penis.jpg
- File:Getting penis shaved by another male.jpg
- File:Smooth Hairless Penis Erect.jpg
- File:Shaving off All Pubic Hair.jpg
- File:Shaved Flaccid Penis-wet.jpg
- File:Close To Erect shaved penis.jpg
- File:Erect Completely Shaved Penis & Testicles.jpg
- File:Erect Completely Shaved Penis-Wet.jpg
- File:Erect Completely Shaved Penis.jpg
- File:Hairless Penis Erect.jpg
- File:Shaved Flaccid Penis.jpg
- File:Shaved Pubic Hair Erect.jpg
- File:Erection and Shaved Penis.jpg
- File:Smooth Hairless penis.jpg
- File:My Erect Shaved Penis.jpg
- File:My Gay Shaved Penis.jpg
- File:Completely Shaved Penis including testicles.jpg
- File:Shaved Hairless Errection.jpg
- File:Hairless-Penis.jpg
- File:Shaving off Penis Hair.jpg
Frood (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. He should better dedicate his time to read COM:PENIS, COM:PORN etc. E4024 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Seamenboyz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same as before.
- File:Brian Stoddard almost hairless femboy penis.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard gay hairless femboy penis.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard gay shaved penis.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard gay shaved femboys underarms.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard gay shaved femboy penis.jpg
- File:Brian Stoddard gay hairless penis.jpg
Frood (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Album cover, needs permission, not own work Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. JGHowes talk 11:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. This is a copyrighted album cover, and would be fair use, not free. Hog Farm (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. JGHowes talk 11:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No info that this file is indeed CC-BY-SA. Wostr (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; (C) ARR by Krystian Maj/KPRM. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a non-free album cover, and the user who uploaded it has claimed it as their own work when it is not. Ss112 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete as a F1. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a non-free album cover, and the user who uploaded it has claimed it as their own work when it is not. Ss112 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It is clearly an official photo of the Chilean soccer association with copyright. Vareloco (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Presumably copyright violation, given that the description says it was found using Google search. Yair rand (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Delete}} {{duplicate|other file}} Islam.meko (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Turelio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
is not own work Luckie Luke (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markgrantdavis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope? No idea what they are supposed to be. Only uploads of user
- File:BeFruitfulAndMultiplyREPLENISHTheEarth.png
- File:InTheREGENERATIONEveryoneThatHathForsakenWifeChildren.png
- File:ALittleChildTheSuckingChildTheWeanedChild.png
- File:ASummationOurRedeemedBodies.png
Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shajan saad (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian.
- File:شجن سعد في حوار عن ظاهرة التنمر.jpg
- File:شجن سعد عن المشاكل الاسرية.jpg
- File:شجن سعد بالشعر الاشقر.jpg
- File:شجن سعد.jpg
- File:صباح دجلة شجن سعد.jpg
- File:الانواء الجوية الاعلامية شجن سعد.jpg
- File:الاعلامية شجن سعد.jpg
- File:حلقة جديدة ومشوار صباحي جديد من على شاشة قناة دجلة الفضائية.jpg
- File:من برنامج صباح دجلة الاعلامية شجن سعد.jpg
- File:من برنامج صباح دجلة الاعلامية شجن سعد برامج عراقية منوعة.jpg
Faisal talk 12:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mvanderfran (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Kadda Medjeded HIGHRES.jpg
- File:KaddaMedjededetMohamedChouikh.jpg
- File:Kadda Medjeded et le Réalisateur Mohamed Chouikh.jpg
- File:Medjeded Kadda.png
- File:Kadda Medjeded.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Kadda Medjeded et le Réalisateur Mohamed Chouikh .jpg
- File:Kadda Medjeded Profile.jpg
- File:Kadda Medjeded et Mohamed Chouikh.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Kadda medjeded 22.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 17.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 19.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 18.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 16.jpg
- File:Medjeded Kadda.png
- File:Kadda medjeded 15.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 11.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 14.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 13.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 12.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 10.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 9.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 7.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 5.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded 3.jpg
- File:Kadda medjeded.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Bogus self claims - bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs - all low res, few with camera EXIF (and, of those, many different models: Canon EOS 1100D, NIKON D80, ALE-L21, CYBERSHOT, FinePixS2Pro, etc.) and appeared elsewhere before Commons upload (e.g., File:NRP Figueira da Foz.jpg is here; File:AW119 Koala of Portuguese air force.jpg is here; File:Special Actions Detachment of Portuguese Navy.jpg is here; etc.) Duck/COM:PRP issue.
- File:Leopard 2 trainer.jpg
- File:Special Operations Troops Centre of Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Portuguese Paratroopers in Central African Republic.jpg
- File:Comandos portugueses em missão na República Centro Africana.jpg
- File:Special Actions Detachment of Portuguese Navy.jpg
- File:Portuguese marine with an HK G3 SPUHR.jpg
- File:DAF CF of the Portuguese Army with an Leopard 2 A6.jpg
- File:Man Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Iveco Eurocargo Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Tekever AR4.png
- File:Mercedes Benz 1217 A Exército Português.jpg
- File:Toyota Hilux Exército Português.jpg
- File:Toyota Land Cruiser Exército Português.jpg
- File:M577 Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Obus 155mm Exército Português.jpg
- File:M109 A5 Portuguese Army.png
- File:Panhard M11 Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Portuguese Army Humvee .jpg
- File:Unimog 1300L Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Toyota Land Cruiser HZJ73.jpg
- File:Land Rover Defender Portuguese Army.jpg
- File:Portuguese Army Mitsubishi L200.jpg
- File:NRP Mondego P592.jpg
- File:AW119 Koala of Portuguese air force.jpg
- File:NRP Figueira da Foz.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
these files uploaded by user Icone444 are likely suspicious for copyvio. these lack any metadata (unlike the user's two later uploads), are very low-quality (less than 1000px) and possibly taken from Google StreetView.
- File:Navio de Patrulha Oceânica PO1 Bojador da Guarda Nacional Republicana.jpg
- File:Infinity Tower Lisbon.png
- File:Holiday Inn Hotel Gaia - Porto.png
- File:Hotel Vila Galé Porto.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn Vila Nova de Gaia.png
- File:Torre Solmar.png
- File:Torre de Comunicações da Altice.png
- File:Torre Galp.png
- File:Torre de Monsanto.png
- File:Edifício FPM 41.png
- File:Edifício na Rua de Xabregas D.png
- File:Edifício na Rua Carlos de Oliveira 10A.png
- File:Edifício Diogo do Couto.png
- File:Torre Compave 2.png
- File:Torre Compave.png
- File:Edificio Satélite.png
- File:Edifício Panoramic 3.png
- File:Edifício na Rua Sarmento de Beires 26.png
- File:Edifício da REN.png
- File:Edifício Concórdia.png
- File:Edifício Arcis.png
- File:Torre das Amoreiras III.png
- File:Torre das Amoreiras II.png
- File:Torre das Amoreiras I.png
- File:Office Park Expo.png
- File:Edifício na Rua Sarmento de Beires 30.png
- File:Edifício na Rua Sarmento de Beires 19.png
- File:Edifício Sete rios.png
- File:Corinthia Lisboa Hotel.png
- File:Twin Tower 2 Lisboa.png
- File:Twin Tower 1 Lisboa.png
- File:FN SCAR H PR.jpg
Juwan (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- oh hey, there were here before too. Juwan (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Historical photo and logo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Is it OK? E4024 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIO - low res, no camera EXIF, photographer's watermark in lower left. Duck/COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Is this an approved Flickr file? E4024 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, bad crop Germag2213 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Very blurred cliched image with little obvious educative value Richard Avery (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio by new editor Schwede66 17:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Not own works: one taken from FB (as per EXIF data) and the other is an official logo, above COM:TOO.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Not own works: inconsistent and low quality, some with transmission code and FB in EXIF data; 2 images have a bar at the top indicating it was cropped from somewhere else.
- File:Vista de la laguna desde el boquerón limites entre los municipio de Susa y Fúquene.jpg
- File:Atardecer laguna de fuquene.jpg
- File:Inspeccion de capellania - Fuquene.jpg
- File:Vista aérea - cabecera Municipal Fúquene.jpg
- File:Laguna de Fúquene, puerto.jpg
- File:Vista aérea Fúquene cordillera y vista laguna de Fúquene.jpg
- File:Monumento al libertador en Fuquene.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused low quality logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination : the files are indeed very low quality and therefore of no use => out of scope. Kathisma (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ResourceKraft Ltd (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused promotional corporate images, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable footballer, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused twitter screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused text doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Likely not own work but tiny screengrab of book cover (?). P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused collection of logos, no educational value, out of scope. And likely DW as well. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image, no educational value, out of scope. Superseded by numerous light trail photos already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kharchenko.max (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused screenshot and logo, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:LightAdmin java web administration framework screenshot.png
- File:LightAdmin, pluggable java administration framework.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyright vioation from https://www.mondialine.eu/portable/kitchen/air-fryers/product/Mondial-GrandFamilyFryer-AF-17 ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo, no context/explanation, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable singer, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused logos and corporate images, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Kristinka16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]2 unused images of non-notable band, no educational value, out of scope. 3 historical images without original author, source, date, and permission.
- File:Курляндский с дочерью Светланой.jpg
- File:Курляндский с отцом и сестрой.jpg
- File:Likvor Logo.gif
- File:Likvor2.jpg
- File:Вениамин Юрьевич с ранеными и сотрудниками госпиталя (1943 год).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/07/10#c-P199-2020-07-10T19:03:00.000Z-File:Lil"j's"_art_of_clay_kustoms.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
![07:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/07/10#c-Fitindia-2020-07-17T07:09:00.000Z-File:Lil"j's"_art_of_clay_kustoms.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, no educational value, out of scope. Superseded by numerous better photos of flowers already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Die3lustigen2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photos of non-notable band, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Weihnachtsuschis.jpg
- File:Limes3 uschis.jpg
- File:Strassenmusik uschis.jpg
- File:St Pauli Videodreh.jpg
- File:Uschis Haarmoden im Limes.jpg
- File:Uschis Haarmoden.jpg
- File:Uschis Haarmoden Logo.gif
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bwinterbotham (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused images of non-notable persons and events, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Beaded goods.png
- File:Lillian Speaking.jpg
- File:Lillian.jpg
- File:Community G.JPG
- File:The Garden 1.JPG
- File:Mhani Gingi.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Demetrius D. CollingS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Demetrius D. CollingS.jpg
- File:Diablo Original.jpg
- File:Lineage Of Mythology Dëad CollingS.jpg
- File:Linaje Original Primerizo Dead CollingS.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal document, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete The source indicated, "www.sullivancromwell.com", is an invalid address. The law firm where this lawyer worked has a website at http://sullcrom.com/. I can not find the image at that site. However, the website clearly displays a copyright notice that does not show a cc-by-2.5 license. I can find no evidence anywhere that this image is available under the license stipulated. Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, the correct website address should be https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/human-rights-summit-bios. There are no known copyright license restrictions. Clivechat (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC) user=Clivechat
- We act on positive affirmation of indicated rights. While there is no copyright notice on the site, that doesn't mean the image is free of copyright. Since 1989, basically anything created that is creative attracts copyright, and no registration of it is required. A photograph is a creative work. Therefore, by default, it has copyrights on it that preclude it from being free unless we can prove that it is available under a free license of public domain. Since we can't prove it's free of copyright or under a free license, it can't be hosted on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Get the source to send permission via OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused low-res photo of non-notable team, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Lindbergh Kidnapping Note Signature.png. Unused. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, and unlikely to be own work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; speedied as stock image. --Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
NOT RELEVENT Liyathomaska (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Need to delete the this page as soon as possible .. Liyathomaska (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant 72.191.227.172 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Person does't want his details published now Liyathomaska (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. Personal photo by non-contributors. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Per this news article, the statue was donated in honor of a man who died in 2000. As the statue is located in the United States, it is almost certainly under copyright Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP US. According to the city of Decatur's website, the sculptor is George Lundeen, born in 1948 and apparently still alive. Ham II (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can get the proper permission pretty soon. Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Info also deleted via this deletion request: File:Jefferson in Decatur (cropped).JPG. _ (non-admin comment) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There is a copyright notice on the masthead of the newspaper. https://www.newspapers.com/image/463405301/ --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, a clear copyvio, my fault as uploader: I'm embarrassed and unsure as to how I missed that copyright notice. Harrias (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
duplicate of existing file The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant: Duplicate of which file? For duplicates, preferably use {{Duplicate}} instead of a deletion request, makes processing easier. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: Oh. It's a duplicate of this one. Thanks for the tip. I'll do that next time. Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant: The file you nominated for deletion has actually a higher resolution than the existing file. We could delete the older low-resolution copy. For now, I will close this deletion request as "keep", could you please add the duplicate template to the older file? That request may sound overly bureaucratic, but this template makes life so much easier for admins, as we then can process the duplicate with a tool easily merging information, and links/file usage will not be broken. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: I was going to do as you asked but I want you to see something. The older file first version is actually an entirely different image, which I would not want to delete. Someone uploaded wrong pictures into that older image (versions 2, 3). What would you suggest?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant: It's a bit unorthodox to continue a deletion discussion after closure, but let's make this exception for the sake of keeping it in one place. In the first version of File:Banco Popular in Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg, the uploader apparently made a mistake, and uploaded the other image one minute later. There is no traceable source or license for the first (black and white) image, as the flickr link given by the uploader points to the other image - so we don't know who the author of the b&w picture is, or what its license is, and can't keep it anyway. They apparently intended to upload the color image from the beginning, the comment "opps, wrong file" refers to the correction. I suggest proceeding with adding the duplicate template, maybe with a remark regarding the first version, in case another admin processes it (I'm willing to do it myself, but maybe someone else will be quicker ;-) ). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: see discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not an original image. Very unlikely the person made the picture himself, or must be very old((!) Like his other uploaded images, probably found on the internet. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks to be a temporary installation, what with it being at a book event and being tethered as an inflatable, and thus not subject to COM:FOP Germany. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted balloon A1Cafel (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in United States for balloons. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by LifetimeWiki as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.facebook.com/anitayadavateli/photos/a.869844343146049/970208683109614/ — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Support deletion. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploaded into Facebook on 31st of January 2017, needs OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Also to delete:
- File:Airbus A319 в обновленной ливрее авиакомпании «Россия» в аэропорту «Пулково».jpg
- File:Airbus A319 авиакомпании «Россия».png
- File:Airbus A320 авиакомпании «Россия».png
- File:Boeing 737 авиакомпании «Россия».png
- File:Boeing 747 авиакомпании «Россия».png
- File:Boeing 777 авиакомпании «Россия».png
- File:Бортовой журнал R FLIGHT, ноябрь 2018.png
- File:Предматчевый инструктаж от бортпроводниц авиакомпании «Россия». Матч «Зенит» — «Тамбов».jpg
- File:Airbus A319 авиакомпании «Россия» в ливрее «Зенитолет».jpg
- File:Boeing 747 авиакомпании «Россия» в ливрее «Забота о тиграх».jpg
- File:Airbus A319 авиакомпании «Россия» в ливрее «Спортолет».jpg
- File:Boeing 777 авиакомпании «Россия» в ливрее «Дальневосточный леопард».jpg
No indication that this magazine cover or any of the other files were ever published under a free licence --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 20:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Historical photos and songs. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Upsilonians Puyat, Marcos and Laurel.png
- File:Upsilonians Aquino, Laurel, Roxas.png
- File:Upsilonians-1925.jpg
- File:Fraternity Love Song When You're Away.ogg
- File:Upsilon March Song.ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of undistinguished street in unidentified location. Description is no help. Without further information is of no educational value.. Malcolma (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable player, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
self promotion of an unknown "actor" - text: Hola soy edu feliz navidad - Hello i am Edu merry christmas Adelfrank (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- see also File:Repara tu deuda.png
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
self promotion * https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9F6zq0qpgrZjBcUu8j1iiQ Adelfrank (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted sculpture. Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Argument: — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.4.208 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a picture of an item that is in public view. Copyright in the US does not extend to pictures taken in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.4.208 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete No freedom of panorama in the US. The sculptor has copyright on the sculpture and Charles M. Schulz (creator of Snoopy) has copyright on the design of the sculpture. FunnyMath (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP US. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
To keep personal privacy WaldoTheron (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Also to delete:
- File:HamedHomayounProfileWiki.png
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangman'sDeath (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Judging by the watermark, it is highly uznlikely that this image is the uploader's own work Hangman'sDeath (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
per COM:SELFIE. Uploader's sole edits are for this photo, of which he shares the same first name with. Subject does not appear to be notable upon google search. BriefEdits (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of the copyright drawing and not meet COM:L SCP-2000 06:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Regasterios (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Does not have educational purpose, since it is just collection of faces of normal people. Also it has possibility of violating COM:BLP policy. ysjbserver (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspere (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 11:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Does not have educational purpose, since it is just collection of faces of normal people. Also it has possibility of violating COM:BLP policy. ysjbserver (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspere (talk • contribs) 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded by accident; still need to figure out the correct licensing; I was given permission by the literary trust to publish this authors photo on wikipedia LBWMaltese (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - we need permission via OTRS from the heirs or photographer. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Own work? Please... E4024 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Appears to have been uploaded only to made a unwanted edit on Dagorhir to hide a deceptive edit right beforehand. No likely use, unless it is some meme that is not explained by the uploader. 100.40.131.38 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:رواية مكالمة مسجلة .jpg.E4024 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Www own work? E4024 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
no longer relevant Kastoscha (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. IMO it was never relevant. --E4024 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Redundant photo of File:402Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 24.jpg, angle of the photo lessens the readability percentage of this street sign than that of the former. Also per precedent with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3, to quote P199's verdict: "As per COM:PS: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. = meaning we don't need a massive collection of nearly duplicate images. We have told Judgefloro/Ramon FVelasquez many times in the past to be more selective when uploading. And no need to give a long sermon on the notability of the road, that is irrelevant to the number of needless images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Request of JWilz12345 on Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress
[edit]
With all due respect, and first, Good Afternoon from hereat thunderstorm Bulacan, Philippines; actually I had no more intention to take these photos, since I was on to CALABARZON towards Pangasinan and La Union; I always grant requests for photos unless traffic of which I am afraid prevents me, and thusly, I respectfully quote the following:
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- It is really very difficult to determine which photos or subject that I must take or upload, maybe depending upon the requesting party or editor; there are photos here that I shot, that maybe redundant since I did not want to climb the finished parts for there are security guards thereat, therefore, as you see I did peep my camera down under with fear; hence, I have no objection to the deletion unless other editors need my photos; very very sincerely yours, Judgefloro (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Judgefloro (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- @Judgefloro: (this response is mirrored in other related deletion requests) yes, I requested photos depicting the Skyway Stage 3 last year (September 2019). Nevertheless, to repeat on my stance at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balete Drive (E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue - Bouganvilla Street), Mariana, New Manila, Quezon City, this is not a license to create and upload numerous redundant or nearly redundant photos of the same subject at the same location. In my opinion, it is still permissible to have 3 redundant photos (or in some cases 4-6 such photos). For this reason I only nominated 5 photos that I treated as highly redundant, but I still allowed others. As I said before, you were mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. But for some reason you didn't made a prompt response. If you wish, you may contact @大诺史: who initiated these moves. But I feel they (大诺史) and they (P199) have justifiable points of view on why several of your "redundant photos" are against the policies regarding quantity of photos so as not to appear like an "indiscriminate collection of similar photos." And additionally, please respond to the Deletion requests (DR's) at their Deletion request pages (like this page), and not your talkpage because editors and administrators won't respond there if there are deletion requests. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
- Therefore, the foregoing aptly explained my stance via Rejoinder to the Closed discussion as of 28 July 2019; and I respectfully underline the fact that before the lockdown of Luzon I patiently took original non-redundant photos of CALABARZON and I stopped due to the 11 hour traffic caused by Skyway Stage 3 Alabang construction, and I shot Pangasinan and La Union Barangays including some of Tarlac from 2014 to March 16 2020 Lockdown; but I now concentrate on New Normal in Bulacan Barangays and Cuisine of Bulacan cooking ; I remain very sincerely your Judgefloro (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
Change of mind from the nominator: Speedily 
I withdraw my nomination. I find this reason too shallow (napakababaw ng dahilan para burahin ang retrato/mga retratong ito). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
It's the exact same photo that it used on the official website of the basketball club (https://en-baskets.de/team/). Nevertheless the uploader of the picture classified it as his own licence which I hardly doubt. Instead he probably would need a permission to upload that picture which he hasn't due to the informations given by the user on this page. Centessimo (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
no more relevant Kastoscha (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Miraclepine as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No COM:FOP UK for "graphic works" including paintings and drawings like this. Almost certainly made recent enough to warrant a speedy.
CSD F3 says that COM:FOP cases aren't covered by speedy deletion, so I think this needs a full DR. --bjh21 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I stand by my Delete per the rationale. Subject was born in 1953 so doubtless recent. ミラP 15:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and I agree. Delete. (I thought I'd said this already, but apparently I was imagining it) --bjh21 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, on the subject's Amazon author's page.[1] Black border suggests a modified image. Metadata suggests a Facebook origin. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Suppression des métadonnées Tazlalune (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Db-self}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazlalune (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep, no clear reason to delete, useful picture of the organ in a notable church. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional poster that surely isn't freely licensed. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply to such posters in the US. Kam Solusar (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
|
This file has been superseded by Deletion requests/Archive/2020/07/10.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent. Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
|
new file |
Kept: In use. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Bizarre lower quality reupload of File:CZ BREN 2.jpg; also a copyvio as fails to attribute actual author. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
_Querdenken_731_(Ulm)_4._Juli_2020_(12).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Querdenken_731_(Ulm)_4._Juli_2020_(12).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No consent given by that "Sonja Kraus" (if she is really the person on that screen) that her portrait can be used under that licsense. Julius Senegal (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
_Querdenken_731_(Ulm)_4._Juli_2020_(12).JPG){kind=link}
- Keep FOP from a public event in Germany. Whomself speaks or performs there, must admit that photographs, videos or audiofiles are taken for any purposes. For private use, for public use and for legal matters. --LexICon (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete DW. The screen is another work on which the photographer has no rights. E4024 (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
_Querdenken_731_(Ulm)_4._Juli_2020_(12).JPG){kind=link}
The original video is created by Xigua Video, and the CC-BY licensing must come from the creator. The Youtube channel that hosts this video is not the original creator thus the CC-BY licensing is invalid. Wcam (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Logo of a website, no notability (the article is just deleted from ru.wiki). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Is not an original image. It’s a modified image, probably found on the internet. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete included in a YouTube video that was uploaded before the image was uploaded to Commons.[2] Verbcatcher (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Not an original image. A modified image, probably found on the internet. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Highly unlikely the uploader made this image (like his other uploaded images) SportsOlympic (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sculpture copyrighted, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for sculptures Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Withdrawn. Will be nominating for speedy deletion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Questionable copyright tag. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 06:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Not found anywhere at http://spacex.com. The SpaceX Flickr and SpaceX Instagram contain no such image. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- COMMENT: This image WAS on the SpaceX Flickr, released images, as of the date the image was drawn. At that time, SpaceX was aiming for a carbon composite primary structure for Starship (then called "BFR"). That they later switched to stainless steel as the primary structure, and may even subsequently cleanse their website or Flickr feed of the older images, does not change the fact that the image was available under a proper license at the time it was released. And it accurately pictures a (now, early) version of the launch vehicle now called the Starship system. N2e (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Moreover, Huntster notes that the image is still yet available on the SpaceX site. N2e (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- See http://web.archive.org/web/20191005030806/https://www.spacex.com/starship and http://web.archive.org/web/20191103163950im_/https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starship_cloud_launch1_moved_morechrome.jpg. Mind you, a version of this image is still on the SpaceX Starship page at bottom: https://www.spacex.com/static/images/starship/STR_10.jpg. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Soumya-8974, and there is no need for the history of a program to be cleansed of the older historical versions just 'cause a company has decided to forego some of what they previously planned to do, and publically announced they were going to do. Please don't be so aggressive in try to purge historical images from spaceflight-related articles. We've already lost important image history from some of your doings.
- (Now, if an image fails some sort of image rulz that Huntster is expert on; that is an entirely different story, and could result in some images being dropped out of the commons.) N2e (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, since I wasn't in my post above, this particular image was absolutely published on the SpaceX website previously, so it should be fair game for Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster and N2e: Why oh why you want to keep this non-free material? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Soumya-8974: because, as I pointed out, it was and still is available on SpaceX.com? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good question, Soumya-8974. But the answer is identical to the one I gave above, one month ago (above). This image documents a very important and notable concept design that SpaceX formerly had, and did announce, and did stick with for quite some time. It is therefore an important part of the historical thread on the development of this rocket, and all our readers would be the worse for it if it were to be deleted. cc Huntster Why? 'cause that history would be told less well without the image. N2e (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
(and sadly, you have already ensured that a lot of that history got lost by other edit and proposal actions you've taken, so now, a number of images of earlier chapters of Starship history do not have images for our readers.)
- Okay, I will move this file to Wikipedia with a non-free rationale. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Soumya-8974, I'm confused, why are you moving this to en.wiki? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The same image can you see here. At the given PDF source is stated, that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) is the owner of the copyright in this work, and no portion hereof is to be copied, reproduced, or disseminated without the prior written consent of SpaceX" and "© Space Exploration Technologies Corp. All rights reserved." Whithout an explicit release by SpaceX, we have to suppose that this image is not free. --Ras67 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not own work, unclear copyright status Buidhe (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Architectural models at MAXXI
[edit]- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28136567416).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28136571716).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28136572286).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28136571966).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28136569086).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28092333611).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28092337291).jpg
- File:Exhibition at Maxxi, Rome (28092339091).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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I'm afraid these photos depict protected works of art. --Gnom (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Dubious claims of authorship and of copyright ownership. Not a 2020 work. Those fictional currency notes were made in the 1960s or 1970s. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
vettoriale dispnibile 2001:B07:6442:8903:B951:DC76:BBF4:307F 14:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free logo. --Sealle (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope MiguelAlanCS (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unused. --Robins7 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Redundant photo of File:467Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 55.jpg. Per precedent with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3, to quote P199's verdict: "As per COM:PS: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. = meaning we don't need a massive collection of nearly duplicate images. We have told Judgefloro/Ramon FVelasquez many times in the past to be more selective when uploading. And no need to give a long sermon on the notability of the road, that is irrelevant to the number of needless images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Request of JWilz12345 on Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress
[edit]
With all due respect, and first, Good Afternoon from hereat thunderstorm Bulacan, Philippines; actually I had no more intention to take these photos, since I was on to CALABARZON towards Pangasinan and La Union; I always grant requests for photos unless traffic of which I am afraid prevents me, and thusly, I respectfully quote the following:
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- It is really very difficult to determine which photos or subject that I must take or upload, maybe depending upon the requesting party or editor; there are photos here that I shot, that maybe redundant since I did not want to climb the finished parts for there are security guards thereat, therefore, as you see I did peep my camera down under with fear; hence, I have no objection to the deletion unless other editors need my photos; very very sincerely yours, Judgefloro (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Judgefloro (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- @Judgefloro: (this response is mirrored in other related deletion requests) yes, I requested photos depicting the Skyway Stage 3 last year (September 2019). Nevertheless, to repeat on my stance at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balete Drive (E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue - Bouganvilla Street), Mariana, New Manila, Quezon City, this is not a license to create and upload numerous redundant or nearly redundant photos of the same subject at the same location. In my opinion, it is still permissible to have 3 redundant photos (or in some cases 4-6 such photos). For this reason I only nominated 5 photos that I treated as highly redundant, but I still allowed others. As I said before, you were mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. But for some reason you didn't made a prompt response. If you wish, you may contact @大诺史: who initiated these moves. But I feel they (大诺史) and they (P199) have justifiable points of view on why several of your "redundant photos" are against the policies regarding quantity of photos so as not to appear like an "indiscriminate collection of similar photos." And additionally, please respond to the Deletion requests (DR's) at their Deletion request pages (like this page), and not your talkpage because editors and administrators won't respond there if there are deletion requests. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
- Therefore, the foregoing aptly explained my stance via Rejoinder to the Closed discussion as of 28 July 2019; and I respectfully underline the fact that before the lockdown of Luzon I patiently took original non-redundant photos of CALABARZON and I stopped due to the 11 hour traffic caused by Skyway Stage 3 Alabang construction, and I shot Pangasinan and La Union Barangays including some of Tarlac from 2014 to March 16 2020 Lockdown; but I now concentrate on New Normal in Bulacan Barangays and Cuisine of Bulacan cooking ; I remain very sincerely your Judgefloro (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
Change of mind from the nominator: Speedily I withdraw my nomination. I find this reason too shallow (napakababaw ng dahilan para burahin ang retrato/mga retratong ito). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Redundant photo of File:327Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 39.jpg. Per precedent with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3, to quote P199's verdict: "As per COM:PS: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. = meaning we don't need a massive collection of nearly duplicate images. We have told Judgefloro/Ramon FVelasquez many times in the past to be more selective when uploading. And no need to give a long sermon on the notability of the road, that is irrelevant to the number of needless images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Request of JWilz12345 on Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress
[edit]
With all due respect, and first, Good Afternoon from hereat thunderstorm Bulacan, Philippines; actually I had no more intention to take these photos, since I was on to CALABARZON towards Pangasinan and La Union; I always grant requests for photos unless traffic of which I am afraid prevents me, and thusly, I respectfully quote the following:
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- It is really very difficult to determine which photos or subject that I must take or upload, maybe depending upon the requesting party or editor; there are photos here that I shot, that maybe redundant since I did not want to climb the finished parts for there are security guards thereat, therefore, as you see I did peep my camera down under with fear; hence, I have no objection to the deletion unless other editors need my photos; very very sincerely yours, Judgefloro (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Judgefloro (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- @Judgefloro: (this response is mirrored in other related deletion requests) yes, I requested photos depicting the Skyway Stage 3 last year (September 2019). Nevertheless, to repeat on my stance at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balete Drive (E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue - Bouganvilla Street), Mariana, New Manila, Quezon City, this is not a license to create and upload numerous redundant or nearly redundant photos of the same subject at the same location. In my opinion, it is still permissible to have 3 redundant photos (or in some cases 4-6 such photos). For this reason I only nominated 5 photos that I treated as highly redundant, but I still allowed others. As I said before, you were mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. But for some reason you didn't made a prompt response. If you wish, you may contact @大诺史: who initiated these moves. But I feel they (大诺史) and they (P199) have justifiable points of view on why several of your "redundant photos" are against the policies regarding quantity of photos so as not to appear like an "indiscriminate collection of similar photos." And additionally, please respond to the Deletion requests (DR's) at their Deletion request pages (like this page), and not your talkpage because editors and administrators won't respond there if there are deletion requests. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
- Therefore, the foregoing aptly explained my stance via Rejoinder to the Closed discussion as of 28 July 2019; and I respectfully underline the fact that before the lockdown of Luzon I patiently took original non-redundant photos of CALABARZON and I stopped due to the 11 hour traffic caused by Skyway Stage 3 Alabang construction, and I shot Pangasinan and La Union Barangays including some of Tarlac from 2014 to March 16 2020 Lockdown; but I now concentrate on New Normal in Bulacan Barangays and Cuisine of Bulacan cooking ; I remain very sincerely your Judgefloro (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
Change of mind from the nominator: Speedily I withdraw my nomination. I find this reason too shallow (napakababaw ng dahilan para burahin ang retrato/mga retratong ito). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo is redundant to others in the same category. Also cannot be used because of relative darkness. Additionally, DR complies with the precedence of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3, to quote P199's verdict: "As per COM:PS: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. = meaning we don't need a massive collection of nearly duplicate images. We have told Judgefloro/Ramon FVelasquez many times in the past to be more selective when uploading. And no need to give a long sermon on the notability of the road, that is irrelevant to the number of needless images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Request of JWilz12345 on Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress
[edit]
With all due respect, and first, Good Afternoon from hereat thunderstorm Bulacan, Philippines; actually I had no more intention to take these photos, since I was on to CALABARZON towards Pangasinan and La Union; I always grant requests for photos unless traffic of which I am afraid prevents me, and thusly, I respectfully quote the following:
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- It is really very difficult to determine which photos or subject that I must take or upload, maybe depending upon the requesting party or editor; there are photos here that I shot, that maybe redundant since I did not want to climb the finished parts for there are security guards thereat, therefore, as you see I did peep my camera down under with fear; hence, I have no objection to the deletion unless other editors need my photos; very very sincerely yours, Judgefloro (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Judgefloro (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- @Judgefloro: (this response is mirrored in other related deletion requests) yes, I requested photos depicting the Skyway Stage 3 last year (September 2019). Nevertheless, to repeat on my stance at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balete Drive (E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue - Bouganvilla Street), Mariana, New Manila, Quezon City, this is not a license to create and upload numerous redundant or nearly redundant photos of the same subject at the same location. In my opinion, it is still permissible to have 3 redundant photos (or in some cases 4-6 such photos). For this reason I only nominated 5 photos that I treated as highly redundant, but I still allowed others. As I said before, you were mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. But for some reason you didn't made a prompt response. If you wish, you may contact @大诺史: who initiated these moves. But I feel they (大诺史) and they (P199) have justifiable points of view on why several of your "redundant photos" are against the policies regarding quantity of photos so as not to appear like an "indiscriminate collection of similar photos." And additionally, please respond to the Deletion requests (DR's) at their Deletion request pages (like this page), and not your talkpage because editors and administrators won't respond there if there are deletion requests. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
- Therefore, the foregoing aptly explained my stance via Rejoinder to the Closed discussion as of 28 July 2019; and I respectfully underline the fact that before the lockdown of Luzon I patiently took original non-redundant photos of CALABARZON and I stopped due to the 11 hour traffic caused by Skyway Stage 3 Alabang construction, and I shot Pangasinan and La Union Barangays including some of Tarlac from 2014 to March 16 2020 Lockdown; but I now concentrate on New Normal in Bulacan Barangays and Cuisine of Bulacan cooking ; I remain very sincerely your Judgefloro (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your message plus Good Morning from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; a) on responding to messages, I always respond and even have rejoinders in the Nomination pages for discussion, and it is very rare that I file objection thereto, but instead explain my stance but leave the matter to Commons; b) but I always copy paste the same in my talk page, since you know at age over 60 or Senior Citizen I have very little knowledge of Internet unlike Milennials; c) but it was only from your posts that I found that there was a Discussion about Cloud and Redundancy on my photos; d) therefore, I tried my best not to take photos again fo the same barangays or subjects except now the New Normal Pandemic Photos due to Lockdown where I can only take photos of the COVID phenomenon in Bulacan areas; e) for more than 5 years, I had been taking original non-redundant photos of Barangays and Landmarks especially upon 2 requests from editor from San Pedro, Laguna and another editor about Historical Landmarks; f) finally, I spend about 5 hours yesterday to research and intelligently discuss my side on My Photography is in accordance with the Philosophy and Sharing of Wisdom of Commons: Ahead of my times, my photos are now Treasures vis-a-vis the World Pandemic Lock-down Category:New Normal during COVID-19 in the Philippines g) with this long Thesis supported by Categories I created especially the photography of 4, 000 Luzon Barangays and Landmarks, I exhaustively wrote here a Rejoinder to i) Files uploaded by Judgefloro and ii) Possibly treating commons as cloud " I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC) IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)"
Change of mind from the nominator: Speedily I withdraw my nomination. I find this reason too shallow (napakababaw ng dahilan para burahin ang retrato/mga retratong ito). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Redundant photo of File:402Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 6.jpg. Per precedent with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3, to quote P199's verdict: "As per COM:PS: Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. = meaning we don't need a massive collection of nearly duplicate images. We have told Judgefloro/Ramon FVelasquez many times in the past to be more selective when uploading. And no need to give a long sermon on the notability of the road, that is irrelevant to the number of needless images." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Request of JWilz12345 on Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress
[edit]
With all due respect, and first, Good Afternoon from hereat thunderstorm Bulacan, Philippines; actually I had no more intention to take these photos, since I was on to CALABARZON towards Pangasinan and La Union; I always grant requests for photos unless traffic of which I am afraid prevents me, and thusly, I respectfully quote the following:
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- It is really very difficult to determine which photos or subject that I must take or upload, maybe depending upon the requesting party or editor; there are photos here that I shot, that maybe redundant since I did not want to climb the finished parts for there are security guards thereat, therefore, as you see I did peep my camera down under with fear; hence, I have no objection to the deletion unless other editors need my photos; very very sincerely yours, Judgefloro (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Judgefloro (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)"
- @Judgefloro: (this response is mirrored in other related deletion requests) yes, I requested photos depicting the Skyway Stage 3 last year (September 2019). Nevertheless, to repeat on my stance at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Balete Drive (E. Rodriguez, Sr. Avenue - Bouganvilla Street), Mariana, New Manila, Quezon City, this is not a license to create and upload numerous redundant or nearly redundant photos of the same subject at the same location. In my opinion, it is still permissible to have 3 redundant photos (or in some cases 4-6 such photos). For this reason I only nominated 5 photos that I treated as highly redundant, but I still allowed others. As I said before, you were mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Possibly treating commons as cloud. But for some reason you didn't made a prompt response. If you wish, you may contact @大诺史: who initiated these moves. But I feel they (大诺史) and they (P199) have justifiable points of view on why several of your "redundant photos" are against the policies regarding quantity of photos so as not to appear like an "indiscriminate collection of similar photos." And additionally, please respond to the Deletion requests (DR's) at their Deletion request pages (like this page), and not your talkpage because editors and administrators won't respond there if there are deletion requests. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Change of mind from the nominator: Speedily I withdraw my nomination. I find this reason too shallow (napakababaw ng dahilan para burahin ang retrato/mga retratong ito). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ukrainian football logos
[edit]Wrong license ({{PD-UA-exempt}}). These logos largely surpass the TOO, and if they are "exempt" from copyright for any reason, they need at least an OTRS permission.
Files affected:
- File:Afiu.jpg
- File:Cherkaskyi Dnipro.JPG
- File:Chornomorets odesa 80 years logo.jpg
- File:FC Bukovyna Chernivtsi Logo.png
- File:FC Cherkashchyna-Akademiya.png
- File:FC Cherkaskyi Dnipro Logo.png
- File:FC Desna logo 2008.gif
- File:FC Desna.jpg
- File:FC Enerhiya Nova Kakhovka Logo.png
- File:FC Inhulets logo.png
- File:FC VPK-Ahro.png
- File:Garay2011.png
- File:Logo FK Stal.png
- File:Pfcsumy embl.png
- File:Nikopol-logo.jpg
- File:Pfcsumy embl.png
- File:PFL logo.gif
- File:SC Dnipro-1 Logo.png
- File:SC Dnipro-1 Logo.svg
- File:Vorskla 2010 Logo Bord-Crimson.png
- File:Емблема ФК "Авангард" Жидачів.png
- File:Емблема ФК «Реал Фарма».png
- File:Емблема ФК Ворскла.png
- File:Емблема ФК Динамо Київ (2007).gif
- File:Емблема ФК Дністер Овідіополь.png
- File:Емблема ФК Зірка Кіровоград 2008.png
- File:Емблема ФК Погонь Львів.png
- File:Емблема ФК Поділля-Хмельницький.png
- File:Емблема ФСК Прикарпаття.gif
- File:Логотип ФК «Олімпік» Донецьк.png
- File:Логотип ФК Горняк Ровеньки.png
- File:Емблема ФК Зірка Кіровоград.png
- File:Емблема ФК Коростень.jpg
- File:Logo Football Federation of Ukraine (2016).png
- File:Logo Fédération Ukraine Football 2016.svg
- File:Logo of Football Federation of Ukraine 2016.png
- File:Ukraine football association.gif
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Fma12 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
UP9 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no reason to delete the old logo of the Ukrainian Football Federation (formerly known as the Football Federation of Ukraine). There is nothing wrong with its license, see chapter (d) in the Licensing section. This file is classified under the symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations.
All Keep See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by YarikUkraine Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Динамо-фан Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Arsenal-Kyiv logo 2018.png {{PD-UA-exempt}} d) symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations--Чорний Кіт (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: According Ukrainian copyright law logos of companies, institutions and organisations are not copyrighted. --Anatoliy (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
uploaded in error; picture of the wrong person (actually Lorne Argyle Campbell) and ambiguously named Nick Number (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is a logo uploaded by someone with the same display name as the logo, which has no use on any project, and is 2.5 years old. 100.40.131.38 05:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Artwork without obvious educational use. SCP-2000 13:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nixnubix as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Bild wird ausgewechselt. Image will be changed Nixnubix (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR as image does not qualify for speedy and is in use. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Miraclepine as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per COM:FOP UK, no FOP for "graphic works" including paintings and drawings. The painting was almost certainly made recent enough to warrant a speedy.
CSD F3 explicitly excludes FOP cases from speedy deletion, so I think this needs a full DR. --bjh21 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: This looks like a graphic work to me, so COM:FOP doesn't apply. Alex Maskey (Q1116655) was born in 1952, so copyright can't possibly have expired yet. --bjh21 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
According to the article in svwiki, Lillemor Hallin, not Bengt Malmgren, is the author of this work. 5.150.230.130 11:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Lillemor Hallin is the artist of this work (cloth application). Photo by Bengt Malmgren. Bengt Malmgren has permission from the artist to publish this under common licence. --Bengt Malmgren (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bengt, if you have the permission from the artist, you need to follow the procedure described on Commons:OTRS. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
According to the article in svwiki, Lillemor Hallin, not Bengt Malmgren, is the author of this work. 5.150.230.130 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Lillemor Hallin is the artist of this work (cloth application). Photo by Bengt Malmgren. Bengt Malmgren has permission from the artist to publish this under common licence. --Bengt Malmgren (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bengt, if you have the permission from the artist, you need to follow the procedure described on Commons:OTRS. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
According to the article in svwiki, Lillemor Hallin, not Bengt Malmgren, is the author of this work. 5.150.230.130 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Lillemor Hallin is the artist of this work (cloth application). Photo by Bengt Malmgren. Bengt Malmgren has permission from the artist to publich this under common licence. --Bengt Malmgren (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bengt, if you have the permission from the artist, you need to follow the procedure described on Commons:OTRS. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Because it is Logo King Muli 12 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Looks too simple to copyright. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by IagoQnsi as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Interpol doesn't seem to be a public domain organization. They claim copyright of their logo/emblem/etc here: https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Terms-of-use — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for warning, but no horses of mine in that race: I just cropped tthe image back then. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment If it is kept, though, then the bogus description needs to be adjusted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also tagged File:Interpol.svg as copyvio for the same reason, and User:Billinghurst deleted it. If this discussion ends as keep, that image should be undeleted. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh whoops, Billinghurst is the one who opened this DR. I'm not sure why this case is any different than that one; if I recall, the only material difference in the SVG was that it had INTERPOL written below the logo. –IagoQnsi (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Different circumstances. One was a recent and duplicative, and had a user claim clearly false. This should get discussed. I didn't reject it, just put it before the community to get the determination rather than speedy as an admin had previously edited it. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- DELETE this INTERPOL "emblem"- See: [3] which under "Authorization for Use" states: "As a general rule, we use the logo for all communications and do not authorize use of the emblem or flag for this purpose. (...)" and under "Legally Protected" states, "As an international organization, INTERPOL's full and abbreviated name, emblem and flag are protected under the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. (...)" Thanks, --Tibet Nation (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logos need permission and the terms of use at https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Terms-of-usehttps://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Terms-of-use prohibit commercial use so not suitable for commons. --Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This is basically the same as the other screenshots in Category:Damaru (artist) - same event, same angle, even screenshots from the same video - except this one is blurred or pixelated. GRuban (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but this photo depicts a protected work of art without permission from the artist. Gnom (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Architect Zaha Hadid passed away in 2016, image can be undeleted in 2087. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but this photo depicts a protected work of art without permission from the artist. Gnom (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Architect Zaha Hadid passed away in 2016, image can be undeleted in 2087. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I would assume the symbol would make this fail TOO?, Also the standard logo (en:File:Arriva 2017 logo.svg) is at EN and hasn't been uploaded here presumably because of the symbol ?, Thanks]) –Davey2010Talk 12:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm afraid but this photo shows a still from a video that is protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete And undelete at an appropriate date. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I'afraid but this photo depicts a protected work of art (the large painting above the staircase) without permission from the artist. Gnom (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Architect Zaha Hadid passed away in 2016, image can be undeleted in 2087. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal image only used to illustrate an article about himself. The only edits this user ever made was in a draft about himself on the english wikipedia Hangman'sDeath (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The original image is published under a CC BY-ND 2.0 license, which allows no derivative works and therefore is unfree - see source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodeime/8532673757/ and click on "Some rights reserved". Wutsje 03:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The CC-BY (without ND) license was confirmed in 2016 by A.Savin. There are two possibilites: a) The license was changed at flickr in the meantime. Then we could keep the image, as the original CC-BY license is irrevocable. Or b) A.Savin made a mistake. Would have liked to check at archive.org, but for some reason the link for an archived version from 2016 always redirects to a 2019 archive. Maybe A.Savin would like to comment on this, too? But in this case, I would rather tend to assume that the 2016 license review was correct and the license at that time was, indeed, CC-BY. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed I had marked it, but I really don't know anymore what was the license at that timepoint; I'm very sorry. --A.Savin 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: No reason not to trust A Savin. --Gbawden (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Per watermark the photo was taken by Paco Bellido, not own work. Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
-2020-07-10T08:39:00.000Z-File:Museum_civic_of_modena.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; pcp. --Gbawden (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Station militaire. Floutée sur les différents fonds de cartes. J'ai un doute sur la légalité. Merci Tylwyth Eldar (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/1979 onwards Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse
[edit]
Internet Archive has misleadingly used the initial volume series date in the metadata as the publication year. Consequently they were uploaded on the wrong license. This DR is for Annals with a date in the 'volume' field of 1979 onwards, and is not guaranteed to be a complete list as the results of the source regex search seems unpredictable. See search on Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse. The selected date of 1979 is arbitrary, volumes before this may also need examination, and later uploads under the IA books project may need to be incorporated to this list as part of housekeeping, depending on DR outcome.
There may be reasons to think these documents are public domain, though over time different publisher comments are made. Some have no copyright statement of any kind, others just say 'Copyright enquiries to the South Africa Museum". A check at the original source archive (not BHL) may clarify the intent, though COM:PRP applies if no unambiguous copyright release from the publishers or authors (the museum) can be found or if a variation of "published without a copyright claim" will not be sufficient for the source country.
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth72197677sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10331993sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsout104121996sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10411994sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth72121977sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha5631970sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10441994sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsout104111996sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10321993sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth72101977sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth72111977sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha5641970sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth72131977sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth57197071sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha102199sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10471995sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha7761979sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsou5819721981sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth66197475sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10351993sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth79197980sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth60197273sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10461994sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha7041989sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10361993sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth59197172sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10451994sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsout104101996sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsou6162197374sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10311993sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10491995sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10481995sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsouth10371994sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalsofsoutha107120sout).pdf
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (IA annalso10810920012003sout).pdf
- File:Psyche (IA psyche2012camb).pdf
Fæ (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Accidentally picked up the Cambridge Entomological Club volume, the same logic applies but may need a separate search and DR. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Likely not PD. Marked as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but the bottom of page 10 (per IA's page numbers, not the magazine's) has a valid copyright notice. According to the Online Books Page, Photoplay also renewed their copyrights, so this can't be salvaged by {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Stifle (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be pd PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Stifle (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It is my understanding that an image of a 3-dimensional work (like a coin or medal) is a derivative work and therefore requires a license of both the image and the item. We have a license for the item (although I'm not 100% convinced it is correct), but no license for the image which has a source of a commercial website. BigrTex (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Stifle (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe this is still copyrighted: this was an unpublished letter and first published in 2002: https://assets.cambridge.org/97805212/56278/frontmatter/9780521256278_frontmatter.pdf
Sadly, this means it will only become public domain in the year 2048, see Help:Public_domain#Not_public_domain.
I hope I'm wrong! It's a beautiful diagram. Nanite (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is an image of international public interest by an author who died 140+ years ago. So by European copyright law this surely is
|
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929. |
| This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. | |
. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hey @Hansmuller: , my understanding is that files need to be free in the USA for Wikimedia Commons, and that (due to the rationale I gave above) the image in question is in fact under copyright in the USA. It seems like an unbelievable stupid rule but I triple checked before nominating this file. Again, I'd be happy to be wrong about this, maybe I have misread things! --Nanite (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I couldn't find any earlier publications, so the image is probably copyrighted in the US (ugh). The image should be replaced with a modification of File:James Clerk Maxwell - Theory of Heat-Longmans, Green, & Co. (1875).djvu (page 217 (DjVu) or 207 (text)), which is "actually the mirror image" of the pictured drawing ([4], note a). cc. User:Nanite for thoughts. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: Yes, I've uploaded that just the other day at File:James Clerk Maxwell - Thermodynamic surface figure from book.jpg (cleaned up the spots). Sadly it's a bit more of an abstract diagram, unfortunately. The image under discussion is a nicer sketch of a physical object.
- By the way I found these free photos today (see fig), I had thought there were no nonfree photos until I just looked again now. Huzzah! --Nanite (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757 @Nanite Perhaps i'm just dumb, but i think because this sketch was first published in James Maxwell (1875), Letter to James Thomson, Jul 8, and later in 1890 in The Scientific Letters and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell (pgs. 230-31). Volume 3; 1874-1879, it is clearly public domain for a long time: since 1 January after 1879 + 70 = 1 January 1950. So what is the problem? Please state exact reasons, thanks Hansmuller (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Hansmuller: Publication is "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author" (or offering to do so). Thus, sending the letter in 1875 is not publication. The Scientific Letters and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell Volume III, 1874-1879 was published in 2002, not 1890, unless you are talking about something else. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: Thanks. 1. It was published in 1890, right? 2. If first publication were in 2002, who would be the copyright owners now anyway, Maxwell's far heirs? 3. It is plausible that sending a scientific letter was intended for the public, so would count as a publication in the copyright sense (and could be used to prove precedence of discovery) , as scientific correspondences traditionally go since centuries, compare w:en:Henry Oldenburg, w:en:Marin Mersenne and the origin of scientific journals in general: just as correspondence between learned people.) Compare Wallace's letter pioneering the concept of biological evolution to Charles Darwin, which was republished by Darwin in print without any questioning. 4. What about fair use anyway? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Hansmuller: 1. Which page is it on there? I looked, and didn't see it. 2. Probably the publisher, but perhaps Maxwell's heirs. 3. I'm not sure of that. 4. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Malcolma as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Not F10 but probably OoS Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Janvermont (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artworks by non-notable artist, and/or derivative works of the images in these digital composites.
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 10a.tif
- File:Looking from midmanhattan 18.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 17.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 16.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 15.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 14.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 13.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 12.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 11.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 10.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 09.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 08.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 07.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 06.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 05.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 04.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 03.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 02.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 01.tif
- File:Looking west from 55 and park1.jpg
- File:Nypl metal print.JPG
- File:Kcomposite egyptian reflection.jpg
- File:Delmonico trumped.tif
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I received email from the uploader who may be the artist, but to protect the artist's copyright the uploader should fill out the form at COM:OTRS. I am still in caution-mode however; the article was tagged for a long time and I'm not sure the issues in the tag were addressed, but the article is still there. See the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janice_Lourie&action=history and that the page was started by the uploader of these photos. At some point "promotionalism" or "self-promotionalism" enters into it, as the subject of the article's notability was challenged, and I do not see that the points were addressed on the page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please place on hold pending OTRS If the artist would fill in the form at COM:OTRS and email it as described there, I think this will be settled by that process. I've received another email and would request extra time for this to allow the artist to provide the otrs email which may solve all issues. The photography as well as the digitalization is done by Janice Lourie of the en:Wiki article who is active and on-line. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Moved from talk page where it was put by new user I filled out the OTRS form and emailed it.
Notability The notability question arose when Starry Grandma who reviewed the initial Wikipedia submission felt that notability was a question.However, at the same time she offered to work with me to improve the page. In our following interchanges whe saw the documentation about my work and became a supporter, even buying a copy of my book herself and adding to the historical background of my project. Then she left Wikipedia for several months. My pending page was ultimately picked up by W. Carter. The history page makes note of some minor changes she made to the Wikipedia page. It was she who created the Janice Lourie category. She put three of my images into the category and urged me to make my future cotnributions to it.
modification of preexisting work The file:File:Looking west from midmanhattan 10a.tif was elongated by me to represent an overwhelming sensation of the verticality of New York City. The original is mine. A good graphic can be manipulated without destroying its essence. and I wanted all those images to reach high. Please tell me if its not ok to do that. Janvermont (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Janvermont (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- So we're pending OTRS with a clear own work statement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I updated the files with the OTRS reference. The ticket is pending approval from operator. --Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now, leaving it to the OTRS process. --Jcb (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Janvermont (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Mostly Derivative works without sources per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presenting norman mailer.tif. Mostly unused and OOS.
- File:The librarian, norman mailer and sinclair lewis remained friends.tif
- File:Optimistic view of our educational system by sinclair lewis.tif
- File:The philosophy of education of sinclair lewis.tif
- File:How well did the librarian know norman mailer.tif
- File:Sylvia richmond, librarian interviews sinclair lewis.tif
- File:001 DSC00508 catcover 02G filled has title FLAT FLATtif copy BC UP 30 12x8.tif
- File:The librarian who bought norman mailer and sinclair together.tif
- File:The Agreement about Norman Mailer and Sinclair Lewis.tif
- File:001 DSC00508 catcover 02G filled has title FLAT FLATtif copy BC UP 30 12x6.jpg
- File:Library walk 021208 originals renamed 046 under church double cross copy.jpg
- File:Panel 07 sinclair lewis "for the masses".tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 10a.tif
- File:Looking from midmanhattan 18.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 17.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 16.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 15.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 14.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 13.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 12.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 11.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 10.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 09.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 08.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 07.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 06.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 05.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 04.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 03.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 02.tif
- File:Looking west from midmanhattan 01.tif
- File:Looking west from 55 and park1.jpg
- File:Nypl metal print.JPG
- File:Kcomposite egyptian reflection.jpg
- File:Delmonico trumped.tif
- File:Sinclair lewis - opinion on author's relationship to his characters.tiff
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Billinghurst, Brianjd, Rodhullandemu, Jmabel, Ankry as posters at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presenting norman mailer.tif. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, as above, these are "Artworks by non-notable artist". — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Ellin Beltz, Jcb as posters in the first section. Pinging @King of Hearts as approving agent of Ticket:2016112910025646. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: The Looking west from midmanhattan series seems to be DW of architecture that falls under US FoP (or is PD already). The artist is indeed non-notable, but as in previous nomination the series was considered in scope renominating them with the same rationale is out of process. If there is another reason for deletion, please clarify. Renominating with exactly the same rationale again is disruptive behaviour. I will say nothing about the other images. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: It is not the same rationale. The uploader admits to creating DWs, but by policy we need sources for each file whether or not the sources are covered by FOP. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Not overly dug through the subject matter. I note w:Janice Lourie which is category for numbers of these works. So I am guessing that the user and the person are the same. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- If User:Janvermont is Janice Lourie, then there has clearly been a violation of en:WP:AUTO, but that is not Commons' affair. The article has been on Wikipedia for 5-1/2 years; as far as I can tell it has never even been nominated for deletion there, although they are now aware of the en:WP:AUTO issue (it was recently tagged). Prima facie, it looks like a description of someone notable: granted IBM's first software patent would be enough for notability. I would lean toward keep. - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I tagged it as an autobiography based on this edit. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The uploader wrote "with respect to Kcomposite, I do not have copyright clearance, I elect deletion whoever is in charge to request and execute" in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination with a mix of reasons: some of images being out of scope (not used anywhere with little educational value), some - with insufficient information for derivative work (painting and an old photo), some - due to lack of FoP for buildings used. --rubin16 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
UK Crown Copyright files from National Churches Trust Flickr account
[edit]- File:Morriston, Swansea Tabernacle (c) Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales (48879418501).jpg
- File:St Davids Cathedral, Pembrokeshire © Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales (48879419431).jpg
- File:St Nons Chapel Pembrokeshire (c) Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales (48879614557).jpg
- File:Burnetts Hill Chapel Narberth Pembrokeshire (c) Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales (48879418701).jpg
- File:All Saints Gresford Clwyd (c) Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales (48878889168).jpg
_Hawlfraint_y_Goron_%C2%A9_Crown_copyright_(2019)_Cymru_Wales_(48879418501).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cymru_Wales_(48879419431).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Hawlfraint_y_Goron_%C2%A9_Crown_copyright_(2019)_Cymru_Wales_(48879614557).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Hawlfraint_y_Goron_%C2%A9_Crown_copyright_(2019)_Cymru_Wales_(48879418701).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Hawlfraint_y_Goron_%C2%A9_Crown_copyright_(2019)_Cymru_Wales_(48878889168).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I uploaded these files from the Flickr account[5] of the National Churches Trust (NCT), a UK heritage organisation. These are licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr but these licenses may be unreliable. The images all indicate "© Crown copyright" in the Flickr file name, and the metadata has "Copyright holder : © Crown copyright (2018) Visit Wales. All rights reserved". COM:CROWN indicates that Crown copyright is not an acceptable free license. Ownership of the Flickr account is confirmed by a link on the NCT homepage.[6] Even though the NCT is a highly reputable organisation whose patron is the queen, it is unclear that they have authority to re-licence Crown copyright images. I raised this issue at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#UK Crown Copyright images with free Flickr licenses where I was advised that a deletion request should be raised. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, digging a little bit…The National Churches Trust does not appear to be any kind of government entity at all, beyond receiving public funds as donations. They are a private organisation registered as a charity. On the one hand this means they are free to license their (normal) copyright materials any way they choose, but on the other it means they definitely have no authority to (re)license any material covered by Crown copyright. If the claim of Crown copyright for these images is accurate, the NCT choice of CC BY 2.0 on Flicker must then be interpreted as an assertion that the NCT can use them due to a permissive license from the actual owner, rather than an assertion that they own the copyright and offer the works under this license. i.e. the NCT is confused.The metadata claim that the images are owned by "Visit Wales" is a plausible one, and there are any number of quite common and pedestrian reasons why the NCT would end up distributing images owned by Visit Wales. Visit Wales is a part of the Department for Heritage in the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government is a Crown Body whose copyrights are handled by HMSO, and they do not appear to be one of the entities with a waiver, and as such the use of OGL is mandatory for them (not through the copyright act, but through the letters patent for HMSO, but the effect is the same). In addition, Visit Wales has a page with legal information which states: Unless otherwise stated, imagery is © Crown Copyright (2020). It is thus reasonable to conclude that the images that assert "Crown copyright (2018) Visit Wales" are in fact owned by Visit Wales, are covered by Crown Copyright, and can be used under the OGL. In fact, I very much expect the NCT are actually using these images owned by Visit Wales under the OGL themselves.The images tagged "Martin Crampin" are, absent contrary information, presumably their personal copyright. If the NCT has legally obtained the rights to those photos they are not barred from relicensing them (unlike the Crown Copyright ones). But unless some kind of evidence can be found that NCT actually has those rights, I think we must assume that they are actually a "used with permission of the photographer" type situation which does not confer the authority to re-license the images, and the CC BY 2.0 claim by NCT on Flickr is bogus.IOW, absent contrary information, I'd say these are fine; but they should be renamed to avoid the misleading suggestion and redundancy: (c) Hawlfraint y Goron © Crown copyright (2019) Cymru Wales means (c) Crown copyright © Crown copyright (2019) Wales Wales, which definitely does not belong in the file name. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Xover: thank you for following this up. If I understand your analysis we should assign an OGL licence to these files and adjust the file names. The Legal Information page you linked[7] links to an OGL3 statement,[8] so we should use the {{OGL3}} template. However, you argue that the licensing of the following Martin Crampin images is unsafe, because we can't trust the NCT to accurately apply licenses.
- @Fæ: , you commented in the Village Pump discussion (archived here). Do you support Xover's analysis? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: D'oh! I have to correct myself yet again: the Welsh Government does have a Delegation of Authority, two in fact, that are so broad as to cover almost anything that's relevant to Commons. In particular, the actual source of :File:Morriston, Swansea Tabernacle ….jpg is this image in Visit Wales' "Wales Image Centre", which is the service that's covered by the 24 April 2019 Delegation. On that site the operate with what they call the "Crown Copyright Licencing Agreement", which is a custom license agreement for the stuff they own (Crown) copyright for that sets out decidedly non-free terms for use (can only be used to promote tourism in Wales, for one thing).In other words, pretty much everything I wrote above is either irrelevant or wrong, and these images cannot be hosted on Commons. Grr! --Xover (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
_Martin_Crampin_(48879418316).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Martin_Crampin_JPG_(48879419796).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Responding to ping, as my archived statement, though complicated to understand due to the way Crown property rights operate in different countries, these work like Crown press photographs with a 50 year expiry from publication. Though UKGov has stated that OGL is the aim everywhere possible, it cannot be assumed. --Fæ (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: VisitWales.com says that OGL isn’t applied for imagery, images are under Crown Copyright. Furthermore, OGL isn’t superseding other licenses for recent files, it should be explicitly stated somewhere. As NCT isn’t the Crown institution itself, we can’t consider publications on Flickr as a proper relicense. Thus, deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)