Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/12/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Likely copy vio, creation date make no sense A (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Image non libre (peut être déjà supprimée il y a quelques mois) 2A01:E35:2F0F:8080:11C2:E42C:B286:872C 10:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Elcobbola. --Achim (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I made a mistake, not for violation of rights or anything, I wrote the description wrong and I want to re-upload it Spyros 102 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, uploader request, etc. --Krd 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
delete this page now Spyros 102 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect licensing NorthernMonkey82 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|copyvio}} NorthernMonkey82 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
it is not mine Khamid Solikhov (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:10, 3 Dezember 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Book cover --Krdbot 03:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Sulshan is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually the person named sulshan is me. Please tell me how to prove that myself is Sulshan Indianfootball98 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Real photographer must send OTRS-permission. Source "I asked the person in the photo to give his photo which does not have any copyrights to add to Wikimedia commons" hints copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Next day after previous version was deleted, new file was uploaded, again small photo without metadata. I suspect again copyright violation. OTRS-permission from real photographer would be good. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I have updated image as Taivo asked to do. I think everything is fine now.Poppified (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, now I believe own work. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons. Only used on unapproved draft at ENWP - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
use wrong license: http://sulbarkita.com/pulau_karampuang_mutiara_yang_hilang_dari_sulbar_berita410.html -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://asaljeplak.com/portalwisata/rekomendasi-tempat-wisata-mamuju-2019/ — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons. Only used on unapproved draft at ENWP - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, spam. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons. Only used on unapproved draft at ENWP - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, self-promotional spam. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons. Only used on unapproved draft at ENWP - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, self-promotional spam. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope for commons. Only used on unapproved draft at ENWP - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation, taken from Twitter without crediting or permission from owner. Please take care of this. ~ AC5230 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Do you have a link to the Twitter page as evidence? JGHowes talk 01:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oui - https://twitter.com/WxMatteo/status/1333775380738617351
- And I'll do you one better: I was talking to the user via Discord about it, here's an excerpt: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/cX6aCMDY/image.png
- Any questions? ~ AC5230 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 07:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 15:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 10:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Visual375
[edit]- File:VaVichi Royalty Jamaal Garner.jpg
- File:VaVichi Royalty with Andre'a Hopkins.jpg
- File:Miss Halifax USA 2021 Imani Cooper VaVichi Royalty.jpg
- File:Vavichi Royalty with Shonoda McMillian.jpg
Risk of copyright violation. These all probably originate from https://www.vavichionline.com/vavichi-model-zone, where there is no free license. The last two files are currently there, and the file names and descriptions all refer to VaVichi. The licenses need to be validated by email to the COM:OTRS system. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused user graphic, uploader has no other live global contributions. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 00:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not the company's official logo. This is a misunderstanding. 85.255.236.157 00:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please log in if you are User:OrbitalFantasy. --Achim (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't the company's logo. This is a misunderstanding. 85.255.236.157 01:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not the logo of the company. This is just a misunderstanding. 85.255.236.157 01:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not the company's logo. 85.255.236.157 01:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
uploaded as own work, but obviously a company logo, probably above threshold of originality, used in a now-deleted spam draft at en.wp Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is a company logo for a company I own User:Bigeasybeardco
- And you understand that by publishing it here, you permanently give up all rights to it, and it can be reused by anyone, for any purpose, including for profit? (I'm also fairly certain you would need to contact OTRS to confirm you own the rights and are legally able to release the image.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope - unused, appears to be original work without OTRS, not a logo hosting service. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a brand of Orbital Fantasy anymore. We changed our branding, and this logo expired. 85.255.236.157 01:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a brand of Orbital Fantasy anymore. We changed our branding, and this logo expired since a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mustafayabubaker (talk · contribs)
[edit]File not legitimately in use, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to advertise
- File:Zap Surveys App Icon.png
- File:Zapsurveyslogo.png
- File:Zapsurveyshomepage.svg
- File:Zap Surveys.png
- File:Zapsurveys.svg
Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a brand of Orbital Fantasy anymore. We changed our branding, and this logo expired since a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a logo of Orbital Fantasy. We rebranded a long time ago. 85.255.236.157 01:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix 1
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Côte d'Ivoire, and the designer architect Pierre Fakhoury is still alive, at least that is what is stated at enwiki entry w:Pierre Fakhoury. No evidence that Côte d'Ivoire copyright law permits free reproductions and publications of architecture and sculptures made/designed by still-alive (or recently deceased) people in commercial media like post card, T-shirt prints, and calendars. See also today's closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fronton de Notre-Dame de la Paix.jpg and an old DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro. I'm unsure about the interior parts of this building.
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (12).JPG
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (14).JPG
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (15).JPG
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (32579905054).jpg
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (33382291056).jpg
- File:Basilique du Notre Dame de la Paix, Yammassoukro, Cote d'Ivoire.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de la Paix, Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire A.jpg
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de la Paix, Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussokro 01.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussokro 02.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussokro 04.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussokro 05.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussoukro.JPG
- File:Basilique notre dame.jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9626716321).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9626916929).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9627391325).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix.jpg
- File:BasiliqueNDdelaPaix1.jpg
- File:Coupole de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Fronton de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Me at the Basilica (33382279676).jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro Basilique - panoramio - arno B (1).jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro Basilique - panoramio - arno B.jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro Costa d'Avorio Basilica di San Pietro.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix 2
[edit]The churches was completed in 1990 by architect Pierre Fakhoury (1943–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Ivory Coast, permission from him is required.
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (33039574600).jpg
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (33039577260).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9626748865).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9629993968).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9630001496).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9630090224).jpg
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9630445696).jpg
- File:Basilique Yakro4.JPG
- File:BasiliqueNDdelaPaix2.jpg
- File:Détail entrée avec perspective Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Détail pilliers et vitraux de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Piliers de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix 01.JPG
- File:Piliers de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix 02.JPG
- File:Yamoussoukro, Basilica of Our Lady of Peace.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 09:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix 3
[edit]No COM:FOP Ivory Coast; copyright owned by the living architect Pierre Fakhoury. I've excluded some files in the category where which the architecture is "only accessory or incidental to the main subject", allowed per COM:FOP Ivory Coast (similar to de minimis).
- File:Altar (33039579300).jpg
- File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (1).JPG
- File:Basilique de Yamoussoukro CI.jpg
- File:Basilique Notre Dame de Yamoussokro 03.JPG
- File:Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (9630130666).jpg
- File:Basilique Yakro2.JPG
- File:Basilique Yakro3.JPG
- File:Coeur de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Détail vitrail Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Intérieur de la basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.JPG
- File:Intérieur de la coupole de la Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix.jpg
- File:Intérieur de Notre-Dame de la Paix.jpg
- File:Parvis de Notre-Dame de la Paix.jpg
- File:Perspective Basilique Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Saint-Pierre de Rome versus Notre-Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Yakro basilique.JPG
- File:Yamoussoukro Basilique - panoramio.jpg
File:Yamoussoukro-Costa d'Avorio.incontro dei partecipanti con suor Rosanna,.jpg. Can be kept after cropping the copyrighted part. Ellywa (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
-M.nelson (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The picture File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (1).JPG. It is a picture of the lake and the nymphs, not of the basilica which is a small part of the picture. There is no real reason to delete it. And why not open a separate discussion for each image? Why complicate this discussion? Hanay (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hanay and Geagea: The filename, description, and usage to illustrate the Basilica on various Wikipedias make it clear that the Basilica is the primary subject of the photo. It fails every single test in COM:De minimis#Guidelines. -M.nelson (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (1).JPG per De minimis. The Basilica not the main object in the photo. The main part is the lake and the nymphs, it's marginal part of the overall picture. -- Geagea (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: there was already an open deletion debate for one of these files, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Altar (33039579300).jpg' I've redirected it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was the one who nominated File:Altar (33039579300).jpg as per @Pigsonthewing: . I'd say Delete this image as it shows a stained-glass work and the decorative arch-type object, likely by living craftsmen or artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was the one who nominated File:Altar (33039579300).jpg as per @Pigsonthewing: . I'd say
- Comment. You just need to look at the photo. The basilica is not the main object in the photo, and the photo does not focused at her. I believe that the photo named as part of serie of uploads to make the upload easier. The name and the description not descibe correctlly the photo. The photo shows mainly the lake and the area around. -- Geagea (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- As Geagea wrote. I uploaded the photos from the Ivory Coast airport. The internet was very slow, so I did it as fast as I could. Since when does a file name determine if it will be deleted? I can easily rename the photo to "lake in Yamoussoukro with nymphs". Hanay (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
021 (UTC)
- Keep File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (1).JPG per De minimis. The Basilica not the main object in the photo, but the lake. There is no reason to delete it. Danny-w (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. A single one could be cropped to remove the basilica. File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (1).JPG is imho not de minimis. The title of the work shows it was intended to photograph the church. Danny-wm If you want to crop it to remove the basilica and keep the lake, you are welcome to ask for undeletion. Ellywa (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Côte D'Ivoire unfortunately does not have freedom of panorama (COM:FOP Ivory Coast), the building(s) are copyrighted by their architect therefore the photos are not free. See previous DRs.
- File:BaseliqueCiv 01.jpg
- File:BaseliqueCiv 02.jpg
- File:Basilique de Yamoussoukro - dalle.jpg
- File:Basilique de Yamoussoukro 2.jpg
- File:La Basolique notre Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (Bosson).jpg
- File:La fondation notre Dame de la Paix de Yamoussoukro (Bosson).jpg
- File:View from the top of the largest basilica in the world.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 11.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 12.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 13.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 14.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 15.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 16.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 21.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 22.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 23.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 24.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 25.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 30.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 31.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 32.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 33.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 34.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 35.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 36.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 37.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 38.jpg
- File:WikiConvFr23 à Abidjan en cote d'Ivoir- viste sur Basilique de Yamoussoukro 39.jpg
Consigned (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted object A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted figure A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted figure A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted figure A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for indoor works in Hungary A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Violation of the copyright of https://www.montreuil.fr/ (if this is the source as the uploader claims). According to https://www.montreuil.fr/outils/mentions-legales:
Écrits et/ou mis en ligne par la rédaction du site montreuil.fr, ces contenus ne sauraient être reproduits librement sans l'indication de la source. De même, les pages du site montreuil.fr ne doivent pas être imbriquées à l'intérieur des pages d'un autre site:.... (Google translation: Written and / or posted online by the editorial staff of the montreuil.fr site, this content cannot be freely reproduced without indicating the source. Likewise, the pages of the montreuil.fr site must not be nested within the pages of another site.)
b) l'ajout en bas de chaque contenu de la mention "Droits réservés". En outre, les informations utilisées ne doivent l'être qu'à des fins personnelles, associatives ou professionnelles, toute diffusion ou utilisation à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires étant exclues. (Google translation: b) adding the words "Rights reserved" at the bottom of each content. In addition, the information used must only be used for personal, associative or professional purposes, any distribution or use for commercial or advertising purposes being excluded)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Attributed to http://jeromesommier.com. There's no indication that Jerome Sommier's photos are freely-licensed or in public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: This image is used in a project and was uploaded by a person claiming to be the photographer. Keeping this just to allow the photographer/uploader to add OTRS permissions. If they don't, we will delete in a week. Thanks for understanding. --Missvain (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
zoom.earth images are not allowed FleurDeOdile (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Does it use copyrighted material Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Beraniladri19: YES: "for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only" please see [1] En rouge (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @En rouge: Ok you are free to delete all my Zoom Earth pics, since I was uploaded for first time Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Beraniladri19: I only give you some information, to respond to your question. Be aware, for next times, to have the appropriate rights from the source, to upload the documents to Commons (see Commons:Licensing). Yours, En rouge (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
zoom.earth images are not allowed FleurDeOdile (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Is it copyright violation? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
zoom.earth images are not allowed FleurDeOdile (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is it copyrighted?? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
zoom.earth images are not allowed FleurDeOdile (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is this site uses copyrighted material? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
"Unknown author" is unacceptable at author field, for an image that is recent and generated by modern cameras/phone cameras. Is the uploader the photographer/copyright holder? If not, then who is the photographer/copyright holder and where is the source? The uploader also has a history of having several images tagged as either copyvio or missing evidence of permission, see User talk:Letsgoforward. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RetroRave as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1969. Works in copyright.
- Uploaded 8 years ago and in use. A week's discussion is not too much. E4024 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the artist Antin Manastyrsky died in 1969, this is confirmed by our picture of his grave. We should presumably apply COM:UKRAINE where the main copyright rule is 'life 70 years'. This will not be public domain until 2040. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata shows "Franck AKPOUE" as the author and "InsideStudio_Cel:49214905" as the copyright holder. Maybe the author is working in the said studio, or the studio is the work location or name of the author's studio. It doesn't seem to match the indicated author on the description page (VDSP), but in any case both "Franck AKPOUE" and "VDSP" must not be the uploader Letsgoforward. See also the uploader's talk page for notices to their questionable uploads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Since this image is used in projects, I'm going to keep it for one week to allow for the uploader to provide OTRS permissions. If they do not, we will proceed accordingly. Thanks for understanding!. --Missvain (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata shows "Franck AKPOUE" as the author and "InsideStudio_Cel:49214905" as the copyright holder. Maybe the author is working in the said studio, or the studio is the work location or name of the author's studio. It doesn't seem to match the indicated author on the description page (VDSP), but in any case both "Franck AKPOUE" and "VDSP" must not be the uploader Letsgoforward. Missing formal permission from either Frank AKPOUE or VDSP. See also the uploader's talk page for notices to their questionable uploads. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Since this image is used in projects, I'm going to keep it for one week to allow for the uploader to provide OTRS permissions. If they do not, we will proceed accordingly. Thanks for understanding!. --Missvain (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RetroRave as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1969. Works in copyright.
- Uploaded 12 (twelve) years ago and is in use. A week's discussion is not too much. E4024 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- E4024, Are you advocating copyright infringement? If the files don't have them to pay attention to, it does not mean that they are with violations. artist Antin Manastyrsky died in 1969, and his works coryright in Poland and Ukraine (+ 70 years after death)--RetroRave (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the artist Antin Manastyrsky died in 1969, this is confirmed by our picture of his grave. We should presumably apply COM:UKRAINE where the main copyright rule is 'life 70 years'. This will not be public domain until 2040. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- RetroRave, yes, "I am advocating copyright infringement". Take care. --E4024 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Coach, can you please add that undelete in 2040 thingy below? (When I was a kid I thought it was impossible to see the year 2000, now I see it almost possible to reach 2040. :) Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The 'Undelete in' category is best added by the closing admin. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete clearly copyvioSavemyinternet (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Very similar to https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Fichier:Dentdeman2.jpg (under free licensing), but the metadata indicates FBMDxxx.... It indicates that the uploader grabbed this image on FB, the FB image may have been a download of the Vikidia image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: this image seems to be a cropped and "photoshopped" version of the original Vikidia image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a cropped and contrast-enhanced version of File:Dentdeman2.jpg. The processing of the photograph is not sufficiently elaborate to generate a new copyright, and the new version may be preferred for some purposes. The description should be changed to indicate that this is another version of the original file, and the licence changed to match the original file. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher:
Done changing the description and harmonizing the licensing and category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher:
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Content on PFO Africa are not freely licensed or not under Creative Commons. All copyright there are reserved. Per its mentions légales:
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Ce site respecte le droit d’auteur. Tous les droits des auteurs des œuvres protégées reproduites et communiquées sur ce site, sont réservés. Sauf autorisation, toute utilisation des œuvres autres que la reproduction et la consultation individuelles et privées sont interdites. Tout lien ou framing de ce site est strictement interdit et en conséquence, aucun élément figurant sur une page du site de PFO Africa Côte d’Ivoire ne peut être partiellement ou totalement, diffusé, transféré ou inséré sur un autre site Internet, ni servir à créer des produits dérivés, sauf autorisation expresse de PFO Africa Côte d’Ivoire. (Google translation: This site respects copyright. All the rights of the authors of protected works reproduced and communicated on this site are reserved. Unless authorized, any use of the works other than individual and private reproduction and consultation is prohibited. Any link or framing of this site is strictly prohibited and consequently, no element appearing on a page of the site of PFO Africa Côte d'Ivoire can be partially or totally, diffused, transferred or inserted on another Internet site, nor be used for create derivative products, unless expressly authorized by PFO Africa Côte d'Ivoire.)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation; the cover is above the TOO Veverve (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation; the cover is above the TOO Veverve (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Commons need explicit permission for commerical use and derived works. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The author states the pictures can be used by everyone for any purpose without attribution. ("版权完全开放，大家随意拿用" ("The copyright is completely open, everyone can take and use it at will"）and "……这些图版权完全开放，可以随意拿去做任何用途，带我名字也行不带我名字也行……" (The copyright of those pictures is completely open and can take it for any purpose at will, with or without attribution.) [2]) Lewix (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- And could you please provide the link of policy or guideline that explicit permission for commerical use and derived works is needed. Lewix (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The work is named "和平之师" and the source comes from here.[3] The author also declared that a series of works including this work are granted "unrestricted use authorization". I think this work seems to be released into the public domain, or equivalently given to w:en:WTFPL. --Cwek (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can we use an equivalent template {{PD-author}} instead?--Njzjz (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I added the author name to the current template {{PD-because}}. I think there is no difference. Lewix (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the file will more likely to qualify under {{Copyrighted free use}}. After all, it's not really under public domain (The copyright is completely open... But still not waived.).廣九直通車 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- +1 Looks like there is difference between "Copyrighted free use" and PD. I will change it to {{Copyrighted free use}} Lewix (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the file will more likely to qualify under {{Copyrighted free use}}. After all, it's not really under public domain (The copyright is completely open... But still not waived.).廣九直通車 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I added the author name to the current template {{PD-because}}. I think there is no difference. Lewix (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can we use an equivalent template {{PD-author}} instead?--Njzjz (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is GZWDer for real with this unwarranted deletion request? The author's intent is clear. So much for being 'currently inactive', GZDwer. ParisianWorker (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above. No valid reason. --SCP-2000 05:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly an upload of press photos that aren't their own work.
- File:Oval from the front.jpg
- File:Auditorium HHS.jpg
- File:HHS Laan Van Poot Campus 03.jpg
- File:HHS Laan Van Poot Campus 02.jpg
- File:HHS Laan Van Poot Campus 01.jpg
- File:HHS Zoetermeer Campus 03.jpg
- File:HHS Zoetermeer Campus 02.jpg
- File:HHS Zoetermeer Campus 01.jpg
- File:HHS Delft Campus Energy Saving.jpg
- File:HHS Delft Campus 01.jpg
- File:Study in group in the HHS library.jpg
- File:PCs in centre library.jpg
- File:HHS library two floors view.jpg
- File:The Balkenhol’s tree trunk.jpg
- File:HHS overall picture from above.JPG
- File:HHS2076.jpg
- File:HHS1965.jpg
- File:HHS1217.jpg
- File:HHS surrounding.jpg
- File:HHS2687.jpg
- File:HHS2683.jpg
- File:HHS1221.jpg
- File:Ariel of building.PNG
- File:Delf Faculty.gif
- File:HHS high.JPG
Vera (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This poster is the Umbrella Revolution's derivative of "Keep Calm and Carry On". While the original slogan and poster may be still allowed in Commons, I believe that the umbrella derivative is not. COM:TOO HK would find it copyrightable because originality standards are very low. George Ho (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I intended to crop out the "public domain" VOA photo showing a big banner of eggs with 'X's on their mouths. It's copyrightable especially by US standards. However, that would also change the meaning of the photo, and that would also mean changing the filename. Furthermore, the same banner also appears on protesters' T-shirts, which also fits the meaning of the filename and description. Best to delete if cropping is out of question. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like COM:FOP HK can't apply (unless HKSAR government stated ok elsewhere). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure with non-transparent background at the atom groups. Furthermore the left CH3 group is depicted incorrectly. Have File:Structural formula of isopropylamine.svg as well as File:Isopropylamine.svg among various others in Category:Isopropylamine. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The inverted CH3 is a meaningful chemical mistake. The diagram-style is unique among the category (no exact replacement) but it would be trivial to draw it this way (or any other way) if someone has any use-case in mind. Regarding the background, that could instead be easilt fixed if there were not other content problems. Someone might want to run through a bunch of this uploader's contributions from September 2006 to see more that need attention. DMacks (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Artwork, needs permission from artist via OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It's an inappropriate photo of me, and I don't like it. I wish you delete it as soon as possible. AbdelRahman Alhroob (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Uploader's request, Delete by courtesy. --Achim (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This book cover is the copyright of the publisher - no permission has been provided Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
NIPW, F3C429, RPS do not seem to be existing political parties. No country stated, unused file. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No Creative Commons CC BY license, copyright violation Shadow4dark (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons by license. 4 reasons: 1) this video had a creative commons license in September 2018; 2) this was confirmed by a license check on Commons in September 2018 by User:Leoboudv, 3) the YouTube user seems to be the copyright holder and 4) Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Vysotsky (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No Creative Commons CC BY license, copyright violation Shadow4dark (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons by license. 4 reasons: 1) this video had a creative commons license in September 2018; 2) this was confirmed by a license check on Commons in September 2018 by User:Leoboudv, 3) the YouTube user seems to be the copyright holder and 4) Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Vysotsky (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No Creative Commons CC BY license, copyright violation Shadow4dark (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons by license. 4 reasons: 1) this video had a creative commons license in September 2018; 2) this was confirmed by a license check on Commons in September 2018 by User:Leoboudv, 3) the YouTube user seems to be the copyright holder and 4) Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Vysotsky (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No Creative Commons CC BY license, copyright violation Shadow4dark (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons by license. 4 reasons: 1) this video had a creative commons license in September 2018; 2) this was confirmed by a license check on Commons in September 2018 by User:Leoboudv, 3) the YouTube user seems to be the copyright holder and 4) Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Vysotsky (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is absolutely no evidence that a CC licence was actually ever given for the youtube video. The CC link is fictitious. Savemyinternet (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "This file, which was originally posted to Youtube, was reviewed on 28 September 2018 by reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." Vysotsky (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There is no evidence of CC licence there. I suggest in good faith what the reviewer mistook for CC licence was CC= "Closed Captions" Savemyinternet (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Come on, please. There are over 600 files taken from the Dutch television programme DWDD in Wikimedia Commons having a perfect Creative Commons license. It's absurd to think that in this case CC would have meant "Closed captions". Stop assuming weird things "in good faith". Also pinging @Leoboudv: . Vysotsky (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- strong keep DWDD youtube images and videos were free at upload as CC BY 3.0. Later DWDD changed their license to All Rights Reserved on their account arround January 2019. The images that I reviewed were free at upload. Some DWDD images were uploaded by Admin 1Veertje who knows about youtube licenses. This long discussion and list shows the DWDD images and videos that reviewer GRuban and I managed to save in and around January 2019. Unfortunately Alexis Jazz is now banned for what reason I know not. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment These DWDD videos File:Ruben Hein DWDD optreden.webm & File:Max Meser optreden DWDD 2017.webm were reviewed by Admin 4nn1l2 in early 2019. He/She could view the license then. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep See User:Alexis Jazz/DWDD archief and User talk:Alexis Jazz/DWDD archief. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No Creative Commons CC BY license, copyright violation Shadow4dark (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons by license. 3 reasons: 1) please check the original YouTube upload, which had a creative commons license in September 2018; 2) this was confirmed by a license check on Commons in September 2018 by User:Leoboudv, and 3) the YouTube user seems to be the copyright holder. Vysotsky (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The original uploader revoked the license. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep given that the license was confirmed by a trusted user Leoboudv, we can be sure that it did have this license. And there is such thing as a CC-BY license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The original uploader revoked the license. 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Shadow4dark (talk)
- Interesting. Please read the description of the Creative Commons License BY 3.0: The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Vysotsky (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The original uploader revoked the license. 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Shadow4dark (talk)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The creator of the image isn't El Grafico, because the original photo was taken in 1930 and the magazine had used it in 1950. Nanahuatl (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Whether the image was published by El Gráfico in 1930 or 1950, in both cases it is public domain in Argentina and the US, per {{PD-AR-Photo}} (25+ years since it was published, according to Argentine copyright Law n° 11,723). The Nicaraguan stamp, given as example here, was issued in 1974 so it does not count. Fma12 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not a work of the US Federal Government, 1988 publication by WCMC, and seemingly originating in the UK.
- File:The conservation status of biological resources in the Philippines (IA conservationstat88coxr).pdf
- File:The conservation status of biological resources in the Philippines (1988) (20061927333).jpg
- File:The conservation status of biological resources in the Philippines (1988) (20496137809).jpg
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, not own work Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No credits or fair-use rationale given for this press photo Tunestoons (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Not taken by user, claims to have bought the rights to the image but seems to have presented no proof thereof Tournesol (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo of unknown thing. Out of project scope? In addition, I am not sure, that this is textlogo. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Chordate morphology (1962)
[edit]A 1962 publication is not necessarily PD, Was there a renewal?
- File:Chordate morphology (1962) (20422970480).jpg
- File:Chordate morphology (1962) (20611393355).jpg
- File:Chordate morphology (1962) (20617481901).jpg
- File:Chordate morphology (1962) (20617931331).jpg
- File:Chordate morphology (IA chordatemorpholo00joll).pdf
- File:Image from page 337 of "Chordate morphology" (1962) (19989513674).jpg
- File:Image from page 341 of "Chordate morphology" (1962) (20585824866).jpg
Also:
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- To me a 1962 book usually not is in public domain. Maybe the reason for public domain is that de WHO sponsored the book? Has the WHO such a rule? - see flickr link. --Kersti (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It also has a very clear (C) notice giving a 1962 date. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Undeleted' ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
too bad quality, robot pronunciation
Estopedist1 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination synthetic sound--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Estopedist1 This is a robot voice from an open source text to speech software. I can upload a better quality wav file thought, I uploaded an ogg because the original one I was trying to replace was in ogg too. --31NOVA (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973)
[edit]Not PD-US Gov, 1973 publication of Canadian origin.
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973) (20070276463).jpg
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973) (20070284063).jpg
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973) (20503235098).jpg
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973) (20504495839).jpg
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (1973) (20664964536).jpg
- File:A contribution to the biology of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools (IA contributiontobi00wigg).pdf
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:The flower book (1910)
[edit]One of the principal authors is Armfield, Maxwell, 1881-1972 , This might not be PD-UK.
- File:The flower book (IA cu31924003407933).pdf
- File:The flower book (1910) (14578529118).jpg
- File:The flower book (1910) (14742156316).jpg
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
altes Logo von Rosenbauer, wurde 2012 geändert (Buchstaben sind nun breiter) 90.146.83.90 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This logo is an old version, that is not in use anymore. 90.146.83.90 10:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As long as this file is online, random users will use the wrong logo, so please delete it. 90.146.83.90 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, low quality. 4ing (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Сомнительная лицензия: загрузивший заявляет о своих авторских правах на фото 1948 года vvk121 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Image is a derivative work of an informational board showing the prices, with underlying images of bihon/palabok noodles. The images themselves are certainly copyrighted by the photographers, while the informational board belongs to a private establishment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Addition: images like these can only be reproduced privately (e.g. on Facebook as "friends only" posts) or with consent from the establishment. Using these images to commercialize (as required by our free licensing), without authorization from the owner, is illegal, and therefore this cannot be kept here on Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message and good afternoon; I just bought banca-fresh live shellfish and fish from Hagonoy Fish Port (opens 3 am to 3 pm) and the Panasahan Fish Port of Malolos opens at 3 pm onwards; to marinate them with Del Monte Vinegar, salt and peper, calamansi Dayap and Luya, taste better when you deep fry them in Magnolia Oil; just these few words to keep off stress; down on memory lane, when I sat in my Golden Throne at Br. 73, RTC, Malabon from November 5, 1998 to July 20, 1999 I usually buy Kakanin and nearby some few meters is Nanays Concepcion Pancit or in Navotas Pancit Luglog of Norma in front of San Roque Parish; No objection to the deletion sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Selbstdarsteller, Bild nicht zu gebrauchen 2A01:598:D009:272B:78F8:BF51:C9D1:F502 12:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason, why it should be deleted. ZabeMath (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons isn't a photo hosting site. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
я автор этого фото и хочу удалить эту работу Haled Salam (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
я автор этого фото и хочу удалить эту работу Haled Salam (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete I believe this is another falsification/forgery and copyright infringment case by the uploader, user Harrygouvas, who has a thick record on these "practices" (examples: [4], [5], [6] etc). This image can be found at least here, without Harry Gouvas personal logo. Futhermore, note that it has on the right side of the road just two lights on the wall, which correspond with the opposite ligths on the other side of the tunnel, and not five, as in Gouvas image. Gouvas has -as usually does- photoshoped the original photo.
Althought I have not found yet evidence, I have no doubt that the following two files by the same user on the same subect fall into the same category as the first: File:Reinforcement of structural elements in Aktio–Preveza Undersea Tunnel.jpg and File:Aktio–Preveza Undersea Tunnel elements creation.jpg. Especially as far as the "Reinforcement of structural elements" picture is concerned, note the fake yellow hard cup that the construction worker suppose to wear on his head (an obvious product of photoshop/paint manipulation by Gouvas). ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
PS. Most likely all three images have been scanned by Gouvas from a newspaper, as an investigation of the quality of the images indicates. ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillycottage (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously faked and DW. --Achim (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the rationale is correct Savemyinternet (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Private picture, derivative work. Tekstman (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Why 'no freedom...'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.62.97 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC+8)
- @Gorupdebesanez: (perhaps you commented while not logged in) see COM:FOP Italy. Italian copyright law prohibits free publications and reuses of images of copyrighted artworks, as these infringe the economic rights of the painters/sculptors/architects or their heirs. For this to be hosted here, permission from its artist/creator/designer is required. We don't know that one day that artist will request the removal of Commons photos of his artworks licensed under Creative Commons free licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have cropped the image and removed the murals. @Gorupdebesanez: Since the image is still have educational value, it can be kept now. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination (non-admin closure)--A1Cafel (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gorupdebesanez as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: cropped photo is unuseful, so it's better to delete it
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR, it can be educationally useful without the billboard. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
it is advertisement Brunei (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Same stuff: File:Dubai wooden pallets repair-0555450341.jpg, File:Dubaiwoodenpallets-0555450341.jpg.--Brunei (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unintentional blurring and light trails. Due to low quality, photo is unusable for educational purposes. Senator2029 14:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Private picture, no educational value. Tekstman (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Logo of non notable company: promotional. Tekstman (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but the content of these information-boards is usually copyrighted and, regrettably, France has no freedom-of-panorama exception for such works. So, a permission by the rightsholder(s) is required or this image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - plantations.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - la source.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - pioch pelat.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - champignons et arbustes.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - plantes de la garrigue.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - arbres de la garrigue.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - l'eau.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - construction mur.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - chasse.jpg
- File:Panneau d'interprétation - construction d'une cabane.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information capitelle des Iris.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information capitelle de Roger.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information capitelle la Picholine.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information capitelle de l'Enclos.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information Les Terriers.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information Villevieille.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information Les gourmandises.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information de l'Aiguier.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information capitelle du Ponant.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information de la Capitelle du Chène.jpg
- File:Panneau Nages-et-Solorgues.jpg
- File:Panneau d'information Sentier des capitelles.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Stub gallery and it looks more like an atlas than a gallery Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Duplicate https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIA21467.jpg Алёна Синичкина (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The text is apparently copyrighted by Amway. Not an advert though, so I do not delete it speedily. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rgensis~dewikJazz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. Unused or used on anonymous user talk page.
- File:A-man-asks-his-wife-can-i-come-in-your-17649927.png
- File:9dd10d7d04284043851aab6e29208fc46b87e1af11df1064280ffafa114646de 1.jpg
- File:Husband-can-cum-in-your-ear-wife-no-i-might-20680394.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Hey. This is supposed to be used on my user page - I guess it's not on there lol :) Tucker My talk page
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jazzabe2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document an screenshots about ompany of questionable notability. Unused or used on user talk page.
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta device stats 1.pdf
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta hourly stats 1.pdf
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta regional stats .pdf
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta device stats .pdf
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta hourly stats .pdf
- File:Jazz Abe Radio Online Jakarta regional stats 2020-11-30.pdf
- File:Listener 3.png
- File:Listeners 2.png
- File:Listeners .png
- File:Listeners.png
- File:Today listeners.jpg
- File:Monthly listeners.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mirentxu.sasieta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful.
- File:Edukiera taula 5.png
- File:Edukiera taula 4.png
- File:Edukiera taula 2.png
- File:Edukiera taula.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Redudant and same title DMT biscuit (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Remitamine as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://uk.reuters.com/news/picture/azeri-opposition-to-contest-presidential-idUKBRE99906920131010
- Six-years-old, used file. Delete it after a 6-day discussion period please. E4024 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete File has a Reuters watermark in the lower right corner. Tm (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Principal Paul Stevens (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ferdynard Grzybczyk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arsham.motaghi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Arshammotaghinejad6933321.jpg
- File:Arsham motaghinejad6984.jpg
- File:آرشام متقی .jpg
- File:Arshammotaghi rugby97.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo, sole upload, used in long abandoned sanbox only. Pibwl (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - some text, along with File:A morte da Margarida.jpg, File:Amor de Deus.jpg, File:Teatro Municipal RJ.jpg and rest of uploads. Pibwl (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Auroranura (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/incosnsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Ministri Gashi me përfaqësuesit e kombëtares kosovare.jpg
- File:KGMK.jpg
- File:KKP.jpg
- File:KujtimGashiUSA.jpg
- File:KujtimGashiMKRS.jpg
- File:KujtimGashi.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Auroranura (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Kujtim Gashi Rritja e buxhetit për kulturë.jpg
- File:KG Trashëgimia.jpg
- File:Rregullorja për Këshill Drejtues të Muzeut Kombëtar të Kosovës.jpg
- File:KG Europe.jpg
- File:Kujtim Gashi aktivizëm.jpg
- File:KG rinia.jpg
- File:Kujtim Gashi Xhudo.jpg
- File:KG kombëtarja.jpg
- File:Kujtim Gashi.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spubbirine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Also some are Commons:Derivative works from modern art.
- File:عند باب القصبة 2.jpg
- File:عند باب القصبة .jpg
- File:ورشتي .jpg
- File:لقاء .jpg
- File:لمساتي .jpg
- File:عمي عامر .jpg
- File:الأصالة الشاوية .jpg
- File:رجل من المدينة .jpg
- File:القصبة .jpg
- File:فانتازيا .jpg
- File:الفنان التشكيلي عيسى عبد اللاوي.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from poster. Should be cropped/blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko:Thank you for reaching out to me. I have no problem if the photo is deleted. Could you do this on my behalf? or Could you guide me on how to delete it? Thank you for your cooperation. --Sun4hr (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hochlader offensichtlich nicht mit Urheber identisch Lutheraner (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Since this image is used in projects, I'm going to keep it for one week to allow for the uploader to provide OTRS permissions. If they do not, we will proceed accordingly. Thanks for understanding!. --Missvain (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
advert, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope and/or derivate copyrighted work, unused. Pibwl (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Newspaper photo from 1979, no evidence that this has been issued under a CC license. 4ing (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the picture is copied from here. Puppe100 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United States. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zarwarizwan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self portrait and only file uploaded by this user. There are a huge number of images for this mosque, so file adds nothing to the Commons.
Krok6kola (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
no indication at source page that the logo is licensed under cc-by-sa-4.0. Nthep (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Previously published at https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz0zwihIp9F/ and credited to @bahman.yari Ytoyoda (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
advert, unused Pibwl (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused photo of a peson of unknown notability, no useful description, no cat, one one few uploads. Pibwl (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused selfie. Pibwl (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo, too dark to illustrate anything. Pibwl (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Photograph of a photograph, unknown copyright, not unique subject. Pibwl (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Video the screenshot is from is not freely licensed. funplussmart (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
white square, unused. Pibwl (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
23 KB small file without camera EXIF, uploaded as "own work" by a user whose talk page is full of deletion notifications. E4024 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
distorted photo of photograph, unknown copyright of original work. Pibwl (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Photo 1914-1918 (World War I), unknown photographer; according to Dutch National Archives: CC-zero. Vysotsky (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
यह मानचित्र भारत का गलत मानचित्र दर्शाता है। User:कप्तान1
- A translation is that "This map shows the wrong map of India." Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion unless there is some greater explanation what the issue is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
License on linked page is CC BY NC 3.0 funplussmart (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused. Pibwl (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, probably book cover, one of few uploads. Pibwl (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
no sign of permission and anonymous uploader - probably copyrighted work - the same for all other uploads. Pibwl (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Christopher Scotese maps
[edit]- File:Scotese 105 ma.png
- File:Scotese 15 ma.png
- File:Scotese 170 ma.png
- File:Scotese 220 ma.png
- File:Scotese 260 ma.png
- File:Scotese 400 ma.png
- File:Scotese 440 ma.png
- File:Scotese 300 ma.png
- File:Scotese 470 ma.png
- File:Scotese 520 ma.png
- File:Scotese 600 ma.png
- File:Scotese 690 ma.png
- File:Scotese 750 ma.png
Uploaded by Sammy2012. No evidence Christopher Scotese has given permission to make these deriverative works. funplussmart (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of Cretative Commons license. We had similar issues around Ron Blakeys maps 8 years ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, as well as the second upload File:Ginny.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
silinsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azizbey214 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of trophy--see, for example, User:Elcobbola/Awards Эlcobbola talk 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp
Minoraxtalk 09:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Vanity SPA. Commons is not your free personal web host.
- File:Pose by afroludi.jpg
- File:Afroludi posed.png
- File:Afroludi Posed in a picture.jpg
- File:Afroludi artist profile.jpg
- File:Profile of afroludi.jpg
Achim (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Poorly auto-traced, would not be of much use. One could do better than this. The SVG Effect (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Bettman Archive (Getty) Ooligan (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
collague without sources Ezarateesteban 20:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Incompatible license at source. And no exact date given, so no way of knowing if {{PD-UKGov}} is can apply. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Historical photo, wrong date and license. Needs permission from photographer or heirs. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
not clear why it is meant to be in a scope, unused, no useful description, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - text files, along with File:GLOBALAWAKENING132.jpg, File:GLOBALAWAKENING133.jpg, File:Globalawakening0090.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. Copyright violation of [7] Berrely (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
rather proffessional photo, doubtful own work, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, along with other two fictional maps by the uploader File:A'Aman Map.jpg, File:NewAAMap.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
autopromo, unused Pibwl (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted game, unlikely to be uploader's own work as claimed. Nthep (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted game, unlikely to be uploader's own work as claimed. Nthep (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope/unused. This image used to be on the NIOSH History of TWH as part of the public domain but has since been removed from the website and is now outdated. Emilyanorton (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of com:scope : commons is not a depository for personnal inventions. 2A01:CB00:2A5:B300:100B:5B30:57FC:4903 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation; This image from Twitter. Upload user "Kinukinu" do not have any rights. --Devicehigh (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Плохое качество, лицензия неопределется Megaekenkas (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Плохое качество, лицензия не определется Megaekenkas (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Плохое качество, лицензия не определется Megaekenkas (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Плохое качество, лицензия не определется Megaekenkas (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Плохое качество Megaekenkas (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
book cover of unknown notability, sole upload, apparently autopromo. Pibwl (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, no cat. Pibwl (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
own scan rather than own work - doesn't seem to be in a scope besides. Pibwl (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
some book cover of uknown notability, unused, as well as the other upload File:Goryot Goryotevic Mahalleden Oykuler.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused unasable selfie, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope Oesterreicher12 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, probably copyrighted photo of 3d object. Pibwl (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
scan of probably copyrighted photo of 3d object. Pibwl (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
scan of probably copyrighted photo of 3d object - as well as rest of user's uploads. Pibwl (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, along with user's second upload File:Grimmj0w.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
ou of scope, sole upload. (What makes so many people create an account only to upload one photo, not in Wikimedia scope in addition?...). Pibwl (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
poor distant unused photograph of unidentified and uncategorized bird. Pibwl (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be usable... Pibwl (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Useful to show the wheelchair lift button in a San Francisco MUNI trolleybus.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
unused photo of some photo, doubtful copyright. Pibwl (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be in a scope, no category, unused, no useful description. Pibwl (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - File was part of an album and FWIW I upload ALL files from albums as it's quicker than picking them one by one, Out of scope. –Davey2010Talk 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I assume so. No offence intended ;) Pibwl (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Pibwl ,My apologies no offence taken :), It's just a very odd photo lets just say that so felt an explanation should be given, I just didn't want people coming across this and simply assuming I uploaded this one photo that was all, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 14:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:PWJ500
[edit]- File:Isurus oxyrinchus FAO.jpg
- File:Prionace glauca fao.jpg
- File:Rhincodon typus FAO.jpg
- File:Cetorhinus maximus FAO.jpg
- File:Carcharodon carcharias FAO.jpg
- File:Galeocerdo cuvier FAO.jpg
- File:Sphyrna mokarran FAO.jpg
- File:Alopias vulpinus FAO.jpg
- File:Hexanchus griseus FAO.jpg
- File:Alopias superciliosus FAO.jpg
- File:Carcharhinus falciformis FAO.jpg
All of these shark images are from https://shark-references.com/, which displays images for which the site has explicit permission from the authors; but the site does not own the rights to the images, nor have the authors released them under a suitable license. All the uploaded images are published on the site with a note like "Reproduced with permission, illustration by XXX, Wildlife Illustrator". All are unsuitable for upload to Commons. --Elmidae (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - doesn't seem to be an own work apart from adding a text on a forehead.. sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Low quality. No key or source of information provided that would make the image verifiable. IceWelder [✉] 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Letsgoforward (talk · contribs) 1
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
- File:San Pédro Logo.jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro symbol.jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro Héraldique.png
- File:Grand Bassam Logo.jpg
- File:Daloa Blason.jpg
- File:Bouaké Héraldique.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Letsgoforward (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Letsgoforward (talk · contribs) 3
[edit]Given the uploader's highly-questionable uploads, I doubt if these are "User:Letsgoforward's" own photos. Mismatch of authors in author fields (dubious acronyms), but it is clear that Letsgoforward is not the indicated authors. Perhaps stolen from the internet. The Marcory commune collage also does not have indicated spurces of the component images.
- File:Hopital Mère-Enfant de Bingerville.jpg
- File:Daloa Diocèse.jpg
- File:Daloa Grande Mosquée.jpg
- File:Daloa rue principale.jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro rue principale.jpg
- File:Palais présidentiel Yamoussoukro.jpg
- File:Yamoussoukro palais présidentiel.jpg
- File:Sassandra vue balnéaire.jpg
- File:Korhogo rue principale.jpg
- File:Marcory commune.jpg
- File:Marcory.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete File:Daloa Grande Mosquée.jpg - available online before upload here.[8] A higher-resolution version is available elsewhere.[9] Verbcatcher (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Letsgoforward (talk · contribs) 4
[edit]No proper sourcing or listing of component images of the ff. montages. Some of the component images are probable copyvios (uploader has a history of being received notices of questionable files, see here). The author fields of the montages are questionable too, only indicated are unclear acronyms, but the acronyms seem to indicate the city/ies which the montages depict, but still unacceptable elements for author fields.
- File:Ville de San Pédro collage.jpg
- File:Man Collage.jpg
- File:Korhogo Collage.jpg
- File:Korhogo collage.jpg
- File:San Pédro collage.jpg
- File:Daloa-collage.jpg
- File:Abidjan-collage.jpg
- File:Ville de Bouaké.Montage.jpg
- File:Ville de Yamoussoukro Montage.jpg
- File:Ville de Bouaké-Montage.jpg
- File:Ville de Bouaké Montage.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Because this is actually a locator map for Bhutan and China, and not for India and Bhutan as the title says.. The Govt of India has also very recently directed (threatened/censorship) WMF to either delete this particular image or else face imprisonment. Accordingly, I feel Commons community must exhaustively debate whether to buckle to Censorship threats from any corner including from WMF office actions. Links to the Censorship threats. [10], [11], [12] Aghore (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion, support replacement/correction. The govt of India is tossing around irrelevant threats of imprisoning people or blocking internet access to Wikipedia. There's squabbling over at EN:Talk:Bhutan–India_relations. The issue is that there is a disputed region between India and China, and this map doesn't color the region as disputed. It should. I expect someone will modify this map or create a replacement, soon. In the mean time the current imperfect map is still in use because it is more useful to Wikipedia-readers than not having any map. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - the original post is a serious misrepresentation of the debate. No one is proposing "buckling to censorship" - the concern that has been raised is quite independent of any government threats, which as usual, are not relevant to NPOV. The issue is that this map, which is used in an article having nothing at all to do with the issue of Aksai Chin, appears to take sides in a border conflict. In articles directly about India and about Aksai Chin, we have NPOV maps which appropriately indicate that there is a dispute. Aghore is POV pushing that anything other than taking one side of this issue is "buckling to censorship" - a view which is not close to consensus. I believe that the best solution to this situation is to create a map of a similar nature, except consistent with NPOV we should not show Aksai Chin (which is hundreds of kilometers away from Bhutan and has nothing to do with Bhutan) as being uncontroversially part of China. It is disputed territory and a better map would at least subtly note that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the Govt of India wants this image to be deleted. They have not said "replace it" or "improve it". Aghore (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and replace: To maintain the NPOV, not only this, but many maps of India within Category:Locator maps of India and others should be rectified and all the disputed regions of en:Aksai Chin, en:Azad Kashmir and en:Gilgit-Baltistan should be marked separately. For example, these regions are shown correctly with a different shade in File:India Afghanistan Locator.svg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Now that the Govt of India has used section 69-A, the NPOV argument won't wash with them. Their law is black and white and binary. Correct/Incorrect or True/False. Also under the new emergency guidelines, all such complaints will be sent to Wikipedia within 3 days or else the officer is penalised. Wikipedia gets 36 hours after receipt to respond. FYI, I myself got over 300 Google webpages taken down, and 19 entire websites blocked using section 69-A. The Delhi High Court Judgment in UTV matter gives blanket permission to take down websites (for repeat offences - 2 strikes your out) without even issuing a notice like what WMF received here. Aghore (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Replace Hi all, this comment is from the Foundation Legal Team. We did receive a formal order from the Indian government on this map and have looked at the issue. At this time, we are not planning on changing the map ourselves, but we would recommend the community update it to more distinctly indicate the disputed borders. We think an appropriate update would more accurately reflect most other maps of India on Commons and be likely to resolve the concerns that the Indian government sent to us. Even though their order asked for deletion, we suggest that replacement with a better quality map will satisfy what they’re looking for without requiring removal of helpful content for illustrating the India-Bhutan relationship. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It is about disputed territories rather than disputed "borders". The language of Mr. Sawhney's letter is clearly based on their 2016 GIS Policy, which leaves them absolutely no leeway for compromise. Even Google (with all their influence and legal firepower) buckled down eventually [13]. Aghore (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The whole thing is going crazy. I'm wondering what will happen next. Requesting deletion of the archived version as well? Deletion of File:India disputed areas map.svg claiming there are no disputed areas? As here on Commons is no need of NPOV I'd say: let's replace the image on Wikipedias by File:India Bhutan locator, including disputed regions.png and keep this one until WMF staff decides to delete it. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- If I may offer a follow up thought. I would encourage actually changing this specific map, but I wouldn't worry about the slippery slope argument at this point. In my experience, governments tends to really tunnel-vision when they've got a specific URL in hand, as is the case here with the map on Commons. So, I am not worried about many requests, but I am worried about this one situation escalating if the map isn't changed at all. These kinds of orders are quite rare and I think if the response to this kind of government demand is for the community to improve the map (rather than delete or do nothing), the Foundation legal team will be in a good position to encourage the Indian government (and other governments in future) to avoid this kind of demand and instead work through Commons community processes. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Jacob, this is not a one off case. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Recall this [14] ? Safe harbor is going to get very tricky for WMF in India. BTW what are your comments on what Google Maps had to do to avoid being blocked in India?Aghore (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- After the Shreya Singhal matter in India's Supreme Court, the Govt is now obliged to pass on all such user generated complaints within 72 hours to the intermediary - who then gets 36 hours to act, or not. The UTV judgment also says, Indian regulators don't have to block a specific page or URL but can block the entire website of repeat offenders (the judge said lets "whack-a-mole") without any notice. Aghore (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The blog post you linked remains accurate. This request is specific to a single map. There may be other maps that neither the Indian government nor the Foundation know about that could be identified as a problem in the future. But it is not our obligation to seek those out. Rather, if the Indian government (or any other government for that matter) determines that something is a problem for them, it is up to them to identify it to the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate community channel. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Based on my chat with the dealing officers over there, they would not interact with the community but would simply transmit all genuine complaints u/s 69-A to WMF whom they deem to be an intermediary under Indian law. WMF may chose to seek shelter u/s 79 of their law, or else approach the community each time. There is no procedure in Indian law for an Indian complainant to be compelled (or even requested) to interact with any Wikipedia community to get content removed. The Indian Supreme Court has been passing some very stern directions recently. Aghore (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jacob, a cabal of EN:WP admins have just blocked me on that project for discussing this image while citing an Indian law which they deem to be "irrelevant" compared to NPOV. Aghore (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do not lie. Your account, which btw did not have any useful contributions, was blocked for making legal threats. I am prepared to block you here as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- That wasn't a cabal. That was a bunch of experienced editors trying to explain all the ways your understanding of policy was incorrect. Valereee (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter It is clearly explained here [15] why my 1000+ edits were redacted and why my enwiki account was reactivated in January 2020. WMF Legal must be aware why their domains WIKIMEDIA.IN and WIKIPEDIA.IN were taken offline in India from Jan 2020. It is ordained that if this ostrich attitude of "Wikipedia is not censored", "Government laws are irrelevant" "NPOV trumps local laws" etc continues, then ALL Wikimedia projects will soon be blocked in India - as they are in China. Have a nice day. Aghore (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Becoming internally repressive in response to threats of external repression is a terrible, terrible idea. It always is, and it always ends badly. Repressive regimes are going to do repressive shit, within their reach, until those being repressed have had enough of it. WMF is not the "ForceEveryJurisidictionOnEarthToBeNiceAndLikeUsAndPermitOurContent Foundation", and does not exist to (directly) influence any jurisdiction to be less shitty to its own citizens (though the collective work of its projects hopefully has some of that effect indirectly, by helping keep the rest of the world informed, and activistic about what's going on in the places that are forcibly cutting themselves off from anything that's not in agreement with their own echo chamber). Any country that wants to cut off its nose to spite its own face can do that, and be uglier for the effort, but it doesn't impose any kind of obligation on WP, Commons, or the rest of WMF's global editorial and reader base, as unfortunate as those nationalistic self-mutilations may be. PS: WMF doesn't need any .in domains. It's like saying "Give me your first born child! Otherwise I will not let you come to my birthday party!" DGaF, and the answer is "Um, no." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter It is clearly explained here [15] why my 1000+ edits were redacted and why my enwiki account was reactivated in January 2020. WMF Legal must be aware why their domains WIKIMEDIA.IN and WIKIPEDIA.IN were taken offline in India from Jan 2020. It is ordained that if this ostrich attitude of "Wikipedia is not censored", "Government laws are irrelevant" "NPOV trumps local laws" etc continues, then ALL Wikimedia projects will soon be blocked in India - as they are in China. Have a nice day. Aghore (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jacob, a cabal of EN:WP admins have just blocked me on that project for discussing this image while citing an Indian law which they deem to be "irrelevant" compared to NPOV. Aghore (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Based on my chat with the dealing officers over there, they would not interact with the community but would simply transmit all genuine complaints u/s 69-A to WMF whom they deem to be an intermediary under Indian law. WMF may chose to seek shelter u/s 79 of their law, or else approach the community each time. There is no procedure in Indian law for an Indian complainant to be compelled (or even requested) to interact with any Wikipedia community to get content removed. The Indian Supreme Court has been passing some very stern directions recently. Aghore (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- The blog post you linked remains accurate. This request is specific to a single map. There may be other maps that neither the Indian government nor the Foundation know about that could be identified as a problem in the future. But it is not our obligation to seek those out. Rather, if the Indian government (or any other government for that matter) determines that something is a problem for them, it is up to them to identify it to the Wikimedia Foundation or an appropriate community channel. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- After the Shreya Singhal matter in India's Supreme Court, the Govt is now obliged to pass on all such user generated complaints within 72 hours to the intermediary - who then gets 36 hours to act, or not. The UTV judgment also says, Indian regulators don't have to block a specific page or URL but can block the entire website of repeat offenders (the judge said lets "whack-a-mole") without any notice. Aghore (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I think adding the map (with disputed areas marked in different colors) would still be adhering to WP:NPOV, so I think adding one of those maps back would be fine. I've made edits to the Kashmir region locator maps (which would arguably be a lot more contentious) which clearly show it's disputed, so adding disputed areas doesn't sound like a hard sell. C1MM (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Jacob, this is not a one off case. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Recall this [14] ? Safe harbor is going to get very tricky for WMF in India. BTW what are your comments on what Google Maps had to do to avoid being blocked in India?Aghore (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like File:India Bhutan (orthographic projection).svg might be a replacement image. Liz (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It has 2 light green areas to the North. Aghore (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- As File:India Bhutan locator, including disputed regions.png has, so what? --Achim (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't comply with Indian law. Showing it as disputed in different colors is not permitted under Indian law. The boundaries of the light green shaded regions are not recognised by the Govt of India. Google (which is a professionally managed organisation with huge legal budgets) has already learnt this lesson and buckled. NPOV is not recognised under Indian law as "freedom of speech" when it conflicts with the soveregnity of India. As Jrogers has confirmed India wants this file deleted. Because the image file is actually hosted on the servers of wikimedia.org and not on commons.wikimedia.org, commons has no say or locus in the matter except to either delete the file or to retain it and fight it out. The compromise of "fixing" the file cannot not be accepted under Indian law, which is why that option was not offered and is not on the table.Aghore (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. It doesn't give a damn whether some Indian weirdos insist of Wikimedia projects' content having to follow Indian law. If wp projects will be shut down there, well, I'm fine with that as the executive authority of India will this way do damage to their own country. Do we really need India? Do we have to kiss their officials' feet? --Achim (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because I see that you are a very experienced and highly regarded Commons administrator, I have a small query of you. Can you either please locate the city of "Gilgit" on this new map which is being proposed or specify if it is in a dark green area or the light-green areas of the map. This small act by any admin of Commons will completely resolve this situation. Thanks. Aghore (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a trap! Aghore, being an admin on Wikimedia Commons doesn't mean you represent the site or WMF. It just means you volunteer here and that the other volunteers think you have a clue and aren't a jerk. WMF doesn't appoint admins or even have any approval process. Achim55 doesn't in any way speak for WMF or WC. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee What I do know is that apparently a ring of rogue en-Wikipedia admins connected to India (which included Bladesmulti, OccultZone, Regentspark, AmritasyaPutra, Vipul, WifiOne and many others) were responsible for getting over a 1,000 of my valuable edits on en-wikipedia between 2013 and 2019 permanently deleted as collateral damage in En.ARBCOM matters and the legal cases which followed in India brought by a motivated user they blocked. So you are incorrect in your hypotheses, because it is ultimately WMF which controls the servers and who give admins, arbs, bureaucrats and oversighters their privileges to block other users and censor them and checkuser them. An analogy would be a school management which gives teachers and headmasters powers to detain children after school and then must take responsibilty when a child dies during such detention. I can give you very specific examples whereby several people actually died in India due to on-wiki actions of errant Wikipedia admins (and also 1 former WMF trustee), but this is not the proper forum for it. If a prisoner dies in jail because of a beating by warders, are you implying the jail management is not responsible in some way ? I really don't see why volunteers should take the fall for paid employees of the very well funded WMF which has no hesitation in providing hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to NGOs in India who do the same work as volunteers do here for free. Further, unlike admins on Commons who are generally selfless for the thankless work they do, most en-wiki volunteer admins are being paid indirectly, as I found out to my cost. Aghore (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- If most enwiki admins are being paid indirectly, I'm missing a lot of money lol. Enwiki is notorious for having multiple editors capable of and willing to spend most of their time trying to dig up dirt on admins. The idea that most are being paid indirectly isn't a secret that could ever be kept; we're talking 1100 people, some of whom hate each other enough to be willing to go down in flames themselves as long as they can take the other down with them. Someone would whistleblow. You're making very serious accusations here without diffs to back them up. (And, no, the one you linked to above in your reply to Ymblanter isn't good enough. It's just another vague statement about you being 'privately informed' of something by someone at some point.) Valereee (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here's a link I could find. Albeit with some difficulty [16]. Due to WP rules I cannot link to off-wikipedia sources where he publicly declares his identity and provides court pleadings. Here is also a link to the other user we discussed at En-wiki who impersonated a medical student [17] for paid promotion of illegal self abortion kits. Aghore (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- ETA: All but two of the usernames above are not and have never been admins. One was desysopped in an arb case that was brought partially because they were indeed editing for pay, which pissed people off so much in admin that the person was not only desysopped but basically banned from editing about India. Perhaps you're confusing paid editors with paid admins? There are hundreds of thousands of editors, and absolutely some of them are paid, though it's certainly not most. And I'd be shocked if there were more than a handful with admin privileges who are doing that; it's just too big a target on your back when you can more easily fly under the radar if you'd not an admin. Valereee (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Many records in those old matters were tampered with at very high user privilege levels to avoid WMF responsibility. Also, if an admin has 2 bad hand accounts which were used extensively, those must also be deeemd as admin accounts. Aghore (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked this account indef, they clearly here not for the benefit of the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Many records in those old matters were tampered with at very high user privilege levels to avoid WMF responsibility. Also, if an admin has 2 bad hand accounts which were used extensively, those must also be deeemd as admin accounts. Aghore (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- If most enwiki admins are being paid indirectly, I'm missing a lot of money lol. Enwiki is notorious for having multiple editors capable of and willing to spend most of their time trying to dig up dirt on admins. The idea that most are being paid indirectly isn't a secret that could ever be kept; we're talking 1100 people, some of whom hate each other enough to be willing to go down in flames themselves as long as they can take the other down with them. Someone would whistleblow. You're making very serious accusations here without diffs to back them up. (And, no, the one you linked to above in your reply to Ymblanter isn't good enough. It's just another vague statement about you being 'privately informed' of something by someone at some point.) Valereee (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee What I do know is that apparently a ring of rogue en-Wikipedia admins connected to India (which included Bladesmulti, OccultZone, Regentspark, AmritasyaPutra, Vipul, WifiOne and many others) were responsible for getting over a 1,000 of my valuable edits on en-wikipedia between 2013 and 2019 permanently deleted as collateral damage in En.ARBCOM matters and the legal cases which followed in India brought by a motivated user they blocked. So you are incorrect in your hypotheses, because it is ultimately WMF which controls the servers and who give admins, arbs, bureaucrats and oversighters their privileges to block other users and censor them and checkuser them. An analogy would be a school management which gives teachers and headmasters powers to detain children after school and then must take responsibilty when a child dies during such detention. I can give you very specific examples whereby several people actually died in India due to on-wiki actions of errant Wikipedia admins (and also 1 former WMF trustee), but this is not the proper forum for it. If a prisoner dies in jail because of a beating by warders, are you implying the jail management is not responsible in some way ? I really don't see why volunteers should take the fall for paid employees of the very well funded WMF which has no hesitation in providing hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to NGOs in India who do the same work as volunteers do here for free. Further, unlike admins on Commons who are generally selfless for the thankless work they do, most en-wiki volunteer admins are being paid indirectly, as I found out to my cost. Aghore (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a trap! Aghore, being an admin on Wikimedia Commons doesn't mean you represent the site or WMF. It just means you volunteer here and that the other volunteers think you have a clue and aren't a jerk. WMF doesn't appoint admins or even have any approval process. Achim55 doesn't in any way speak for WMF or WC. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand. Of course Gilgit is located in the light green area because it is clearly within the disputed areas and is administered by Pakistan. --Achim (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why no Indian Govt officer can publicly accept that by disobeying a direct order from the President of India [18]. Aghore (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right. The Indian govt is shedding tears that there not even one Indian official is acting in Gilgit. --Achim (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why no Indian Govt officer can publicly accept that by disobeying a direct order from the President of India [18]. Aghore (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because I see that you are a very experienced and highly regarded Commons administrator, I have a small query of you. Can you either please locate the city of "Gilgit" on this new map which is being proposed or specify if it is in a dark green area or the light-green areas of the map. This small act by any admin of Commons will completely resolve this situation. Thanks. Aghore (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. It doesn't give a damn whether some Indian weirdos insist of Wikimedia projects' content having to follow Indian law. If wp projects will be shut down there, well, I'm fine with that as the executive authority of India will this way do damage to their own country. Do we really need India? Do we have to kiss their officials' feet? --Achim (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't comply with Indian law. Showing it as disputed in different colors is not permitted under Indian law. The boundaries of the light green shaded regions are not recognised by the Govt of India. Google (which is a professionally managed organisation with huge legal budgets) has already learnt this lesson and buckled. NPOV is not recognised under Indian law as "freedom of speech" when it conflicts with the soveregnity of India. As Jrogers has confirmed India wants this file deleted. Because the image file is actually hosted on the servers of wikimedia.org and not on commons.wikimedia.org, commons has no say or locus in the matter except to either delete the file or to retain it and fight it out. The compromise of "fixing" the file cannot not be accepted under Indian law, which is why that option was not offered and is not on the table.Aghore (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- As File:India Bhutan locator, including disputed regions.png has, so what? --Achim (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It has 2 light green areas to the North. Aghore (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I've supplied a modified map as File:India Bhutan Locator2.png, derived from File:India Bhutan Locator.png and File:India Administrative divisions FR.svg. Feel free to improve it. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Simply replace it with the accurate version, as suggested by Jrogers (WMF) and others, as is the usual practice here. No need for deletion, but should be replaced ASAP, since the current map is obviously inaccurate in its context.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- If there's a consensus that it's wrong then just fix it. That's a discussion that needs to happen on the talk page and doesn't require deletion. GMGtalk 13:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Replace with correct map ASAP. Good to see that everyone agrees that this map need to be replaced. Now what are we waiting for? There is no reason to extend this discussion, as everyone agrees. Can an admin please go ahead and replace with the corrected version available on File:India Bhutan Locator2.png. @GreenMeansGo: Can you please do it, as I don't know how to replace an image. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) --(This is Walrus Ji's first edit. Liz (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC))- Keep as always with disputed areas, just create a second map and link and explain the other file. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The RfD is hindunationalist nonsense. The map shows India in Kashmir with the 1972 line of actal resp. 1962 line of actual control which defacto is the border between India, Pakistan, and Red China. The purpose of the map is to illustrate the bilateral realtionship of India and Bhutan with the focus on a) geographic location to each other, and b) the different size of the two states. China does not play any role in this map. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Neutral, may be kept or deleted. Anyway not in use any longer. --Achim (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)- Comment A typical map with de facto boundaries. Such maps are as well NPOV/correct as maps with de jure boundaries. NNW 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above, though it should possibly be replaced with an alternative at various articles; that's up to editorial discretion over there, and it's not the job of Commons to "legislate" matters about de jureversusde factoterritorial claims and how that information is to be presented under the policies of other websites. Further, this deletion nonsense is also missing a major common-sense point: We have historical maps, too, and they do not agree with current ones, because borders change. Existence of a map image does not equate to specific real-world claims about the present (and if any claims are made, that's a matter of text content on the image description page, or at an article at Wikipedia, etc., where the claim is actually made). Hell, I could right now create a map of the results of a fictional War of 2112, showing Canada having taken over the top half of the US – and that would have zero implications for anything. Existence of the image is meaningless. At absolute most, what we have here is a dispute over what the map purports to represent, as of when. If the govt. of India isn't competent to write and interpret laws that make any sense at all, that's not our problem. (And still wouldn't be even if they did make sense, since WP and Commons and WMF are not subject to India's jurisdiction.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (as nominator) the map as it is and retain the link to it on Wikipedias. It is a freedom of expression issue, and I am not surprised that WMF is weaseling out of this and throwing users under the bus once again. Adding shaded areas is going to amplify the problem here not solve it. Aghore (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete the map wherever the same has been used in Wikipedia.JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I don't blame the WMF for wanting to delete this. That being said, we cannot, without violating the fundamental mission of Wikimedia, delete valid, free information simply because a government takes issue with it. If there is a specific issue on an article, of course we can try to find solutions that please both parties (as I attempted to do by omitting much of the disputed region), but we should not censor the internet for the sake of a government. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Not sure about actually using this map as illustration in articles, but as depiction of the areas under administrative power of two neighbouring countries (at least I think it is that) I do not see a valid reason as per Commons policies to get rid of this file. However, it might be better to find a more precise file name. → «« Man77 »» [de] 18:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There is nothing wrong with the map and nobody has objected for 10 years to it. Its perfect and there is no need to alter it. It's a blatant attempt of governmental censorship and chilling effect to our core principles and mission. This is where WMF must show a bit of stick to such tinpot governments and simply ignore them as its just another flash in the pan publicity exercise by the rabid Hindu nationalist goons who have taken over India to divert from their criminal mishandling of the Sars-Cov-2 virus epidemic. 06:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)~
- Keep this NPOV map and dont change it in any manner.I am against chilling speech and say Wikipedia management must stand up to keep this map intact on the article page and not kowtow before Indian government Kumarkk1203 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Its based on
which has been around for ages with nobody complaining. Possession is 9 points of the law and the other areas not colored clearly belong to neither India nor Bhootan. Savemyinternet (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - Replace This isn't a vote on free speech. Irrespective of how Indian govt might have phrased its request, the bottomline is that the map reflects the claims of one country over another's in a disputed region. Once Wikipedia is made aware that the content takes sides in a long standing international dispute that has resulted in four wars, NPOV applies. The nationality of the requestor, their views on freedom of expression and their religious beliefs does not need to be leveraged to get Wikipedia to take sides in a territorial dispute between nations.
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![75 File:"thehumanrace-IMG 0842.jpg".jpg](#File:"thehumanrace-IMG_0842.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_outside_the_Lincoln_Center.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_902-7642.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=535861143){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![08:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/03#c-Gbawden-2020-12-03T08:04:00.000Z-File:"thehumanrace-IMG_0842.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![01:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/03#c-Missvain-2020-12-09T01:37:00.000Z-File:"thehumanrace-IMG_0842.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(20061927333).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(20496137809).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(20422970480).jpg){kind=link}
_(20611393355).jpg){kind=link}
_(20617481901).jpg){kind=link}
_(20617931331).jpg){kind=link}
_(19989513674).jpg){kind=link}
_(20585824866).jpg){kind=link}
_(19989510384).jpg){kind=link}
_in_temporary_pools_(1973)_(20070276463).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_temporary_pools_(1973)_(20070284063).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_temporary_pools_(1973)_(20503235098).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_temporary_pools_(1973)_(20504495839).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_temporary_pools_(1973)_(20664964536).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14578529118).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14742156316).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pieper_Bayard_pistol_used_by_Kostas_Karyotakis_to_commit_suicide.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_19#File:Donkeys_in_Monolithi_Beach.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Felician_Myrbach,_Battle_of_Nicopolis.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_outside_the_Lincoln_Center.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_outside_the_Lincoln_Center.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_outside_the_Lincoln_Center.png){kind=link}
_outside_the_Lincoln_Center.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_902-7642.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_902-7642.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_902-7642.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_902-7642.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- The existing map represents the de-facto ground position and control as per international consensus and monitoring, so this map does not represent claims of one country over another. In any case, Tibet, which borders Bhutan, is part of China now and was never a part of India. No map which reflects 'claims' of one side over another can be said to be NPOV. This map is actually the NPOV one because it depicts reality, not fictions.Savemyinternet (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As it is widely known, both sides are seeing troop movements along these borders with nearly 100,000 troops occupying positions that are different from 6 months back. This boundary is very much in flux and for Wikipedia to foist a definitive boundary on this issue is not appropriate. There is no international consensus on this boundary. A neutral position only needs to reflect overlapping claim lines with dotted lines of both sides which is a fairly common map to be found even in the UN depictions of this region [19]. The dotted lines for differing claims underlines the neutrality of Wikipedia and does not weaken it as a platform for accurate information. The replace request here is not asking for one claim to be foisted over another, only to arrive at a solution that avoids Wikipedia from being drawn into taking sides in this active border. The replace request is seeking that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to "bank" any gains made on the ground with absolute maps like these and create a narrative for one side as that sets a precedent that can be used all over the globe.
- I think there is a misconception here; Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, has to abide by NPOV; Commons, the file hosting site, does not. It can hold files relating to one's side POV. Of course, this has to be explained and put into context (NPOV) in the Wikipedia article, but maps and such can certainly reflect a POV on commons. NPOV on Commons is not a valid reason for deletion. (Replacing the image can be discussed on Wikipedia, not Commons, although it has already been replaced.) Also see Commons:Disputed territories Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the commons site does not abide by NPOV. In that case, replacement is not appropriate. I would suggest that we follow one of the practices recommended in the link above - "Both versions of any map can be uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV". I guess the labelling could be addressed here and cross linking with the alternate view of this boundary would also be the right thing to do (as recommended in the link). Also, I see that since this discussion has started, the Wikipedia sites that were referring to this map, no longer appear to do so, so NPOV seems to be getting addressed on that front.
- I think there is a misconception here; Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, has to abide by NPOV; Commons, the file hosting site, does not. It can hold files relating to one's side POV. Of course, this has to be explained and put into context (NPOV) in the Wikipedia article, but maps and such can certainly reflect a POV on commons. NPOV on Commons is not a valid reason for deletion. (Replacing the image can be discussed on Wikipedia, not Commons, although it has already been replaced.) Also see Commons:Disputed territories Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As it is widely known, both sides are seeing troop movements along these borders with nearly 100,000 troops occupying positions that are different from 6 months back. This boundary is very much in flux and for Wikipedia to foist a definitive boundary on this issue is not appropriate. There is no international consensus on this boundary. A neutral position only needs to reflect overlapping claim lines with dotted lines of both sides which is a fairly common map to be found even in the UN depictions of this region [19]. The dotted lines for differing claims underlines the neutrality of Wikipedia and does not weaken it as a platform for accurate information. The replace request here is not asking for one claim to be foisted over another, only to arrive at a solution that avoids Wikipedia from being drawn into taking sides in this active border. The replace request is seeking that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to "bank" any gains made on the ground with absolute maps like these and create a narrative for one side as that sets a precedent that can be used all over the globe.
- The existing map represents the de-facto ground position and control as per international consensus and monitoring, so this map does not represent claims of one country over another. In any case, Tibet, which borders Bhutan, is part of China now and was never a part of India. No map which reflects 'claims' of one side over another can be said to be NPOV. This map is actually the NPOV one because it depicts reality, not fictions.Savemyinternet (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Request for clarification on this diff.
(a) I read somewhere that India has 4 times the English speakers that USA does, can wikimedia afford to lose that demographic?
(b) Because India follows Common law, like Canada does, Indian Courts can decide to follow the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Google versus Equustek (where WMF intervened on the, losing, side of Google) to direct WMF that all incorrect maps of India be taken down globally.
(c) Ironically, WMF's business model (similar to Google's) of transacting all business through USA instead of local subsidiaries is what allows courts to issue these globally binding directions. What was earlier perceived as its strength is now the Achilles heel. Savemyinternet (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)- I blocked this one as well as a likely sock of Aghore and will now semi-protect the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The image can be replaced/updated if there is any need, but there is no need for deletion (“India wants it” is definitivly no reason at all). --DaB. (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Picture is not of 2D object and has not been taken by the uploader Veverve (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is a mural. So it must be a 2D object.Renevs (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The picture is nont only of the painting, but also of the wall because the picture is taken from an inclined angle. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- What has the fact that you see a small part of the -also painted - wall to do with the notion that it would not be a 2D object. And why did you upload a new version? Renevs (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The new version does not have 2/3 of useless space aroung the image; it is better this way in case the image does not get deleted. There is not a flat wall on the picture, it is a 3D picture. Veverve (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- What has the fact that you see a small part of the -also painted - wall to do with the notion that it would not be a 2D object. And why did you upload a new version? Renevs (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- The picture is nont only of the painting, but also of the wall because the picture is taken from an inclined angle. Veverve (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Eloquent Peasant as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Probably not "own work" since file is found here and user didn't upload any of the other 77 maps as "own work" just this one with other images of their town Guayanilla. http://www.salonhogar.com/est_soc/pr/pueblos/guayanilla/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is no Commons since 2012. archive.org's oldest snapshot of the external hit is from 2016[20]. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
![[20]](https://web.archive.org/web/20160203041014/http://www.salonhogar.com/est_soc/pr/pueblos/guayanilla/Guayanilla.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Not used, should be SVG if useful. --Yann (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Romania and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is not text-only plaque. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I thought a bit and cropped the copyrighted part out, so the request applies only for first version. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unsure because while the copyrighted part is now cropped out, I can't say if this affects COM:EDUSE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really think those leaves in the bottom of this plaque are not trivial enough? I would not see them as copyrightable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am convinced, that they are not trivial. Taivo (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: The remaining portion is PD-text. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The previous deletion request ended to be kept, but I think the plaque is also copyrighted. There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the text as being eligible for a copyright. --RAN (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The content written on the plaque is subject to copyright. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Camille Soccorsi
[edit]Camille Soccorsi died in 2007. No freedom of panorama in France.
Chassipress (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Concernant La Tarasque, il est possible qu'elle soit de Soccorsi, mais où est la preuve ? Daniel*D 02:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
BONJOUR:En reponse à votre question je vous confirme que la sculpture en bois de la tarasque qui se trouve au chateau de tarascon est l'oeuvre du sculpteur dcd en 2007,Soccorsi camille.Moi, pierre Soccorsi son fils j'ai été témoin de la réalisation de l'oeuvre en 1964 commandée par le président de l'office du tourisme de l'époque.L'ooeuvre est signée sur le socle avec la date 1964. Cordialement: — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB1C:3C7:1B00:F4B9:3ABF:14DC:6A4E (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no FoP in France. --Pitke (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
لأنها سيلفي Sallam9292002 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: professional portrait of Simon Bent, requires COM:OTRS permission. --ƏXPLICIT 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
