Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/01/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_מתוך_״השוטרים״.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![94 File:"Crescat Graffiti" at the Seminary Co-op (4148023127).jpg](#File:"Crescat_Graffiti"_at_the_Seminary_Co-op_(4148023127).jpg){kind=link}
,_West_Surabaya_(7_July_2020).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Edit_3_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. SCP-2000 01:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cwek as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SCP-2000 as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Google, author – Google. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{Rename}} Skaalr (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Renamed. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Sollte auf einer anderen Seite geladen werden. MustangFord01 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 16:07, 28 Januar 2021 UTC: Derivative work of non-free content (F3): Political posters --Krdbot 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Wird nicht mehr zum Zweck der Beweisführung benötigt. (Anfängerfehler) Rena Cori (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G7. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation, no free license at https://www.qdesq.com/ Too complex for COM:TOO India Verbcatcher (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also delete File:Qdesq Logo red.png from the same uploader. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Devender123: I have reverted your deletion of my postings to this page. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- [Note copied from Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Qdesq Logo.png]: Logo is public and is allowed to use but not for commercial purpose. Please remove the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devender123 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Devender123: , Commons:Licensing requires that Commercial use of the work must be allowed. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope; non notable person. Used for spam. IWI (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS confirmation since >30 days. --JuTa 15:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Created by accident Heffner000 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Author's request, empty. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no information on the original author, original publication date and location. There is no confirmation that the original author is ok with currently used license. The original uploader was Andriy.v at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep The source publish the work under CC license.--Andriy.v (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nop. The "source" doesn't have the rights on the image in the first place. They took someone's image tempered the background and used it without specifying the name of the photographer or the original image source. It's like if I will take someone else's work and then publish it under CC license without getting permission from the actual photographer of the image and without mentioning his name. An easy online check proves that this "Source" is not the original source of the photo but just one of the copies. Anyone can easily see that they took another photo (here is a fragment of the original photo) and just deleted the background and used without attribution of the original author of the photo. And the full original photo with background without being tempered by this "source" can be seen here: youtu.be/B6tGDX1vZ9c?t=137. Doctor Architect (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. The original author is one of the most famous un trustiest encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is redacted by en:National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which is a state-funded organization. If we can't trust a state founded organizazion - so who we can trust? This is just a senceless nomination.--Andriy.v (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- No need to try to hide copyright violations under alleged notability of the violator. Various violations specifically in Ukrainian academy is widely known (an example, another and etc.). With this particular source we already saw multiple examples that they don't know how to properly handle image copyrights or on purpose manipulate the original image. And this is not the only example (another example uploaded by you, and etc.). State or non-state owned status doesn't give permission to ignore attribution of the original source of the image and author of the photography (or at least to mention that it's unknown). Above we saw proof beyond reasonable doubt that this "source" doesn't honor original author and original source which violates the copyright rules.
- Perhaps instead of trying to find any possible excuse to defend this image with the copyright violation which you have uploaded you might want to find an image which doesn't violate the rules and use it instead. Doctor Architect (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. The original author is one of the most famous un trustiest encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is redacted by en:National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which is a state-funded organization. If we can't trust a state founded organizazion - so who we can trust? This is just a senceless nomination.--Andriy.v (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nop. The "source" doesn't have the rights on the image in the first place. They took someone's image tempered the background and used it without specifying the name of the photographer or the original image source. It's like if I will take someone else's work and then publish it under CC license without getting permission from the actual photographer of the image and without mentioning his name. An easy online check proves that this "Source" is not the original source of the photo but just one of the copies. Anyone can easily see that they took another photo (here is a fragment of the original photo) and just deleted the background and used without attribution of the original author of the photo. And the full original photo with background without being tempered by this "source" can be seen here: youtu.be/B6tGDX1vZ9c?t=137. Doctor Architect (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is not Commons problem whenever somebody had no right to publish something under CC-BY license or not. You can appeal to Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine or accuse its authors in plagiarism (who knows? maybe they have official permissions from all authors?), but before you prove anything this photo can be used freely.--Brunei (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's good that you are helping your friend, but the above example shows that we can't use the image regardless who was the source that improperly copied the image without attribution. If it would not be the case than we can create sites with false licensees and upload all the pics from there and use it as the new source. It's like money laundering. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Ще у 2012 році ГО «Вікімедіа Україна» домовилася з Інститутом історії НАН України про поширення Енциклопедії історії України під вільною ліцензією. Власне і на сторінках сайту ця ліцензія вказана. Тож це фото поширюється під вільною ліцензією. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
File copyrighted by West Virginia Legislature MahmudR666 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Érico at 11:06, 31 Januar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 15:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Irellevant on wikipedia File:Douurunzhu's Signature.jpg Douurunzhu 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyright violation. Vera (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate file File:Douurunzhu's Signature.jpg Douurunzhu 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Redundant to File:Flag of the People's Police of the People's Republic of China.jpg.--Larryasou (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The same file has been deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qbik.png Need OTRS Matlin (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: this qualifies for speedy. --Ankry (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not think this file should be deleted, but per the speedy delete tag placed on the file this was the means of removing it. Ahgren, the copyright holder and subject of the image, himself consented to this photo being used for this purpose, per the YouTube link provided by the original poster. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The claimed permission is spoken by the subject of the photo in a YouTube video.[1] This permission is to use unspecified images 'for Wikipedia'. This does not amount to a free license: files on Commons must be available for any purpose, not just for Wikipedia. Also, there is also significant doubt whether Ludwig Ahgren is the copyright holder, we normally assume that the photographer is the copyright holder, not the subject. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: 1) Per COM:L, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed." (underline added) Comments such as "you can use it" are not explicit (e.g., do not address a license, derivatives, commercial use, etc.) and are entirely inadequate; and 2) that "permission" is from the subject, whereas copyright vests in the author (photographer). Ahgren would not hold copyright, and thus the ability to license, unless formally transferred to him by a written conveyance. A copy of the same would need to be provided through COM:OTRS. This is a blatant violation of COM:L, thus speediable per COM:CSD#F1 ("no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work"). --Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright picture Urang Kamang (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and no license at all. --JuTa 21:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hydarov abood (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files are taken from various sources without source and permission. None of the uploads is own work.
- File:تصميم مترو بغداد للخطين الأول والثاني.jpg
- File:غلاف رواية عالم صدام حسين.jpg
- File:جون نكسون.jpg
- File:كتاب استجواب الرئيس.jpg
- File:طاقم القاصفة توبوليف الأولى.jpg
- File:ثانيةطاقم القاصفة توبوليف الثانية.jpg
- File:غلاف كتاب إستجواب الرئيس.jpg
- File:ترشيح فائق الشيخ علي في إحتجاجات تشرين.jpg
- File:رصيف تحميل النفط في إيلات.jpg
- File:مد الجزء الأخير من خط أنابيب إيلات-عسقلان في 1969.jpg
- File:مفاعل تموز بعد الغارة الإسرائيلية.jpg
- File:مسار السربين الأوّل والثاني خلال تنفيذ الغارة الإيرانية على مفاعل تموز النووي.jpg
- File:زيارة صدام حسين هو ورئيس الوزراء الفرنسي شيراك المفاعلين في مدينة ساكليه.jpg
- File:زيارة رئيس الوزراء الفرنسي أنذاك (شيراك) لبغداد.jpg
- File:أعمال بناء مفاعل تموز النووي.jpg
- File:Haider Abood.jpg
- File:مجلس الأمن الدولي.jpg
- File:طارق عزيز.jpg
- File:روح الله الخميني.jpg
- File:رامات ديفيد وتقسيم إسرائيل لمناطقها العسكرية.jpg
- File:السيرة الذاتية لبعض طاقم القاصفة الثانية الذين إستشهدوا خلال عملية البرق العراقية.jpg
- File:صورة تبيّن خسائر إسرائيل في قاعدة رامات ديفيد الجوية.jpg
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية الثامنة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية.jpg
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية السابعة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية.jpg
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية السادسة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية.jpg
- File:مسار القاصفة الثانية حسب الرواية الإسرائيلية الخامسة.jpg
- File:الرواية العراقية والإسرائيلية حول مسار القاصفة الثانية.jpg
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية الثانية حول مسار القاصفة الأولى.jpg
- File:المقبرة الّتي تضمّ رفاة طاقم القاصفة الثانية.jpg
- File:صورة تظهر خسائر إسرائيل بعد تنفيذ العملية.jpg
- File:حطام القاصفة الثانية وسط الغابات.jpg
- File:مسار القاصفة الثانية لضرب قاعدة رامات ديفيد الجوية.jpg
- File:صور طاقم القاصفة الثانية الذين إستشدوا خلال عملية البرق العراقية.jpg
- File:مسار القاصفة الأولى حسب الروايتين العراقية والإسرائيلية.jpg
- File:قصف القاصفة الأولى لقاعدة رامات ديفيد.jpg
- File:مسار القاصفة الأولى للإنقضاض على قاعدة رامات ديفيد.jpg
- File:مخطط مسار القاصفات الأربع للإنقضاض على قاعدة رامات ديفيد.jpg
- File:مخطط للمسار المختلف للطائرات.jpg
- File:توضيح لموقع قاعدة رامات ديفيد الجوية وتقسيم إسرائيل لمناطقها العسكرية.jpg
- File:مسار الطائرات المنفذة للهجوم موكد.jpg
- File:توبوليف السوفيتية.jpg
- File:الطائرة المشاركة في العملية موكد.jpg
- File:القاصفة توبوليف الروسية- عملية البرق.jpg
- File:صورة لعملية البرق العراقية .jpg
- File:السيرة الذاتية لبعض طاقم القاصفة الثانية الذين إستشهدوا خلال عملية البرق العراقية..png
- File:صورة تبيّن خسائر إسرائيل في قاعدة رامات ديفيد الجوية..png
- File:المقالين المتناقضين بتفاصيلٍ متشابه لنتسان وأوسة..png
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية الثامنة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية السابعة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية السادسة حول مسار القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:مسار القاصفة الثانية حسب الرواية الإسرائيلية الخامسة..png
- File:لرواية العراقية والإسرائيلية حول مسار القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:الرواية الإسرائيلية الثانية حول مسار القاصفة الأولى..png
- File:المقبرة الّتي تضمّ رفاة طاقم القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:صورة تظهر خسائر إسرائيل بعد تنفيذ العملية..png
- File:حطام القاصفة الثانية وسط الغابات..png
- File:مسار القاصفة الثانية لضرب قاعدة رامات ديفيد الجوية..png
- File:صور طاقم القاصفة الثانية الذين إستشدوا خلال عملية البرق العراقية..png
- File:طاقم القاصفة الثانية..png
- File:مسار القاصفة الأولى حسب الروايتين العراقية والإسرائيلية..png
- File:قصف القاصفة الأولى لقاعدة رامات ديفيد..png
- File:مسار القاصفة الأولى للإنقضاض على قاعدة رامات ديفيد..png
- File:طاقم القاصفة الأولى.png
- File:مخطط مسار القاصفات الأربع للإنقضاض على قاعدة رامات ديفيد..png
- File:مخطط للمسار المختلف للطائرات..png
- File:المسار بين قاعدة الحبانية والمفرق وقاعدة رامات ديفيد.png
- File:المناطق العسكرية لإسرائيل.png
- File:قنبلة نوع ФАБ-500M54 ..png
- File:القاصفة توبوليف السوفيتية - tu.png
- File:رامات ديفيد Ramat.jpg
- File:مخطط مسار الطائرات الإسرائيلية المنفذة للهجوم.jpg
- File:القاصفة توبوليف الروسية tu.jpg
- File:عملية البؤرة-موكد.jpg
- File:عملية البرق القاصفة توبوليف.png
- File:220px2-عملية البرق العراقية.jpg
- File:القوة الجوية العراقيةةةة.jpg
- File:طاقم القاصفة الأولى 1.jpg
- File:قطار بغداد-بصرة.jpg
- File:مفاعل TRR.jpg
- File:مخطط مفاعل الرافدين النووي.jpg
- File:مفاعل الرافدين النووي.jpg
- File:همزتا الوصل والقطع.jpg
- File:نصب الشهيد-بغداد.jpg
_%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%BA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Smooth O (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Протоиерей Андрей Павленко (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. All previous uploads from same user have been previously deleted.
- File:Поликарп.jpg
- File:Климент.jpg
- File:Филь.png
- File:Filaret-karagodin.jpg
- File:Vl-arkadiy-.jpg
- File:Митрополит Вениамин (Зарицкий) совершает диаконскую хиротонию.jpg
- File:Платон удовенко.jpg
- File:Павел В.jpg
- File:Imgs touch.jpg
- File:Алипий (2).jpg
- File:Епископ Владимир совершает священнеческую хиротонию. 2009год.jpg
- File:Владимир т.jpg
- File:Агапит.jpg
- File:Подпись2.jpg
- File:Подпись4.jpg
- File:Петрммм.jpg
- File:Николай владыка.jpg
_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%8E_%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Smooth O (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bartekkrzemien (talk · contribs)
[edit]They look like video screenshots. COM:SS
Larryasou (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Probably screenshots from somewhere.
Techyan（Talk） 06:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Image non used by any user or page on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope, not in use, also most of images are derivative works of other photos without sources.
- File:Personajes del Potato Squad.jpg
- File:Patatín.jpg
- File:Potato Squad Previous Chapters.jpg
- File:Potato Squad.jpg
- File:Potato Squad 2.jpg
- File:Con mascara.jpg
- File:Foto de perfil de Dec 314.png
- File:Potato Squad Final Chapters.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused user graphic, uploader has no other live global contributions. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused user logo, uploader has no other live global contributions. The file's description is autobiographical. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivangisinghvines (talk · contribs)
[edit]personal photos, out of COM:PS.
Larryasou (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ossidomaster (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PS upload for self-promotion.
- File:Ossido Master foto Instagram.jpg
- File:Ossido Master, rapper italiano..jpg
- File:Ossidomaster.jpg
- File:Ossido Master.jpg
Larryasou (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ganesh Uskamudi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LuizSantosTavares (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WikiLove Goat (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SCOPE - for File:Iiienfk.jpg, files comprising mere text are not considered media files and thus out of scope. For File:Odhskd.jpg, too small (60x45) to be of any realistic educational use. Also likely to be COM:NETCOPYVIO (see user contribs)
Эlcobbola talk 16:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in vanity Wikidata item. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Qualifies for speedy - Image has been deleted previously. And same file name has also been deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr. Angelotaku (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/files storage. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DavidJones030 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private audio album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishesh rawat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:5eba3117cb4bdWhatsApp Image 2020-05-12 at 08.44.42.pdf
- File:5e9ff2661b6298bio.pdf
- File:BIOLOGY CHAPTER 1 CLASS 8 ICSE.pdf
- File:5e9d6008e48888biology.pdf
- File:5ea171bd403cb8bio.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IwillLoveKyCineForever (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Kyle John Echarri.jpg
- File:Kyle Echarri.jpg
- File:Castoff.jpg
- File:Cassie and Kristoff.jpg
- File:Cassie Mondragon.jpg
- File:Francine Diaz.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Unusually formatted duplicate of File:Flag of Mexico.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of company of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:KS I Helper помогает подготовиться к школе.jpg
- File:KSFashion и "Любимое дело".jpg
- File:Организация поддерживает StreetWorkaut .jpg
- File:Epolets в туре с KSMotivation.jpg
- File:Kozhen Spromozhen.jpg
- File:Команда KS Motivation.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Laos.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
sources of this file are fake please check the sources [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Rubin16. --Minoraxtalk 09:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nafisa23092000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low res, no or disparate EXIF (X-T2, NIKON D750, Canon EOS 500D, etc), same subject matter as uploader copyvios (of which there are many-see deleted contribs) Duck/COM:PRP issue.
- File:Спорт зонасы.jpg
- File:Сәламәтлек паркы.jpg
- File:Паркта Ассоль балалар кафесы.jpg
- File:Әлмәт паркында аттракционнар.jpg
- File:Асссоль.jpg
- File:Алея славы.jpg
- File:Парк 60 летия нефти Татарстана.jpg
- File:Мирас.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Portrait drawing without educational use Drakosh (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without ewducational use Drakosh (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You can see that it has the icon that Instagram shows when you tag someone on the photo, which means that this was stolen from Instagram. Grafferrtt (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
_%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%B4%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D%D7%B4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%B4%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D%D7%B4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A shot from an Israeli movie. Clearly not a free file - it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
A shot from an Israeli TV series. Clearly not a free file - it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope – unused symbol of a non-notable fictional entity. TFerenczy (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"Copyrighted in the United Kingdom". These album covers are too original for Commons because they are British, Tbsock (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Published novels.jpg
- File:Update Published novels.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:FB1:3B:33A1:D98C:4826:262D:91A3 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of each individual book cover, copyright of which is likely owned by the publisher. 2001:FB1:3B:33A1:D98C:4826:262D:91A3 22:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Part of uploads is promotional spam, the rest are probably people behind it, of not much real educational use.
- File:Adamapartners.jpg
- File:Mahadi Online Courses.png
- File:Tiger Cage Event.jpg
- File:LinkedInCoverDreamworldCOVER.png
- File:WER Contest on China.png
- File:Mahadi YouTube Videos.png
- File:Hour of Code at EMK Center.jpg
Pibwl (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Previously published at https://blog.decathlon.pl/sport/siatkowka/czerwona-zolta-kartka-w-siatkowce-co-oznaczaja/, authorship is unclear Ytoyoda (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a crop of a Facebook photo: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/lookaside/crawler/media/?media_id%3D1423138567745830&imgrefurl=https://www.facebook.com/istanbuljanissaries/likes&h=640&w=960&tbnid=AT50ZtLi_dtbYM&tbnh=183&tbnw=275&usg=AI4_-kRm-vdxxFfyCrumSZp6T4WUbEJa0w&vet=1&docid=HAdExPFvoEYI6M&itg=1 Ytoyoda (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope, self promotion Trade (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just duplicate of File:Marzanna Matka Polski.jpg. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
File does not depict purported subject, duplicate of File:Nicholas Wood the great eater of Kent.jpg. Scaled down version of said file depicts 1630 woodcut of Nicholas Wood, not Tarrare. CzarJobKhaya (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete User's wikipedia account has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting: User:Huff slush7264.
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate. --Wdwd (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, logo of Argentine TV service, see w:es:Red de noticias Verbcatcher (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope; personal photo of a user with no valid contribs (m:Special:CentralAuth/CulitaIoanUsurelu44) Gikü (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
(Copyright violation) The image is a screenshot from the phone for this website موسى (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, just a test etc F (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, just a test etc F (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, just a test etc F (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, just a test etc F (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Cover of a book https://www.empik.com/turbulencja-kulik-dariusz,p1240749658,ebooki-i-mp3-p?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2c73pby_7gIVCap3Ch0f6gdYEAYYBCABEgL2T_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds Grafferrtt (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - book cover, no evidence of free license. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope: Symbol of a fictional entity, unused. Coat of arms already deleted two years ago Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Elanda.png. TFerenczy (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It's my missinterpretation of some graphics from niche blogsite. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; as the uploader describes this unused file as their own "misinterpretation", it doesn't seem to have a potential use. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. A non-notable person; used for spam. IWI (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- delete after the article is deleted. no need to wait for the wikidata item. Quakewoody (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not won work. Some of the pictures still have watermarks on them.
- File:Wei Ninghui.jpg
- File:Sitthichai.jpg.jpg
- File:Qiu Jianliang.jpg
- File:Sitthichai.jpg
- File:Superbon.jpg
- File:Superbon Banchamek.jpg
Techyan（Talk） 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
К сожалению в Азербайджане нет свободы панорамы, и дома тоже запрещено фотографировать. Да и файл неправильный, в этом доме не жил Исмаил Зидаятзаде. Зейнал (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Aledillon4 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work.
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aledillon4 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old photos that likely are not own work of the uploader, another image is watermarked with the URL "BANCOIMAGENES.CL" and an image appears to be a Google Street View screenshot.
- File:20160505180532-articulo-municipalidad-de-vina-del-mar-plantacion-palmeras-alessandri-2-590x349.jpg
- File:El Gran Incendio de Gómez Carreño.png
- File:Gómez Carreño 1966.jpg
- File:Gómez Carreño.jpg
- File:Open Plaza.jpg
- File:Subcomisaria.jpg
- File:5ta Compañía de Bomberos.jpg
- File:Sectores de Gómez Carreño.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP. --Ezarateesteban 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Published at https://www.aerotime.aero/en/military/15008-china-to-demonstrate-j-20-stealth-jet-in-november on 28 October 2016 (before upload here) and is credited to Reuters KZ-UP101 (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, no need for a DR here. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Cwek (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio per the statement in the source "环球网版权作品，未经书面授权，严禁转载或镜像，违者将被追究法律责任。" SCP-2000 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The picture is supposed to show graffiti but none is present. It's just some cluttered desk. The picture has little encyclopedic value unless the cluttered desk of the bookshelves are of use. If kept it needs renaming and recategorizing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![01:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/01/28#c-Piotrus-2021-01-28T01:45:00.000Z-File:"Crescat_Graffiti"_at_the_Seminary_Co-op_(4148023127).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: not in use, but the reason for the nomination isn't valid. --Ezarateesteban 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
![18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/01/28#c-Ezarate-2021-02-17T18:32:00.000Z-File:"Crescat_Graffiti"_at_the_Seminary_Co-op_(4148023127).jpg){kind=link}
Vandalism, “妓女” is prostitute shizhao (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- F10-OoS, this should be speedied instead of coming here. --E4024 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use and possible vandalism. --Ezarateesteban 18:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be the work of a US government employee. The Rewards for Justice website contains photos for identification of the individuals they want information on, many of which were taken from other sources. Thespoondragon (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Or US government employees go to visit terrorists and take their pics. No, of course that is not possible. Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
,_West_Surabaya_(7_July_2020).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_West_Surabaya_(7_July_2020).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality (blurry image). There is a foot touching right side mirror on top of the window which is impolite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Neman (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
,_West_Surabaya_(7_July_2020).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: not in use and uploader request. --Ezarateesteban 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
,_West_Surabaya_(7_July_2020).jpg){kind=link}
Author is Soufi, and uploader is Safoura.elyasi. Express permission of copyright holder is required. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation. The only experimental vehicle was destroyed in 1948. Maxinvestigator (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: not an own work, scanned without source. --Ezarateesteban 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Retail 247 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Retail logos uploaded as own work are probably copyvios.
- File:Hechinger logo.png
- File:Builders Square store logo.png
- File:Twin Fair stores logo.png
- File:Pergament Home Centers Logo.png
- File:Gee Bee Stores Logo.png
- File:Noodle Kidoodle store logo.png
- File:County Seat stores logo.png
- File:Ellman's catalog store logo.png
- File:Davega stores logo.png
- File:Barkers (discount) store logo.png
- File:Fedmart stores logo.png
- File:Grand Central stores logo.png
- File:Camelot Music logo.png
- File:Topps stores logo.png
- File:Sky City Stores Logo.png
- File:RI Mall logo.png
- File:Apex stores logo.gif
- File:Apex Companies Logo.jpg
- File:Chess King Logo.png
- File:Gad Zooks Logo.png
- File:J J Newberry Logo.png
- File:Mammoth Mart Store Logo.png
- File:Outlet Department Store Logo.png
- File:Sketch-1604936924911.png
- File:Ann And Hope Store Logo.png
_store_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can't we just change these to being marked as copyright like any other logo rather than deleting these files and having to replace them with new ones.? Pokemonprime (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Pokemonprime: What you are describing is Fair Use. Sorry, we do not accept Fair Use here on Commons. The images may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I didn't realize FU logo images were hosted on Wikipedia itself and not commons. Pokemonprime (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Retail 247 (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Retail logos uploaded as own work are probably copyvios. See also previous discussion above.
- File:Noodle Kidoodle store logo.png
- File:Gee Bee stores logo.png
- File:Builders Square Store Logo.png
- File:Almacs.png
- File:ADAP Auto Parts Logo.png
- File:ADAP Discount Auto Parts logo.png
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment The logos are too simple for copyright protection, but source must be given. Files without source cannot stay in Commons. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi - Its a shame to see that photo go, is there any reason why? Also is it possible to get it legally there or remedy the issue for it being deleted? ChrisHummus (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: File:Almacs.png, which is so simple that I think it is below the US threshold of originality. The other files were all already deleted by others. --Rosenzweig τ 13:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg) Edit 3 cropped.jpg
[edit]_Edit_3_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_Edit_3_cropped.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
cropped version of image already on Commons (see below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtowngal (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, we allow crops here. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ezarateesteban 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kazehayashi (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW of the copyrighted work.
- File:EMU3000 Model 2.jpg
- File:EMU3000 Anime.jpg
- File:EMU3000 Model.jpg
- File:The Model of EMU3000.jpg
SCP-2000 05:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kazehayashi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scanned photos of unknown source and copyright status.
- File:Fu-Hsing Semi Express through Yongjing Station.jpg
- File:Fu-Hsing Semi Express Approach Tainan.jpg
- File:DR2900 & DR3000 in Guzhuang.jpg
- File:Pingtung Line Local Train in Fangliao.jpg
- File:EMU1200 Interior in 2004.jpg
- File:Dining Car of PP.jpg
- File:Chu-Kuang Express in Sanyi.jpg
- File:6-Car 45DR1000 in Ershui.jpg
- File:Commuter Train & Diesel Express in Dawu.jpg
- File:R46 & Chu-Kuang Express in Fangliao.jpg
- File:35BCK10610 in Songshan.jpg
- File:35BCK10611 in Songshan.jpg
- File:2-Unit EMU500 in Yuanlin Station.jpg
- File:Chu-Kuang Express in Yuanlin Station.jpg
- File:Chu-Kuang Express through Yongjing Station.jpg
- File:PP Tze-Chiang Limited Express through Shengxing Station.jpg
- File:Push-Pull Tze-Chiang Limit Express through Old Liyutan Bridge.jpg
- File:35FPK10500 Interior in 2001.jpg
- File:40FPK10600 Interior in 2004.jpg
- File:E226 & Fu-Hsing Semi Express in West-Trunk Line.jpg
- File:S306 & 45DR1000 in Hualien.jpg
- File:45DR1000 Stoped in Dongshan.jpg
- File:40PPT2000 Interior in 2002.jpg
- File:AIDS Propaganda Special PP.jpg
- File:Ford Special PP.jpg
- File:DR2800 Interior after 2002.jpg
- File:EMU200 EP200 Interior.jpg
- File:EMU200 EM(C)200 Interior.jpg
- File:EMU100 Conductor Room.jpg
- File:DR3100 Chartered Train in Ershui.jpg
- File:EMU100 in Mountain Line Fengyuan~ Houli.jpg
- File:15 Cars EMU100 in West-Trink Line Yongjing~Shetou.jpg
- File:EMU100 & E338.jpg
- File:EMU100 in West-Trunk Line Ershui~Linnei.jpg
- File:15 Cars EMU100 Dapartured from Old Banqiao Station.jpg
- File:EMU100 Arrived at Shengxing Station.jpg
- File:EMU100 in Mountain Line.jpg
- File:DR2300 in Yongjing~Shetou.jpg
- File:Old Su'aoxin Station.jpg
- File:TRA 40SPK20001T at Qidu Marshalling Yard 20210828.jpg
- File:TRA EMC1205 through Yongjing Station 20030617.jpg
- File:TRA SP32614 at Hualien Station 20031213.jpg
- File:TRA 30ES32614 at Hsinying Station 20000406.jpg
- File:35SPK32740 in Hualien.jpg
- File:35SPK32601 in Hualien.jpg
- File:DR3100 in Su'ao.jpg
- File:10400 Series Chu-Kuang Express in Dong'ao.jpg
- File:DR2700 Interior Ver2.0.jpg
- File:DR2700 in Hualien.jpg
- File:R195 & Chu-Kuang Express through North-Link Line.jpg
- File:DR2700 in Old Taitung Station.jpg
- File:Fu-Hsing Semi Express in Old Mountain Line.jpg
- File:6 45DR1000 Cars in Ershui.jpg
- File:15 Cars EMU100 Departed from Old Banqiao Station.jpg
- File:DR2200 in West Trunk Line.jpg
- File:CK101 in Ershui.jpg
- File:CK101 in Jiji Line.jpg
- File:CK101 in West Trunk Line.jpg
- File:CK101 in Old Mountain Line.jpg
- File:E212 & 10600 Series Chu-Kuang Express.jpg
- File:R136 & 10400 Series Chu-Kuang Express.jpg
- File:15 Cars EMU300 Departed from Songshan.jpg
- File:EMU300 in Ershui.jpg
- File:E118 in Hsinchu.jpg
- File:35SP32400 Series in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SPK32110 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SP32144 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SP32361 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30ES32375 30SP32375.jpg
- File:30SP32122 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SP32368 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SP32131 in Dadu.jpg
- File:TRA FPK10400 interior at Shulin Station 19990818.jpg
- File:30SBK32361 in Dadu.jpg
- File:30SBK32303 in Dadu.jpg
- File:10500 Series Chu-Kuang Express.jpg
- File:45DR1000 in Yilan Line.jpg
- File:35FPK10210 in Taichung.jpg
- File:35FPK10204 in Taichung.jpg
- File:DR2900 & DR3000 in Dongshan.jpg
- File:5 Groups 15 Cars DR2900 & DR3000.jpg
- File:DR2900 & DR3000 6 Cars.jpg
- File:DR3000 & DR2800.jpg
- File:DR2900 & DR3000 in Old Taitung Station.jpg
- File:Taipei County PP 2.jpg
- File:Taipei County PP.jpg
- File:2001 Kao-Kao-Ping PP.jpg
- File:Daikin PP Tze-Chiang.jpg
- File:Break into Style PP.jpg
- File:DR2510 Interior.jpg
- File:DR2510 in Yuanlin.jpg
- File:DR2510 in Hualien.jpg
- File:Only One Car DR1000 in Changhua.jpg
- File:EMU300 6 Cars in Yuanlin.jpg
- File:Do-Do Train Dining Car Interior.jpg
- File:Do-Do Train Interior.jpg
- File:DR2900 Chartered Train in Kaohsiung.jpg
- File:Kenting Star Sightseeing Train.jpg
- File:TRA EMC608 at Changhua Station 20010526.jpg
- File:E237 Keep Walking Train.jpg
- File:Fu-Hsing Semi-Express in Neiwan.jpg
- File:Fu-Hsing Semi-Express in Hexing.jpg
- File:Old DR2800 Interior.jpg
- File:15 DR2800 Cars in Songshan.jpg
- File:DR2800 in Pingtung.jpg
- File:DR2800 & DR2900 & DR3000 in Shulin.jpg
- File:DR2800 in Old Taitung Station.jpg
- File:EMU300 in Kaohsiung.jpg
- File:EMU300 Tze-Chiang Limited Express in Kaohsiung.jpg
- File:Push-Pull Tze-Chiang Limited Express in Erjie.jpg
- File:TRA Push-Pull Train in Taichung.jpg
- File:PP Tze-Chiang Limited Express in Shetou North.jpg
- File:TRA 11Cars Push-Pull Tze-Chiang Limited Express.jpg
- File:E403 & 10 10400 Series Cars.jpg
- File:The Star of South-Link Line Sightseeing Train.jpg
- File:E233 with 35SPK2300.jpg
- File:R174 with Pingkuai.jpg
- File:R192 with Pingkuai.jpg
- File:Pingkuai Interior 2.jpg
- File:Pingkuai Interior.jpg
- File:35SPK2300 in Kaohsiung.jpg
- File:35SPK2300 Series.jpg
- File:EMU200 in Ershui Part 2.jpg
- File:EMU200 in Ershui.jpg
- File:EMU200 in Kaohsiung.jpg
- File:EMU200 55EM200.jpg
- File:EMU200 45EP200.jpg
- File:EMU200 55EMC206.jpg
- File:35SPK2200 Series.jpg
- File:35SPK20200 Series.jpg
- File:35SPK21202.jpg
- File:E400 with 35SPK2300.jpg
- File:E209 with 35SPK2300.jpg
- File:TRA SP32617 at Hualien Station 20031213.jpg
- File:TRA SP32622 at Chungli Station 19990925.jpg
- File:TRA 35SPK2330T at Yingge Station 20030617.jpg
- File:TRA S212 with EMU200 at Kaohsiung Station 20010908.jpg
- File:35SPK2349.jpg
- File:E300 Series with Pingkuai.jpg
- File:E100 with Pingkuai.jpg
- File:40TP(K)32200 Series.jpg
- File:TRA Commuter Train.jpg
- File:E112 with Commuter.jpg
- File:PP Interior.jpg
200_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
32200_Series.jpg){kind=link}
Wcam (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep What makes you believe these are not the uploader's own works as he claimed? They don't look like scans from printed media - these are scans of actual prints on photographic paper or from slide film. Quality and photographic style is consistent so they are most likely taken by the same person. And all of them are from the pre-digital era, so indeed they have to be be scans – what else? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Most of these photos were taken before the popularity of digital cameras, please keep the assume good faith.--M940504 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every photos are mine. Because I did not have any digital camera before 2010, I used point-and-shoot camera in taking photos. In order to let more people see my own photos, I scanned them and uploaded in Wiki.每張照片都是我小時候還沒有發展數位相機時用傳統相機拍的，為了能讓更多人能看到我這些具有歷史意義的照片，我將它們掃瞄並上傳至維基，謹此聲明。 Kazehayashi (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Not uploader's own work, but rather a photo from a reseller - based on the uploader's own caption on the datejust wiki page Epicsunwarrior (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Missing EXIF, looks like video screenshot. Larryasou (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
no permission Flavien.vernier (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The source is Pixabay, which has a CC-Zero license. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Metadata indicates copyright is with Shutterstock. Larry Hockett (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
"This is an imaged purchased from the author for a photo shoot."? Sounds not free DemonDays64 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Digital conversion of online pictures, considered as a derivative work A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- You sure? dwf² ✉ 09:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Yes I'm sure, just pick up examples from Category:Indonesian FOP cases/deleted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, go a head and delete it. dwf² ✉ 05:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither Junto al Barrio nor this youngster seem to be in scope; he already has a pic with a notable politician (File:Nicolás y Lavín.jpg) and in case anyone needs to illustrate something about him or Junto al Barrio may use that file. This looks a bit G10 to me. However, mine is just a "weak delete" suggestion; if other collegues wish to keep this unused image I will not object. E4024 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hazrat Imam mosque
[edit]The mosque was completed in 2007, there is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan, permission from the architect is needed.
- File:Cathedral mosque of Hazrat Imam 13-05.JPG
- File:Cathedral mosque of Hazrat Imam 13-09.JPG
- File:Cathedral mosque of Hazrat Imam 13-19.JPG
- File:Hazrat Imam 02.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam 19.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam mosque 01.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam mosque 02.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam mosque 03.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam mosque 04.jpg
- File:Hazrat Imam mosque 05.jpg
- File:Hazrati Imam Complex (220247571).jpeg
- File:Хастимам (комплекс).jpg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2014, there is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2014, there is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan - photographer needs permission from the architect IPPON01 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan - photographer needs permission from the architect IPPON01 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan - photographer needs permission from the architect IPPON01 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
© ТОВ «УБТ», 2006-2021. Andrei (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew J.Kurbiko The photo is made by RBC Ukraine news agency (Dmytro Levytskyi). The Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International is being explicitly set in the page footer (right above the text being copypasted as "deletion reason"). --Goo3 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- My bad, please
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- My bad, please
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.46.38 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Me also thinks so. Delete. --E4024 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The images are unauthorized and are violating my privacy. Signed Josephine Meckseper JMXStudio (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- This photo was taken on March 9 during the opening of Josephine Mecksepper's personal exhibition. It was a public event. Here the announcement of the exhibition, [2].--DeuxPlusQuatre (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frac-exhibition-in-Nantes.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep There is no exception of privacy in France for this kind of case. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep same as Pa2chant.bis. For a public event, authorisation is implied and not needed. Comment @Josephine Meckseper, that said, if you have a better free-licensed picture of yourself, we can maybe reach an understand and replace this image. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This photo was taken in a public event --DeuxPlusQuatre (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories concerning paintings by Jean Siméon Chardin
[edit]- Category:Paintings by Jean Siméon Chardin in the Glasgow Museums Resource Centre
- Category:Paintings by Jean Siméon Chardin in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
- The category becomes Category:Paintings by Jean Siméon Chardin in the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery --Maltaper (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, cat redirects are cheap. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep is a better choice, because I don't know which is most suitable. --Maltaper (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --JuTa 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, characters created by Scott mcDannell (1981-2013).[3] Verbcatcher (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This image can be found at https://www.weser-kurier.de/deutschland-welt/deutschland-welt-kultur_artikel,-Enigma-schreiben-Song-mit-Fans-_arid,302688.html credited to Virgin Music/Peter Grimm, including a higher resolution version https://www.weser-kurier.de/cms_media/module_img/713/356772_1_org_201046_239353_1_024.jpg GRuban (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The building was erected in 2003. Architect Yuriy Seryogin (born in 1946) is still alive and didn’t give permissions to create an use photos of his buildings. The original uploader was Artemco at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author has died in 1996 and second one in 1990. The author Hryhoriy Markovych Slutsky (September 8, 1916 - March 1, 1990) has never gave permission to use his works. If anyone is unsure that he was the author or when he has lived, here is Ukrainian postcard with his portrait, this building and the year when he has died: https://maxicards-ua.livejournal.com/12731.html The postcard was officially released by 100% state owned Ukrainian Post Service Ukrposhta (proof of release). The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The Kyiv Passage was created by architect Alexander Malinowski (1948-1950). A 6-storey building with a large arch was added to the ends of the old building (architects Oleksandr Vlasov, Anatoliy Dobrovolsky and Borys Pryimak, 1949-1951). Dobrovolskij has died in 1988. Borys Pryimak has died in 1996. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author has died in 1996 and second one in 1990. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Could you interpret me the meaning of this sentence: "The copyright owner provided permission to license images of this work under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence"? Here: Category:20-22 Khreshchatyk Street, Kyiv--Rasal Hague (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please see my sentence above. The problem is that Borys Pryimak is not the only author of the building, but is a coauthor. There is no permission of the second architect. In order to have free distribution we need both authors permission. Whoever originally created the page didn't know that there are two authors. The second author is Hryhoriy Markovych Slutsky (September 8, 1916 - March 1, 1990). Here is Ukrainian postcard released by the official Ukrainian Post with his portrait and this building: https://maxicards-ua.livejournal.com/12731.html. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: there is permission from Borys Priymak. --Anatoliy (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque
[edit]The mosque was completed in 1968, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed
A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who has a background in Indonesian law, I have long argued that there is no conclusive proof that there is no FOP in Indonesia, but my interpretation is always thoroughly refuted by those who does not even understand Indonesian copyright law. Go ahead and delete it, I don't really care anymore. dwf² ✉ 09:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even if there isn't, I question deleting the pagebanner, because it shows only bits of the mosque. What's the normal attitude about that in courts of countries that prosecute this kind of thing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- dwf², I take it, there has never been a court case about FoP in Indonesia? Or has there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: No, there has never been a court case regarding FoP in Indonesia. Even if there is one, Indonesian court cases (with the exception of constitutional law cases) are not binding authority, since stare decisis is not a principle of Indonesian law; meaning it could not be accepted in face value as a precedent. I have been in touch with people from Creative Commons Indonesia, who had been working with the Directorate-General of Intellectual Property at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights on several IP issues, and their attitude towards FoP enforcement (or lack thereof) in the country is basically "who cares, do what you want." I am not sure what to make out of it. dwf² ✉ 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It sounds like Commons should ignore the issue. If it's not a problem there, why should we make it one? Probably the worst thing that could happen is we'd have to delete something - which is what we're doing preemptively. A1Cafel, would you consider backing off on this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- If there is no mention on FOP in a country, then we cannot assumed that FOP existed. Your comments violated COM:PCP. Indeed, Indonesian does have FOP, but it is limited to educational and non-commercial use. According to COM:L, non-commercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It sounds like Commons should ignore the issue. If it's not a problem there, why should we make it one? Probably the worst thing that could happen is we'd have to delete something - which is what we're doing preemptively. A1Cafel, would you consider backing off on this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: No, there has never been a court case regarding FoP in Indonesia. Even if there is one, Indonesian court cases (with the exception of constitutional law cases) are not binding authority, since stare decisis is not a principle of Indonesian law; meaning it could not be accepted in face value as a precedent. I have been in touch with people from Creative Commons Indonesia, who had been working with the Directorate-General of Intellectual Property at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights on several IP issues, and their attitude towards FoP enforcement (or lack thereof) in the country is basically "who cares, do what you want." I am not sure what to make out of it. dwf² ✉ 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- dwf², I take it, there has never been a court case about FoP in Indonesia? Or has there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Even if there isn't, I question deleting the pagebanner, because it shows only bits of the mosque. What's the normal attitude about that in courts of countries that prosecute this kind of thing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Great! Let's spare us the debate; go ahead and delete it, please. dwf² ✉ 15:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is really silly. Not mentioning FOP means we also can't assume it doesn't exist, especially if there's never been a problem there, and A1Cafel, do you have any expertise on Indonesian law? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's all I want to say. Maybe @JWilz12345: can also help you. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also @Yuraily Lic: (a fan of "COM:DW of copyrighted XXX works, no FOP in YYY country") and @Minorax and Explicit: because many recent decisions of FOP-Indonesia DRs are made by em. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is really silly. Not mentioning FOP means we also can't assume it doesn't exist, especially if there's never been a problem there, and A1Cafel, do you have any expertise on Indonesian law? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Great! Let's spare us the debate; go ahead and delete it, please. dwf² ✉ 15:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I'm suffering from common colds right now and cannot help here greatly, sorry. Pls read Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia#FoP instead. But here is the summary, the differing points of view on Indonesian FOP:
OK: Wikimedia Indonesia official position (based on Sudharto, Alifia Qonita, p. 39-40), supported by Jeromi Mikhael
Inconclusive: Supported by David Wadie Fisher-Freberg and RaFaDa20631
Not OK: Creative Commons Indonesia official position, supported by Hilmanasdf, Liuxinyu970226 and Nat.
Pinging @Clindberg and Aymatth2: (both of them have participated in numerous copyright related discussions before). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The so-called positions like "probably about existing of FOP terms in Indonesian law" are already, entirely and no refusal way to be vetoed by that CCID blog post, that post confirmed that for re-using architectures in Indonesia, only educational and non-commercial uses are allowed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I sure wish to learn about Indonesian copyright law from you. dwf² ✉ 05:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I don't understand that entire law either, but what I know is that Sudharto's vuw.ac.nz article, together with your ristekdikti.go.id journal below, are already vetoed by the Creative Commons Indonesia's post statement. If you think that these deletion decisions are unfair for you, why not try COM:UNDEL instead? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- So you don't understand it either! Let's set Sudharto's review aside here; the research was grounded on the 2002 Copyright Law, which has been superseded by the 2014 law. Andrea's et al law review was published on May 2020, and it is currently the *only* academic publication that specifically look into the question whether there's is a FoP or not under the 2014 Copyright Law. (CC's publication is solely their opinion, and is not academically peer-reviewed). What did Andrea et al said? Well, they clearly found that:
The results of the study stated that the UUHC had not yet regulated Freedom of Panorama and the protection of copyrighted works in public spaces and the efforts to prevent the infringement committed by the government and platform providers also have not been maximally in protecting copyright works in the public space for the uploaded content.
- So you don't understand it either! Let's set Sudharto's review aside here; the research was grounded on the 2002 Copyright Law, which has been superseded by the 2014 law. Andrea's et al law review was published on May 2020, and it is currently the *only* academic publication that specifically look into the question whether there's is a FoP or not under the 2014 Copyright Law. (CC's publication is solely their opinion, and is not academically peer-reviewed). What did Andrea et al said? Well, they clearly found that:
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I don't understand that entire law either, but what I know is that Sudharto's vuw.ac.nz article, together with your ristekdikti.go.id journal below, are already vetoed by the Creative Commons Indonesia's post statement. If you think that these deletion decisions are unfair for you, why not try COM:UNDEL instead? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I sure wish to learn about Indonesian copyright law from you. dwf² ✉ 05:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have any legal background or not, but legal writings and opinions of legal academic are often accepted as a source of law, particularly when the textual law and regulation does not specify anything; Indonesian courts also accept them, but please be mindful that there has been no court cases about FoP (or really, on copyright) before Indonesian courts. There has been no subsidiary regulation of the 2014 Copyright Law that deals with FoP (the fact that has been mentioned by CC's publication), and there is no hope of pushing the folks down at the Law and Human Rights Ministry to immediately issue a regulation to satisfy our debate here. What do we have here is one single law review which clarified that there is no clear FoP rule in place yet for Indonesia. Do what you can with it. dwf² ✉ 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: Is this true? I heard from you that both CCID's and ristekdikti.go.id's links confirmed what the de facto COM:FOP Indonesia said iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to revise what COM:FOP Indonesia said! But of course then Nat said I was wrong. Well, if I'm wrong, I will be genuinely surprised what's right. dwf² ✉ 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Because your links provided are also problemic, due to a sentence that is judged by Nat as "a non-free license, that violates COM:License": "unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a publication of the works in a public exhibition or a reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the author", IMHO this ≈ 50% CC-BY-NC-ND, so unless if you provide evidences that why this isn't a license at all, it's unlikely that: 1. you can legally keep this file and their friends, and 2. you can request undeletions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am under no obligation to provide any evidence. The files are requested to be deleted because the requesting party is of opinion that there is no FoP in Indonesia. I have provided sufficient opinion that they are wrong, but the final decision is not mine. As I have said before, I do not care if you delete it. Just delete it if you think it would serve the cause of the sum of all knowledge; but remember, but this whole thing just proved that certain Commons functionaries can just decide what they want to believe in and trample on the interpretation of a country copyright's law offered by folks who have a degree of understanding it. The consequences will not be pretty. dwf² ✉ 15:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Because your links provided are also problemic, due to a sentence that is judged by Nat as "a non-free license, that violates COM:License": "unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a publication of the works in a public exhibition or a reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the author", IMHO this ≈ 50% CC-BY-NC-ND, so unless if you provide evidences that why this isn't a license at all, it's unlikely that: 1. you can legally keep this file and their friends, and 2. you can request undeletions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to revise what COM:FOP Indonesia said! But of course then Nat said I was wrong. Well, if I'm wrong, I will be genuinely surprised what's right. dwf² ✉ 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: Is this true? I heard from you that both CCID's and ristekdikti.go.id's links confirmed what the de facto COM:FOP Indonesia said iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have any legal background or not, but legal writings and opinions of legal academic are often accepted as a source of law, particularly when the textual law and regulation does not specify anything; Indonesian courts also accept them, but please be mindful that there has been no court cases about FoP (or really, on copyright) before Indonesian courts. There has been no subsidiary regulation of the 2014 Copyright Law that deals with FoP (the fact that has been mentioned by CC's publication), and there is no hope of pushing the folks down at the Law and Human Rights Ministry to immediately issue a regulation to satisfy our debate here. What do we have here is one single law review which clarified that there is no clear FoP rule in place yet for Indonesia. Do what you can with it. dwf² ✉ 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: , @Hilmanasdf: , @Jeromi Mikhael: Indonesia has a "bodo amat" principle. Does Kemkominfo have an authority to take down all pictures or paintings published on Picasa, Flickr, Instagram, Panoramio etc. depicting architectures and sculptures of Indonesia? Or videos uploaded at YouTube this on Al-Jabbar Great Mosque (created by Ridwan Kamil, Governor of West Java), due to ad-monetized videos? Taking from 2020 journal by Andrea et al., p. 39 it states: Disamping ketentuan yang disebutkan sebelumnya, (aturan) terkait upaya represif yang dapat dilakukan dalam melindungi karya cipta yang ada di ruang publik pun belum sepenuhnya di akomodir [sic] oleh peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Copyright infringement in Indonesia is a delik aduan. We are user-generated content (UGC), like social media mentioned above and the journal above. However they are more commercial than us. Images or paintings or videos uploaded there are vulnerable to copyright infringement if you assumes FoP is not applicable in Indonesia. Can we be fined 4 billion rupiahs if we publish everything about Indonesia in Commons? RaFaDa20631 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @RaFaDa20631: IMHO Yes it's possible, see COM:FOP Sweden for example, that mentioned that Wikimedia Sverige has been fined several Euros by their Supreme Court due to misleading of Swedish Copyright Law. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This is getting really tiring, is it not? From time to time I got notified that my files, or other Indonesian contributors' files, would be deleted due to this wonderful thing called FoP, which was interpreted and enforced in Commons by folks who have not even read the Copyright Law in Indonesian before, let alone fully comprehending it. When we tried to offer a clearer and more critical explanation, we were told that we are wrong. I have no other choice than to believe the true enlightened experts, who are even more worried about legal ramifications than us, so I should defer to their judgment. Just get it over with and sweep every single file depicting buildings in Indonesia and see how that could serve the cause of free knowledge. dwf² ✉ 05:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding Wikimedia Sverige: they had to pay because they did not take down their database after the cease-or-desist letter. And the case never went to the supreme court. Please don't use an example without knowing it. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LPfi: Why not? The leading sentence of COM:FOP Sweden already says " Not OK — On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled, that Article 24 does not extend to publication by Wikimedia in their online repository, regardless of commercial intent." --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @LPfi: Why not? The leading sentence of COM:FOP Sweden already says "
- Regarding Wikimedia Sverige: they had to pay because they did not take down their database after the cease-or-desist letter. And the case never went to the supreme court. Please don't use an example without knowing it. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that was ruled by the supreme court, but only as it was heard by the lower court. The case itself never advanced to the supreme court. Moreover, the quote is very misleading, as the supreme court was confused on the relation between Wikimedia Sverige and Wikimedia Commons. –LPfi (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm only commenting because I've been ping multiple times and I'm not going to rehash all the arguments. For the purposes of Commons, there is no FoP in Indonesia (It only exists for non-commercial and educational purposes -- contrary to Commons policy). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Migrate to English Wikipedia and Delete Delete from Commons - The issue of whether or not Indonesia has FoP, and the extent of its coverage, is ultimately neither here nor there. Per the precautionary principle, Commons' policy is to remove works where "there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". The fact that even Creative Commons Indonesia and Wikimedia Indonesia cannot agree on this matter suggests that the "significant doubt" threshold has been crossed.
- At the same time, these works fall under the scope of w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights and w:Template:FoP-USonly, and thus can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia with the appropriate tag. Just because they can't be on Commons doesn't mean they can't be used in related project(s). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I am not sure that would even work. The 1989 American-Indonesian Copyright Agreement clearly stipulated that "each contracting party shall, in accordance with its respective laws and procedures, accord to the works of authors who are nationals or domicillaries of the other contracting party, and to works first published in the territory of the other contracting party, copyright protection on the same basis as that accorded to its own nationals or comiciliaries or to work first published in its own territory" (Art. 2 [1]). International treaties are lex specialis and applies exclusively for this case (because Commons requests that all files must be free under American law). If it is not free under Indonesian copyright law, then it is not free under American law. dwf² ✉ 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: What Crisco said is to fair use on Wikipedia, which is just not allowed on Commons, but usually allowed on some Wikipedias, by the way, there are reasons that a random work is public domain in US but not in Indonesia, don't think this isn't possible, it's possible, just you don't ever know its example. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I am not sure that would even work. The 1989 American-Indonesian Copyright Agreement clearly stipulated that "each contracting party shall, in accordance with its respective laws and procedures, accord to the works of authors who are nationals or domicillaries of the other contracting party, and to works first published in the territory of the other contracting party, copyright protection on the same basis as that accorded to its own nationals or comiciliaries or to work first published in its own territory" (Art. 2 [1]). International treaties are lex specialis and applies exclusively for this case (because Commons requests that all files must be free under American law). If it is not free under Indonesian copyright law, then it is not free under American law. dwf² ✉ 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Temporary discontinuation
[edit]I propose, for the sake of fairness and the interest of not having to rehash these arguments in many years to come at different RfDs, that this request (as well with the other related requests requested by A1Cafel), be suspended pending a Commons-wide consensus on Indonesia FoP problem. You may take part in the discussion at COM:Indonesia talk page or this one at the Village Pump. dwf² ✉ 02:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: This is the actual one thing doesn't work, because even if A1Cafel, Nat and I don't do so, there are many peoples e.g. @Yuraily Lic: to do so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
What now?
[edit]@A1Cafel: now that it is clear that Commons won't change its status quo on FoP-Indonesia and stick with its interpretation, at least please have decency to go through with what you propose in the first place. dwf² ✉ 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Wiki Commons seems to determined to stick to its unilateral interpretation at all costs and in the teeth of opposing opinions, so let's delete every single outdoor picture as soon as possible so people don't learn too much about what Indonesia looks like or have too much context for articles. Davidelit (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- What made it even more laughable (other than their exotic interpretation of UU Hak Cipta) is that when asked to delete my files that would run contrary to the status quo FoP-Indonesian interpretation, 4nn1l2 left a few files intact with no clear motive and then accused me of "gaming the system" when asked to clear what they have started. If selective prosecutorial discretion is even a thing, they seem to have perfected it into a form of fine art. dwf² ✉ 05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
More files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque
[edit]These files in that category need to be immediately deleted. Bennylin (yes?) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- File:Haze in Mosque, Pekanbaru.jpg
- File:Masjid agung 2.jpg
- File:Masjid Agung Annur morning exercise.jpg
- File:Masjid agung full.jpg
- File:Masjid An-Nur, Pekanbaru - panoramio.jpg
- File:Pekanbaru skyline.jpg
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP Indonesia. --Elly (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This is very suspicious: the user uploaded this new version of File:2009-01-16-IMG 0448.jpg which has altered EXIF data. The old version clearly says in the EXIF data: Copyright holder © 2009 Mike Geykhman. It was nominated for deletion by the uploader with the reason: "Metadata contains incorrect copyright information - I will re-upload clean file with no copyright". This looks like license laundering to me. If uploader is Mike Geykhman, I think an OTRS ticket is needed. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation at 19:09, 1 April 2021 UTC: no permission since January; dubious license claim --Krdbot 01:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Kaethe17 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: depicted artist asked for deletion of file
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Wish might be granted as we have another, IMO better image of the depicted person. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Túrelio, it's also my opinion that the other one is the better picture. The depicted artist, Sofia Bohdanowicz wrote me an email saying she feels uncomfortable with the picture. I took it at a public event (Festival Q & A), so legally the picture ist imho ok. But as the person depicted feels uncomfortable and nobody really needs the pic, I would very much like to see it deleted. Kaethe17 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Túrelio, do you think the deletion would now be possible? I have the impression that there are no objections. Kaethe17 (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate file File:Douurunzhu's Signature.jpg Douurunzhu 03:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment And the another file where is? --Ezarateesteban 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate File chnnnnnnnnnnnndourunrun 03:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, unused and near duplicate of File:Signator Barnstar 2.0.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Outdated signature File:Douurunzhu's Signature.jpg Douurunzhu 03:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Outdated Signature, Unused image chnnnnnnnnnnnndourunrun 03:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Non notable person. IWI (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear case of flickrwashing. --Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:Sazeka 57
[edit]- File:@sazeka 57 Pic 1.jpg
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 2.png
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 3.png
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 4.png
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 5.jpg
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 6.png
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 7.png
- File:@sazeka 57 pic 8.png.jpg
These files are derivative work of Splatoon and from twitter. Copyvio.--運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in Russia and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
. Somepolishguy (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion, except that it was nominated by the uploader 11 days after upload. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PENIS and possible g7. --Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Image not fall in scope of PD-UA-exempt. No permission. Smooth O (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The website of the source indicate "copyright" Olivier LPB (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Per source comics of en:Henryk Chmielewski (comics) (died 2021). No permission. Smooth O (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
License had to be clarified OberstdorfEvent (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Vagina.jpg Admn1986 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use, and no reason given for DR. INeverCry 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Der Admin, der für behalten gestimmt hat, ist nicht mehr erreichbar, weil er gesperrt wurde. Könnte bitte jemand die von Sarah und Jayceen hochgeladenen falschen Fotos entfernen. Dieses Foto hier zeigt einen pathologischen Befund. Der Scheideneingang ist gerötet und geschwollen, Symptome einer Entzündung, möglichweise Folgen entweder einer Infektion oder einer zu hohen mechanischen Belastung. Es handelt sich nicht um ein Foto eines Gynäkologen. Wir haben genügend andere Fotos von Vulvas und Scheideneingängen zum Vergleich, die trotz guter Durchblutung keine derartige Schwellung aufweisen.
The admin who voted to keep is no longer available because he has been banned. Could someone please remove the fake photos uploaded by Sarah and Jayceen. This photo here shows a pathological finding. The vaginal entrance is red and swollen, symptoms of inflammation, possibly consequences of either infection or excessive mechanical stress. This is not a photo taken by a gynaecologist. We have enough other photos of vulvas and vaginal entrances for comparison, which do not show such swelling despite good blood circulation. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep In use in de.wikipedia.org Vagina, eo.wikipedia.org Vagino, ru.wikinews.org Лента новостей 11 апреля 2014 года and ta.wiktionary.org ஜனனேந்திரியம். And dyagnostics of someone that has no proof of having medical qualifications are baseless until proof of some kind of expertise, and allegations of sexual abuse without anything than pure speculation are unecessary and potencial libelous and even worst the unproven allegations of rape. Please show irrefutable proofs of what you claim or remove them as otherwise your comments about sexual abuse and rape can be construed as libel. Tm (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Bei den möglichen Ursachen habe ich nicht geschrieben, dass es so ist, sondern dass es möglicherweise so sein könnte. Die Vagina einer zur Prostitution gezwungenen Frau kann nach einem "Arbeitstag" auch so aussehen. Ich kann den Zustand einer Vulva und eines Scheideneingangs als Biologin sehr wohl beurteilen, da ich selbst eine Frau bin. Wir müssen hier nicht über die Ursachen spekulieren, denn eine Diagnose wurde in der Bildquelle nicht beigefügt, aber es handelt sich auf jeden Fall und einen pathologischen Befund. Das kann man sehen. Deshalb gehört diese Frau in eine gynäkologische Arztpraxis und ihre geschundene Scheide sollte nicht von irgend einem Mann, erkennbar an den behaarten Händen, auf einem Sofa zur Schau gestellt werden.
Mein Löschantrag bezieht sich primär auf die anderen Fotos, die wiederholt unbefugt mit dem gleichen Bildnamen hochgeladen wurden.
In the possible causes, I did not write that it is so, but that it could possibly be so. The vagina of a woman forced into prostitution can also look like this after a "day's work". I can judge the condition of a vulva and vaginal entrance very well as a biologist, because I am a woman myself. We do not need to speculate on the causes here, because a diagnosis was not included in the picture source, but it is definitely a pathological finding. This can be seen. That is why this woman belongs in a gynaecological doctor's surgery and her battered vagina should not be displayed on a sofa by some man, recognisable by his hairy hands.
My deletion request refers primarily to the other photos that were repeatedly uploaded with the same picture name in violation of the rules. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
So sieht eine gesunder Scheideneingang aus.
This is what a healthy vaginal entrance looks like.
File:Vaginal opening description.jpg Sciencia58 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Es ist eine Ironie, dass gerade das hier diskutierte Foto den Bildnamen "Human Vagina" hat, denn von Menschlichkeit und Wahrung der weiblichen Würde ist hier nichts zu erkennen. Wenn es ein Foto aus einer Arztpraxis wäre, wäre es in Ordnung.
It is ironic that the photo under discussion here has the image name "Human Vagina", because there is no sign of humanity or respect for female dignity here. If it were a photo from a doctor's office, it would be fine. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The photo is not suitable for articels about the normal healty vagina [4]. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Again more libelous allegations like " woman forced into prostitution can also look like this after a "day's work"", using links to article related with suspected child sexual abuse and so trying to equate this image with it.
- About your claimed qualifications and field of expertise, the fact that you are a woman is totally irrelevant to the case in point (or any other social and\or phisical gender), but your claims of being something along of an biologist is relevant but yet you provide zero proof of your expertise, just claiming to be an "studied geographer" and, now, an biologist. If you are an biologist, you very well know that this is a large umbrella to various specializations and not medical qualification like being a gynaecologist. Until proven to the contrary all you have said is mere unproven and potentially libelous wil speculation. Tm (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. It might be this image shows redness due to intensive penetration. This is not a reason for deletion. Discussion about the use of the image can occur on the projects, not at Commons. --Elly (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Die anderen Fotos die unten regelwidrig als "neue Versionen" hochgeladen wurden, müssen hier entfernt werden. I meine diese: [5] und [6]. Es ist nicht erlaubt verschiedene Fotos mit demselben Bildnamen im selben File zu haben.
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20210114123620%21Human_Vagina.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20201209104241%21Human_Vagina.jpg){kind=link}
The other photos below, which were uploaded as new versions in contravention of the rules, must be deleted here. I mean those: [7] and [8]. It is not allowed to have different photos with the same filename in the same file. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Tm, in Germany, all teachers who teach in college have studied at least two subjects at university and taken a first and a second state examination in them. I would recommend that you watch your tone a bit. While you are at it, linking things that have nothing to do with the topic here, I hereby give you the opportunity to find out what really happened in december 2020: [9] and [10]. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sciencia58#File:Incorrect_proof_for_the_curvature_of_the_earth.png){kind=link}
Regarding the photo "Human vagina", I have not accused anyone of our Wikipedia colleagues, not even the person who uploaded it to Wikimedia commons. She or he is not responsible for the circumstances in which it was taken. She or he did not realise that a man was reaching around the woman from behind, forcibly pulling her vulva apart so that another person could photograph her and upload the picture somewhere. The photo exists on several porn websites, presumably it came from there. We cannot determine how it got there.
It cannot be ruled out that personal rights and the woman's right to sexual self-determination were violated when the photo was taken, because as she had wanted to be photographed in this way, she would have pulled her labia apart with her own fingers, just like the other women of whom we have such photos. This would not have required hairy male hands grabbing her from behind.
Thus, it is questionable whether her vagina has been rubbed for so long with her consent until it was so red and swollen. A vagina does not look like this after a single vaginal intercourse. My husband can do really long, but mine never looked like that in my life.
This has nothing to do with our Wikimedia colleagues. They were not present when the woman was treated like that. If colleagues have added the image to WP articles, it's because they didn't notice. That doesn't change what we see when we look with reason.
If we keep the picture, we will have to rename it, because there is no sign of "humane" in the sense of human-friendly, on the contrary. A more appropriate name for the picture would be "sore swollen vagina", or "woman in the grip of a man".
I would like to point out once again that the other two photos uploaded in between can be deleted without discussion. Sciencia58 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
AFBorchert, es tut mir leid, dass ich Dich mit so etwas belästigen muss, es geht um die ganz anderen Fotos, die unter demselben Bildnahmen als "neue Version" hochgeladen wurden. Es ist unstrittig, dass die entfernt werden müssen. Könntest Du das bitte machen?
I'm sorry to have to bother you with something like this, it's about the completely different photos that were uploaded as a "new version" under the same image name. It is indisputable that they have to be removed. Could you please do that? Sciencia58 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will comment the other points latter, but just to show how Sciencia58 acts, this user opened this deletion request two days after removing this same image from several uses like on Thai wikitionary, esperanto wikipedia or russian wikinews. This are blatant bad faith actions, specially after two previous deletion requests with the same old unproven, false and\or potential libelous arguments (as zero concrete proofs have been presented. Tm (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- "other photos below, which were uploaded as new versions in contravention of the rules, must be deleted here", there is a thing called
{{split}}template. Tm (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- "in Germany, all teachers who teach in college have studied at least two subjects at university and taken a first and a second state examination in them" or the fact that claimed to have teached in college (per your own userpage) is irrelevant to the topic, but there are things called intellectual, academic and scientific integrity and honesty, things that you, by stealthly removing this image from its uses and opening another deletion request with the same arguments, failed miserably.
- The rest is a retexting of all the previous things you have said is mere unproven and potentially libelous wild speculation. Also file in use in eo.wikipedia.org Vagino, ru.wikinews.org Лента новостей 11 апреля 2014 года and ta.wiktionary.org ஜனனேந்திரியம். Tm (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- "other photos below, which were uploaded as new versions in contravention of the rules, must be deleted here", there is a thing called
- If you want to stop it from being overwritten, you need to change the file name to something unique, perhaps by adding the date it was taken into the file name. This happens a lot when the file name is too simple. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: the file, deleted the later versions. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Image non used by any user or page of the micronation "Helianthis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Without additional information not of educational use and therefore out of scope per COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Не соответствует к реальности. По этому рисунку якобы 70% территории Узбекистана не говорит по узбекский. Это внушение ложную информацию — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.176.74.51 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, insufficient reason for deletion, file has 51 global usages. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Естественно, ни о чем таком на самом рисунке и в его описании не говорится. Можно было бы предположить, что номинатор плохо знает русский язык и понять описание не способен - но там есть описание на узбекском вроде как. Удалить стоит версию File:География узбекского языка.jpg - там, видимо, автор взял эту карту и поводил по ней кисточкой согласно собственным фантазиям, без какой-либо привязки к источникам. 176.195.195.192 07:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Is there an academic source for the map? The file description says "Own work", this smells of original research. 86.57.255.94 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nevermind, found one. However the source paints a slightly different picture. Hence Delete 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nevermind, found one. However the source paints a slightly different picture. Hence
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Should be first discussed on the projects. If removed from the projects, please start discussion again. --Elly (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Who is she? What is the scope? E4024 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- Keep Naeema El Zarif, well known Turkish Digital Nomad, founder of the The Fifth Corp, Communication Consultant at at least one UNESCO program, and more. But I think this may be enough.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- She is not Turkish. The US Ambassador in Ankara lives in Turkey but is not Turkish either. Returning to her, I doubt her notability but correctly categorized the file may stay, as our scope concept is different from notability, if you kindly work on it. What do other people think? --E4024 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: after 9 months not used on the projects. Imho not educational usefull and therefore out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Image non used by any user or page of the micronation "Helianthis", copy of File:Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Considering 4 different deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This Coat of Arms of the Principality of Helianthis (micronation) is not up to date, and is the result of a personal creation used nowhere for encyclopaedic content . In the future, if a new coat of arms is published, and attached to an article, its usefulness may be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Considering 4 different deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Image non used by any user or page. Wrong coat of arms of the micronation "Helianthis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Considering 4 different deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This map of the Principality of Helianthis (micronation) is not up to date, and is the result of a personal creation used nowhere for encyclopaedic content . In the future, if a new map is published, and attached to an article, its usefulness may be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Considering 4 different deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Derivative works of video game may be copyrighted by the game company.
Larryasou (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivative works of video game may be copyrighted by the game company. Jesnse (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- The poster was at the corner of a public street. If my reading of copyright for India is correct, then photographing this poster is allowed.50.207.57.170 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @50.207.57.170 and Jonathansammy: Per COM:FOP India, as one of the colonial countries of UK, Indian FOP rules are similar to UK. Posters and murals are categorized as "graphic works", and they are excluded in FOP exception. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- DearA1Cafel, According to UK law "Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher -v- Restawile [1976] AC 64, it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art." This poster is just an advertisement announcing a public meeting in the neighborhood which was going to be attended by local politicians. That being the case, is it considered a work of art? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.207.57.170 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{GODL-India}} applies or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The photo's on the poster might be copyrighted as well by the photographers. No proof this is work of the Indian government. --Elly (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ethiopia A1Cafel (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP Ethiopia. --Elly (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not own, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FC_Shakhtar_Donetsk.svg Andrei (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Image non used by any user profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: After considering 4 other deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Image non used by any user or page on wikipedia. Wrong coat of arms linked to Helianthis (micronation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: After considering 4 other deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Image non used by any user or page of the micronation "Helianthis". — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaps (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: After considering 4 other deletion requests of these 4 images, File:CARTE D'HELIANTHIS.jpg, File:Blason d'Hélianthis.png, File:Hélianthis.png, File:Le Prince Vincent Ier d'Hélianthis.jpg, concluded none of these are used on the projects. No basis found for the existence of an entity Helianthis. So these images can be considered to be of no educational value and should be deleted because they are out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Uploader is the subject depicted in the photo. Requires COM:OTRS permission from original photographer. ƏXPLICIT 11:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
undesirable Sergeyveremeevi (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unkown person, not used on project, not of educational use and therefore not in COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Guten Abend, ich habe gerade einen Artikel über einen Coach fertiggestellt. Dieser Artikel ist ebenso relevant für Wikipedia wie Artikel über andere Coaches wie beispielsweise Tony Robbins oder Tobias Beck und Dr Stefan Frädrich. Die Coaching Methode, die ich ebenfalls in einem Artikel beschreibe, ist ein eingetragenes Markenzeichen, das europaweit gilt. Und ist eine Coaching-Methode, wie jede andere anerkannte Methode. Psychoanalyse, Verhaltenstherapie oder systemisches Coaching gibt es doch auch auf Wikipedia. Somit ist es gerechtfertigt, dass man solche Informationen und damit auch das Philanthropische Coaching in Wikipedia findet. Ich bitte ausdrücklich darum, diese Artikel nicht zu löschen, da ich weder Geld für die Erstellung erhalten habe. Noch bin ich selbst der Coach, sondern ein Schreiber wie jeder andere bei Wikipedia, der sich viel Mühe bei der Erstellung gemacht hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ida Universum (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ida Universum (talk · contribs)
[edit]Various derivative works of COM:NETCOPYVIO stock photos File:Sven bartosch mein zuhause 1.jpg is from this; File:Sven bartosch mein beruf 1.jpg is from this, etc.
- File:Hüpf.jpg
- File:Sven bartosch mein beruf 1.jpg
- File:Sven bartosch mein zuhause 1.jpg
- File:Sven bartosch mein ich 1.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Van an Admin please delete this??? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:4DD7:A2EA:0:81AC:D56:C9C8:5C59 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Bogus self/CC claim (see, for example, here) of organisation logo. COM:EVID of permission, and indeed that this is not also COM:SPAM, needed. Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: related "article" (de:Benutzer:Ida Universum/Philanthropisches Coaching) has been deleted - thus also COM:SCOPE/COM:NOTHOST issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr. Banana Pants Face (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused fantasy flags, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Flag Of U.S. Minor Outlying Islands (Proposal).png
- File:Flag of Norwegian Antarctica.png
- File:Flag of the Federated States of Antarctica.png
- File:Flag Of Brazilian Antarctica.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, please remove. Pure fantasy! --TU-nor (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. GPinkerton (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Two images were used on a list of flags of Korean Wikipedia, but considered a mistake or a wish for completeness without checking sources. --Elly (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajas.triton (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused documents of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:Mobile-payment-apps-efficiency-of-modern-day-banking.pdf
- File:The-growing-prominence-of-kombucha.jpg
- File:Is-online-learning-the-new-normal-and-the-future-of-the-educational-landscape.pdf
- File:China-tops-the-leader-board-in-the-covid-19-vaccine-race.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to the nominator's rationale, the files appear to be for the purpose of self-promotion. Marbletan (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine for sculptures and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is post-WWII sculpture. Taivo (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination.Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, etc F (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not in COM:SCOPE, no educational use. --Elly (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This image is unlikely to look like the user's work, but the user declares that he is the copyright owner, which I can't confirm. Therefore, this discussion is proposed. LClightcat (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong license (PD-UA-exempt). These logos largely surpass the TOO, and if they are "exempt" from copyright for any reason, a proof shoud be given. The club is not govt-owned. Andrei (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep Law says: символи та знаки підприємств, установ та організацій — symbols and signs of companies, instututions, organisations. Nothing about govt-owned organisations. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by YarikUkraine, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pfcsumy embl.png.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of Anatoliy, per [{Template:PD-UA-exempt]]. --Elly (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyright issue Easypeasypeaky (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, own image, per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Used in somebody's user page in fr.wiki who is very concerned about oil prices? Seems like a niche clip art. Doubt COM:EDUSE BriefEdits (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Wrong license (PD-UA-exempt). These logos largely surpass the TOO, and if they are "exempt" from copyright for any reason, a proof shoud be given. Andrei (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Law says: символи та знаки підприємств, установ та організацій — symbols and signs of companies, instututions, organisations. Nothing about govt-owned organisations.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per Anatoliy. --Elly (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright label is still intact. I doubt that uploader is the original creator. Seems like potential copyvio. BriefEdits (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. Exif data show the image is copyrighted, other name then uploader. --Elly (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:FC Desna.png Andrei (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Template:PD-UA-exempt tells us: symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations. Consequently this logo is PD in country of origin/Ukraine. --Elly (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems like copyvio. Has been used prior to 2016 at this website and the uploader has uploaded a lot of questionable files. I'm not really sure what's the context of this photo and any potential copyright implications, but this seems to be a photo of a private group indoors, so it's probably safe to delete anyway. Per COM:NOTUSED. BriefEdits (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a repurposed stock photo. Some version of it was used in March 6, 2016 here. The quality if also really low. Probably copyvio. BriefEdits (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair use in wikipedia. See en:File:Bayugan-city-ph-seal.jpg Larryasou (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The flag or seal is not a work of the Philippine government (which are PD) but of a local commuinty (not in PD). The age is not know, so deleted per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Used for spam. IWI (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Non-notable person. IWI (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
this is very clearly flickrwashed and uploaded by a spam sock Praxidicae (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a picture of the singer Liza Jane and it was uploaded on Flickr under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). I don't believe it is entitled for deletion. I tried searching for that image online and it does not seem available anywhere else. Therefore, it does not seem a spam sock. Please let me know if I can be of any further help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywon123 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion, as per User:Haywon123. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Out of scope. Creation of cross-wiki spammer. IWI (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no article on En:WP since 9 months. Not used, not of educational value and therefore out of scope, per COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2003, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete forum now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area. Consensus remains: no Commons-acceptable or commercial FOP in Indonesia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2003, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete forum now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area. Consensus remains: no Commons-acceptable or commercial FOP in Indonesia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2003, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete forum now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area. Consensus remains: no Commons-acceptable or commercial FOP in Indonesia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2003, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete forum now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area. Consensus remains: no Commons-acceptable or commercial FOP in Indonesia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation, no free license at https://www.wecarestl.org/ Verbcatcher (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Howhontanozaz as no permission (No permission since) Verbcatcher (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Speedy delete, the sculpture is public domain (by Creator:Franz Xaver Messerschmidt who died in 1783), but the photograph is by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, without a free license at the declared source. (I reverted by speedy delete tag in error.) Verbcatcher (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of scope - not notable. Created by globally locked spam sockpuppet. IWI (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, possibly copyrighted per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, either by Garry Trudeau or a derivative work based on his Doonesbury cartoons. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also delete File:Dbury characters 10-20 250x359PX.jpg, a smaller version of the same image from the same uploader. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Living artist. --Elly (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Unclear copyright, possible violation. Reverse Google Image search result shows a version in color. RXerself (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
cover needed OTRS permission Caulfield (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation, redrawing of copyrighted Disney character.[11] Verbcatcher (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative work of copyrighted design. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
inadequately specified origins, inaccurate claim of own work. The central image is an undeclared copy of File:Delhi India Government.jpg, which is by a different author. The source is declared as 'Wikimedia Commons', but as the original authors are not specified it is impossible to satisfy the attribution requirement of the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- All the photos in this file have been taken from Wikimedia Commons, and they were all under creative commons license, so I can't see the problem. If it wasn't clear, the pictures I used for this file are file:Downtown Old Delhi (1580818209).jpg (made by Francisco Anzola), file:11 statues,delhi - panoramio.jpg (made by rajaraman sundaram), file:Delhi India Government.jpg (made by Laurie Jones), file:Dr Ambedkar Colony, Chhattarpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030, India - panoramio (7).jpg (made by akash dwivedi), file:Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, Delhi 110055, India - panoramio - yamarhythm (2).jpg (made by yamarhythm) and file:India Gate in New Delhi 03-2016.jpg (made by A.Savin). Yiftaa (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license requires users of the file to give 'appropriate credit'. To enable our users to meet the terms of this license you need to identify every photographer whose work was used in the image, and probably yourself as the creator of the montage. 'Author' should include a list of the photographers of all the component images, and 'Source' should be a list of the source files on Commons. You also need to ensure that the license you assign to the composite image is compatible with the licenses of all the component images. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Yiftaa: please see Commons:Collages. It is probably possible to make this file acceptable by changing the declared source and author on the file page, and possibly changing the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- All the photos in this file have been taken from Wikimedia Commons, and they were all under creative commons license, so I can't see the problem. If it wasn't clear, the pictures I used for this file are file:Downtown Old Delhi (1580818209).jpg (made by Francisco Anzola), file:11 statues,delhi - panoramio.jpg (made by rajaraman sundaram), file:Delhi India Government.jpg (made by Laurie Jones), file:Dr Ambedkar Colony, Chhattarpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030, India - panoramio (7).jpg (made by akash dwivedi), file:Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, Delhi 110055, India - panoramio - yamarhythm (2).jpg (made by yamarhythm) and file:India Gate in New Delhi 03-2016.jpg (made by A.Savin). Yiftaa (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: The file page does not list the names of the original authors and the licensing, which is required according CC-BY-SA license. If uploader provides a list of authors/licenses, the image can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Inadequately specified origins, inaccurate claim of own work. One of the components is File:Robert Crumb - Lucca Comics & Games 2014 1.JPG which is by a different author. The source is declared as 'Wikimedia Commons', but as the original authors are not specified it is impossible to satisfy the attribution requirement of the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I said at Commons:Deletion requests/File:שקופית1.png - all the pictures came from Wikimedia commons and they were all under creative commons license. Yiftaa (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please see my reply at that page. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Collages. It is probably possible to make this file acceptable by changing the declared source and author on the file page, and possibly changing the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- As I said at Commons:Deletion requests/File:שקופית1.png - all the pictures came from Wikimedia commons and they were all under creative commons license. Yiftaa (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: The file page does not list the names of the original authors and the licensing, which is required according CC-BY-SA license. If uploader provides a list of authors/licenses, the image can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that "povorachivay" is author of that photo and owns copyright. This is pictured on a official meeting of russian federal assembly, no ordinaty people are allowed to picture there. Looks like official copyrighted work of authorized photographer, like https://www.flickr.com/photos/sf_press/albums/72157712780818423/with/49423732746/. + no EXIF metadata, found elsewhere on internet. Drakosh (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
School logo, unlikely that the uploader is the author.[12][13] Verbcatcher (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused text-only IM fragment in Polish with unremarkable typesetting. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:SCOPE, as the image is text only. --Elly (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Not own work. Compilation of movie posters and other images available on-line.
- File:Gekiringekirin.jpg
- File:Vastlogo.jpg
- File:Songgainsonggain.png
- File:Aaaasssss.jpg
- File:Aaaeeeeee.jpg
- File:Rampantrampant.jpg
- File:Alhamalhamalhambra.jpg
- File:Koreandramaaa.jpg
- File:Confidentialconfidential.jpg
- File:Negotiaitionnegoti.jpg
- File:Lateautumn.jpg
- File:Kun Swindlers.png
Smooth O (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Most were deleted already. The logo Vastlogo is deleted, due to the low threshold of originality of Japan, although the logo is fairly simple, per COM:TOO Japan. --Elly (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
g11 Piarap89 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, g11 is not the case, per COM:SPEEDY. --Elly (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This picture may be from books, not free original file. Copyvio? 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and [[COM:PRP}}, uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This picture may be from books, not free original file. Copyvio? 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and [[COM:PRP}}, uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Probably profile picture from academia.edu here. File name is the same. Rocky187 (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
trabalho nao concluido Íris Galaxy extended (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete O trabalho não está in scope. --E4024 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination of uploader and per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination of uploader and per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
J'ai changé d'avis, je ne désire plus qu'il soit visible publiquement SchweppesAlex (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination of uploader and per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Private usage? No educational value. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
رفعته عن طريق الخطأ Jamal9111 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: request is by original uploader. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination of uploader and per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Result: Deleted under duplicate file criteria
Various "different" versions of this file was overwritten by the uploader (me, the nominator). This is causing various problems with the file and I want to re upload the current version to avoid further problems. 245CMR (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 245CMR (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright holder All Images are property of Amy Jo Photography www.amyjophotography.com - is this really PD-GOV? Its much higher resolution than the one at source Gbawden (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. This is not a photo of the federal gov as on the used license, but of Georgia. --Elly (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Looks like a screenshot from the logo here. (A bit of leftover logo is there too, see the top-most right corner of the Commons version.)
- Likely doesn't mean the threshold of originality, so it's possibly a copyright violation.
Perryprog (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- And I now realize that there's also File:Loga School DSC.jpg, which likely qualifies for deletion for the same reasons. (Apologizes, I'm not sure the best way to "add" this to the DR.) Perryprog (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, threshold of originality is like the US, per [[COM:TOO India}}, this logo consists only of text and of simple geometrical shapes. --Elly (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work but an old work. Please indicate photographer and publication to decide if it is public domain. E4024 (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, User:Nikrouz kianouri, please also tell us who she is, to see if she is in scope. --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no comment of uploader. --Elly (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no permission (No permission since) Obviously a selfie which meet COM:GCSD#F10 Larryasou (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not a selfie, but in any case out of scope. --Elly (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:統計用派圖.jpg
- File:六年制學程專題及選修.png
- File:六年制學程領域學習六段故事.png
- File:六年制學程工具能力.png
- File:六年制學程課程區塊.jpg
- File:六年制學程課程理念.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
不可以刪除
- File:統計用派圖.jpg用於中文維基教科書：「初中數學/統計與機率」頁中
- 以下五張圖用於中文維基百科：「振鐸學會」條目頁中
Kept: in use. --Jcb (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Private image collections.
SCP-2000 13:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Complex logo exceeding Hong Kong's very low TOO. Wcam (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
undesirable Sergeyveremeevi (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, personal photo, not used, so out of COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Photos before 1970 are PD-Lebanon. This one is at least 1975. Maudslay II (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: As the subject disappeared in 1978 according to , this photo is of 1978 or earlier. According Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon anonymous works are protected for 50 years after publication. So this image might be undeleted in 1978+51=2029. In any case, it can be considered at that time again. . --Elly (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photos before 1970 are PD-Lebanon. This one is at least 1975. Maudslay II (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As the subject disappeared in 1978 according to , this photo is of 1978 or earlier. According Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon anonymous works are protected for 50 years after publication. So this image might be undeleted in 1978+51=2029. In any case, it can be considered at that time again. . --Elly (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photos before 1970 are PD-Lebanon. This one is at least 1975. Maudslay II (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: As the subject disappeared in 1978 according to , this photo is of 1978 or earlier. According Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lebanon anonymous works are protected for 50 years after publication. So this image might be undeleted in 1978+51=2029. In any case, it can be considered at that time again. . --Elly (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Quakewoody as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: if this person even exists, this is a copyright issue. I am not sure. One week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank for the opportunity to expand upon my reasoning:
- If this person exists - because the troll farm that posted it has been known to use CGI to create people. And photoshop in minor cases where the person does actually exist.
- If this person exists - because the troll farm that posted it has tried to have this name ((Amir Hossein Mahmoodi, and numerous spelling variations)) created for over a year. One day he is a scientist. The next a sportsmen (at least two different sports). And he is even a musician (a violin playing EDM DJ and classical conductor who sings pop music). Sometimes he is all three
(check the category page). As well as minor occupations like public/motivational speaker or blogger. - copyright - if it is real, it is the team photo.
- Those are more detailed reasons than what I can get in an edit summary. Quakewoody (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - The photo is small and is of low quality, and it also lacks metadata. Furthermore, it has been uploaded by a globally locked LTA with a long history of uploading copyright violations and claiming they are his "own work", or uploading unfree photos and tagging them as works by Tasnim, an Iranian news agency which releasses its content under a CC-BY license. Hence, I think the file should be deleted. Ahmadtalk 19:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- just to toss this out there - does this guy look anything like this guy. If the editor(s) are to be believed, they are the same person. Quakewoody (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author Holostenko has died on May 3, 1978. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Per COM:FOP Ukraine, no copyleft photo’s can be made until 70 years after the death of the designer of Saksaganskogo, 65, which was uk:Холостенко Микола В'ячеславович. He died in 1978, so the image can be undeleted in 2049. .. --Elly (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author Holostenko has died on May 3, 1978. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Per COM:FOP Ukraine, no copyleft photo’s can be made until 70 years after the death of the designer of Saksaganskogo, 65, which was uk:Холостенко Микола В'ячеславович. He died in 1978, so the image can be undeleted in 2049. .. --Elly (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author Holostenko has died on May 3, 1978. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Per COM:FOP Ukraine, no copyleft photo’s can be made until 70 years after the death of the designer of Saksaganskogo, 65, which was uk:Холостенко Микола В'ячеславович. He died in 1978, so the image can be undeleted in 2049. .. --Elly (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
"Own work" it does not look like. Publication and author info is needed. E4024 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep Mohammad Rasool Shirazi is died since 32 years ago and there is no possible way to take new photo of him. So that we have to find a photo which is not published by another source or author. This photo has been taken from his old Birth certificate and up to now has not been directly published by any website or book and so on. Any one who is curious about that can seach for it in google. Thanks.5.117.72.98 11:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep it's not any where, my opinion, 91.251.255.65 19:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is not a valid argument that there are no other photo's available of this person. Because the photo is still copyrighted (when anonymous for 120 years after the photo was taken), the photo cannot be maintained. --Elly (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.46.38 15:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Answer: This is the contribution from my open-access article: Pashkevich M.A., Alekseenko A.V. (2020) Reutilization Prospects of Diamond Clay Tailings at the Lomonosov Mine, Northwestern Russia. Minerals, 10 (6): 517, https://doi.org/10.3390/min10060517 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepneeder (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose deletion.From the article web site: "This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." So, yes, it appears this is legit, and this deletion request should be declined and closed. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- Delete. I see in the paper itself that this image is credited to Bing Satellite. That's almost certainly not open licensed.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". Metadata suggests this photo came from Facebook. Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio, artist +1977, no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and undelete in 1977+71=2048. For date of death see de: Willy_Guggenheim. --Elly (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2021 (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) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate version of [:File:Vicunacrop.jpg] Boylarva99 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:DUPE. --Elly (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcelle51 (talk · contribs)
[edit]First image of clipart is unlikely to be theirs.
Second image consists of a man in a fluffy pigs head *mask" - Not sure how this can be considered in scope?
Third is the side of a van - No idea what the van is and no coords were included so other than it being taken in Spain there's no clues as to what the vehicle is or where it is
Thanks,
* File:Creatividad e innovacion.jpg
–Davey2010Talk 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Identified van so have categorised it and struck here. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio, derivative work of protected game board Vätte (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and [[Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games. --Elly (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio, seems to be derivative work of protected game board Vätte (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games. --Elly (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio, derivative work of protected game board Vätte (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games. --Elly (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
This image use is not authorized and infringes on my privacy rights. Josephine Meckseper JMXStudio (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Please refer to : "Lorsque les actes mentionnés aux 1° et 2° du présent article ont été accomplis au vu et au su des intéressés sans qu'ils s'y soient opposés, alors qu'ils étaient en mesure de le faire, le consentement de ceux-ci est présumé." Josephine Meckseper is posing for the picture, so it is obvious the picture was taken "au vu et au su de l'intéressée". --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion and per remark of Pa2chant.bis. --Elly (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Portrait drawing out of scope Drakosh (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Masti (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- do not delete this, masti has special interest to delete it and nobody else (unless he calls his polish wikimafia), file speaks for itself and it i9s logo for teyli! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.193.55.126 (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- No comments on the scope of this file, but this can be re-licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. --Minoraxtalk 09:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- i agree with user 156, masti has special interest to delete this file and his explanation makes no sense as usual, so file must stay!!!134.56.57.237 21:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not used, out of scope. --Elly (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no information on the original author, original publication date and location. There is no confirmation that the original author is ok with currently used license. The original uploader was Andriy.v at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nice try. The source publish the work under CC license.--Andriy.v (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The reference that in the image which you uploaded you have called as "source" doesn't have the rights on the image in the first place. They found someone's image and used it without specifying the name of the photographer. It's like if I will take someone else's work and then publish it under CC license without getting permission from the actual photographer of the image and without mentioning his name. Check out page 290 of this book Альманах Станиславівської землі : збірник матеріялів до історії Станиславова і Станиславівщини т. 2 published in New York in 1985 and you can see this same exact image (the PDF is not very good, but the actual book has much better quality of the image). So we can't have false source from 2009 mentioned as the source that copied the original image without mentioning the real source that was present in 1985. And there are other early publications as well. But we can't take older photo and falsely change the license to CC based on a republication of the photo (unless ORIGINAL author gives such permission). Plus there are the same images of better resolution online (1,2, 3) with better resolution available. And that again proves the thesis that your "source" is not the original source and you can't just randomly choose some non-original source which looks appealing as the falsely claim that they can provide the data under CC. Doctor Architect (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. The original author is one of the most famous un trustiest encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is redacted by en:National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which is a state-funded organization. If we can't trust a state founded organizazion - so who we can trust? This is just a senceless nomination.--Andriy.v (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting the information. Whoever you call "the original author" is NOT the original author of the image as was shown above. They are authors of the compiled text (actual sources of the text can be seen in the bottom) and then they have added image, which as we saw has no source mentioned, no author mentioned and we saw that the image was used before which proves that they are not the original creator of the image. Hence they are NOT "the original author" as you try to present them.
- Your sentence, quote: "If we can't trust a state founded organizazion - so who we can trust?" is entirely incorrect. This sentence assumes that any state-funded organization can't by definition violate any rules, which is entirely absurd. In fact we can see plenty of examples that prove otherwise. No need to try to hide copyright violations under alleged notability of the violator. Organizations are made from people (joining organization doesn't automatically make those people holy). On top of this, various law violations specifically in this Ukrainian academy mentioend by you are widely known (an example, another and etc.). With this particular source we already saw multiple examples that they don't know how to properly handle image copyrights or on purpose manipulate the original image. And this is not the only example (another example uploaded by you, and etc.). State or non-state owned status doesn't give permission to ignore attribution to original source of the image and author of the photography (or mentioning that it's unknown). Above we already saw prof beyond reasonable doubt that this so called "original author" (which it's not) doesn't honor original author and original source which violates the copyright rules.
- Perhaps instead of trying to find any possible excuse to defend this image with the copyright violation which you have uploaded you might want to find an image which doesn't violate the rules and use it instead. Doctor Architect (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. The original author is one of the most famous un trustiest encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is redacted by en:National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which is a state-funded organization. If we can't trust a state founded organizazion - so who we can trust? This is just a senceless nomination.--Andriy.v (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The reference that in the image which you uploaded you have called as "source" doesn't have the rights on the image in the first place. They found someone's image and used it without specifying the name of the photographer. It's like if I will take someone else's work and then publish it under CC license without getting permission from the actual photographer of the image and without mentioning his name. Check out page 290 of this book Альманах Станиславівської землі : збірник матеріялів до історії Станиславова і Станиславівщини т. 2 published in New York in 1985 and you can see this same exact image (the PDF is not very good, but the actual book has much better quality of the image). So we can't have false source from 2009 mentioned as the source that copied the original image without mentioning the real source that was present in 1985. And there are other early publications as well. But we can't take older photo and falsely change the license to CC based on a republication of the photo (unless ORIGINAL author gives such permission). Plus there are the same images of better resolution online (1,2, 3) with better resolution available. And that again proves the thesis that your "source" is not the original source and you can't just randomly choose some non-original source which looks appealing as the falsely claim that they can provide the data under CC. Doctor Architect (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: the source website shows this photo is published with a CC-BY-SA license. We cannot doubt everything imho. I did not find versions with larger resolution on the internet. --Elly (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Per their website, "Images of artworks the Museum believes to be in the public domain are available for download" however it also says "By downloading this image you agree to the MFA’s Terms of Use" which includes this restriction "COPYING OR REDISTRIBUTION IN ANY MANNER FOR COMMERCIAL USE, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION, OR FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. To license images, users should contact MFA Images at mfaimages@mfa.org" Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- If a work is in the public domain, it cannot be copyrighted or restricted in the USA, regardless of what boilerplate terms & conditions state. Agencies try to falsely claim ownership for public domain images all the time. There is a possible case here that while the statue is likely public domain (created 120 years ago, artist dead for more than 70 years), the derivative photograph might not be. There is clearly ambiguity in the Museum's offering of ostensibly public domain work for download, and then placing restrictions on that work. More research is needed. --Animalparty (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Animalparty: The museum is asserting their copyrights on the photos they create which are derivatives of the underlying objects. My deletion request concerns the photograph, not the sculpture. Yes, I agree with you that the sculpture is public domain however the photo is not. The terms of the museum are clear, no commercial use for any of their copyrighted works published in their website. They offer free downloads of their photos only for fair use. Keep in mind that allowing free downloads does not in any way release works into the public domain. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- If I may add also, where in the website did you locate the CC-Zero license? Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Animalparty: The museum is asserting their copyrights on the photos they create which are derivatives of the underlying objects. My deletion request concerns the photograph, not the sculpture. Yes, I agree with you that the sculpture is public domain however the photo is not. The terms of the museum are clear, no commercial use for any of their copyrighted works published in their website. They offer free downloads of their photos only for fair use. Keep in mind that allowing free downloads does not in any way release works into the public domain. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and the terms of use read al is copyrighted, per https://www.mfa.org/about/terms-of-use. FAIR USE PERMITTED, but COPYING OR REDISTRIBUTION IN ANY MANNER FOR COMMERCIAL USE, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL PUBLICATION, OR FOR PERSONAL GAIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. So the image cannot be used with the licenses of Commons, wich permit commercial use. --Elly (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Agnibhu Mandal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Each of these needs a copyright check. en:Flip the Frog claims, without a source, that the character and cartoons are still under copyright. This would suggest that File:Flip the Frog opening title.jpg is not in the public domain. The rest need to be checked against copyright-renewal databases.
- File:Walter Lantz Productions.jpg
- File:Scrappy.jpg
- File:Terrytoons.jpg
- File:ComiColor.jpg
- File:Rainbow Parade.jpg
- File:Flip the Frog opening title.jpg
Davidwr (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. As since 9 months nobody checked database, deleted per COM:PRP. Can be undelete after a database check. --Elly (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Howhontanozaz as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO, this image might well serve as a stock-image showing a non-staged family scene of a childs birthday party. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep --Achim (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - The description says: "me at my 11th birthday" so this photo is not taken by the uploader, but by somebody else. Therefore the photo cannot be licensed with CC-BY-SA by the uploader. Therefore the photo has to be deleted. Elly (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per my own remark and per nomination. --Elly (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt in license. Depicted person died in 1932 and the photo was apparently made shortly before that. How can we be sure, that the photographer is 70 years dead? When and where the photo was published? Source link is dead. Taivo (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I second that. No proof that the image can be used under stated license. Delete. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be safely undeleted 120 years after picture was taken, which is ultimately 1932. 1932+121=2053 . --Elly (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dan3031949 (talk · contribs)
[edit]As far as I can see, Template:PD-PRC-exempt cover seal and coat of arms only developed by law or document issued by government agency (e.g. flag), but should not extend to common seals. Therefore, the information which is sufficient to prove the license tag applicable is required.
Larryasou (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment to explain situation. --Elly (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ytoyoda as Logo
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image was uploaded in 2005 and carries a declaration of permission. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: kept per remark of Turelio and per Commons:Grandfathered old files. --Elly (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Not own work but screenshot of copyrighted software (Microsoft Windows). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator--2.134.58.200 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD - 1965 magazine and 2002 film are not early enough PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. Uploader did not comment to give more background. --Elly (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Logo of a YouTube channel, definitely not own work of the uploader https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqkZPeA4gaWSG7ttc6P2-xA Grafferrtt (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Metadata suggests this image is copyrighted. TJMSmith (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- from https://web.archive.org/web/20160308014239/http://www.genvagula.com/About-Me , photographer is Gen Vagula (online presence https://www.instagram.com/genvagula/ ). his permission should be sought.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and in peace; we have many images in her cat. E4024 (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot of a signature, definitely not own work of the uploader. Grafferrtt (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of COM:SCOPE. Not used on projects. --Elly (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
All of the files uploaded by this user are not his own work and are a copyright violation. (see: [14] [15] [16] [17]) Grafferrtt (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WOSP_-_Dariusz_Kulik.png){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Book_-_Turbulencja.png){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Logo_-_Turbulencja_(kana%C5%82_YouTube).jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zrzut_ekranu_2020-03-27_o_21.15.10.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scaled down duplicate of File:Janis Dumins jauns.jpg Papuass (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Source image is deleted as well. --Elly (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Appears to be a screenshot AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader did not comment. Also out of COM:SCOPE, not used. --Elly (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Boylarva99 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader claims this image was taken in India, but it does not appear to depict an Indian rhinoceros. The user has uploaded a number of images which were removed for copyright violations, so I'm thinking this one is probably stolen too. Unfortunately I can't find the original source. The images previously uploaded by the user were all cropped versions of the originals, perhaps to prevent the originals from showing up on reverse image search. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP, as uploader did not comment or explain the copyrighted situation. --Elly (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IceWelder as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Screenshot from Second Life but featuring an avatar not owned by the screenshot author / uploader.
- File:Happy hour in the Biergarten, part of The 1920s Berlin Project, part of the virtual world Second Life.png
- File:Dr. Phil McGraw visits The 1920s Berlin Project, part of the virtual world Second Life and meets Jo Yardley.jpg
- File:Dr. Phil McGraw visits The 1920s Berlin Project, part of the virtual world Second Life.jpg
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per my rationale. Second Life is free in all aspects except avatars. All three of these images feature avatars that the uploader does not own, thus cannot freely release. IceWelder [✉] 21:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Avatars are also free in Second Life, users can choose to change them for free or choose to spend money on what their avatars look like. I think the Dr. Phil one was made by Linden Lab, but not sure. However in the Biergarten shot it's impossible to say who the avatars belong to from that distance and if they spend money on their looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyardley (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Conflicting arguments, deleted per COM:PRP. Please suplly a source for the licensing of avatars in Second Life to get the images undeleted. --Elly (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: EXIF Copyright holder Dr.Bahar Baviskar. Uploader claims they took this with someone else's camera, see File talk:Lesser florican.jpg AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. Other images are available of this bird. --Elly (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yilku1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work, album cover. File is below US TOO, unknown about country of origin (Spain). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, below threshold imho. --Elly (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as Logo. May be below COM:TOO France AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: TOO in France is fairly low. Permission should be sought to obtain permission of the orginazation through the procedure of VRT. If succesful, the image can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The first author Holostenko has died on May 3, 1978. The current claim in the blueprint that the author is unknown is false. Authors of this blueprint can be seen here. On top of this there is no publication date and source, but yet current license falsely states that "if it was published before January 1, 1946 and the creator died before this date". The creator has died in 1978. The original uploader was Rasal Hague at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. the image can be undeleted in 1978+71=2049. . --Elly (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Neera_Tanden_Cabinet_(cropped).jpg Cliffmore (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The image in question is taken from https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/ and cropped thereafter. This image has been authored by The White House. As a work prepared by the United States Federal Government, the media shall be in the public domain and is not copyrighted [18]. I understand that there may have been some copyrighted image of Ms. Neera Tanden, copyright of which was then transferred to The White House [19] for editing. The image was subsequently edited by The White House to publish the same on https://www.whitehouse.gov . The New image, thus created by The White House should qualify as a Work created by the US Government wikisource:United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Sections_105_and_106. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CX Zoom (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- [20]- Derivative Works: The law provides that derivative works, published or unpublished, are independently copyrightable and that the copyright in such a work does not affect or extend the protection, if any, in the underlying work. CX Zoom (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in PD per copyright notice on https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/ . I consider cropping not a creative act (in any case not a simple rectangular cropping). --Elly (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}