Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/02/09
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
I uploaded it by mistake Mahim.mukit.official (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
incorrect CC license permissions for use Ebright82 (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 12:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
problem with VladanaZipalov (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Какав проблем? --Achim (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, replaced by File:Saša Mirković producent.png. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete This is obviously not the uploader's own work. See here, TinEye gives more than 400 search results of the same image that is around in the internet years before this user uploaded this scaled down version on Commons. --Mosbatho (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as an obvious copyright violation. --Storkk (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation of original document Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see why this wouldn't be covered under Crown copyright. The uploader at least claims to be the subject, and while you may own the physical copy of your passport, you don't own the design or even the picture of yourself. That's without concerns about how prudent it is to be hosting this personal information. GMGtalk 13:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. --GMGtalk 01:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Upon second inspection I can't find evidence that this file is based on a notebook from the 1950'$. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:55, 10 Februar 2021 UTC: Upon second inspection I can't find evidence that this file is based on a notebook from the 1950'$. --Krdbot 22:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This picture is on more sites. Etvdv (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete nomination by uploader. Elliot321 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not a public picture 2A02:1811:B217:C300:191D:88A8:DD3B:A652 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete for all the above and also for F10. (When someone OoS gets undressed, does not become in scope suddenly.) --E4024 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
this picture is for free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etvdv (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Closing admin, please keep an eye on trolling also. In case you see around... --E4024 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Nice picture , let it online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etvdv (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
abuse picture sexual intimidation Etvdv (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024 Your ping is so interesting :) (`・ω・´) (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Plain text pdf essay, out of project scope. Achim (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Screenshots, personal files, out of project COM:SCOPE.
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page 4.png
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page 3.png
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page 3.jpg
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page 2.png
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page.png
- File:Fnur0527@ruriplatfrom.page.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 12:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Screenshots, personal files, out of project COM:SCOPE.
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
tutserkan is wrong name ... I upload this file again by true name . Hamid Soufi (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: <nd redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 19:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image (w:Draft:Yusof Jusoh) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 00:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image. (it:FanFe) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 00:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Text (gibberish). Not suitable for Commons. E4024 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete No encyclopedic value - out of scope. --Mosbatho (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 00:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
F10 - speedy delete. E4024 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 00:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Small png w/o camera EXIF, uploaded as "own work"; dubious. E4024 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 00:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shilpi1412 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photos of non-notable persons/company, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Vavia Team.JPG
- File:Vavia Family.JPG
- File:Sharing ideas at Vavia.JPG
- File:Vavia Logo Head Office.JPG
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Srksubhash (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal sketches/artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope.
- File:Sharing love.jpg
- File:The-girl.jpg
- File:Nude sketch.jpg
- File:Radha-krishna.jpg
- File:Self sketch.jpg
- File:Self artist.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photos of non-notable persons and events, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Shaykh Hazim Abu Ghazaleh in Cape Town SA.JPG
- File:Mandela Day Human Chain.JPG
- File:CTIEC Learners At Mandela Day Human Chain.JPG
- File:Sheikh Sayed Haroon Al Azhari.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- In many countries "Shaykh", "Sheikh" etc are used for any imam. That does not mean they have any noble title or anything like that. Therefore many people called such are indeed OoS. --E4024 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photos, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photos of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Damian garcia zapopan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:CHAVOZ voz de Zapopan.jpg
- File:CHAVOZ en universidad Cuauhtémoc con el candidato chava rizo.jpg
- File:Maratón de 5km.jpg
- File:Damian Garcia Silva jóvenes con la gente.jpg
- File:Damian Garcia comité estatal del PRI.jpg
- File:Damian Garcia haciendo deporte.jpg
- File:Sábado comunitario Jalisco Damián García.jpg
- File:Damian Garcia aniversario luctuoso del general Marcelino Garcia barragan.jpg
- File:Ayuntamiento de Zapopan 1 Damián garcia.jpg
- File:1 Ayuntamiento de zapopan Damián.jpg
- File:Leyendo Damián garcia.jpg
- File:Image14.bi jamáy Jalisco Damián garcia.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ucdafterglow (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused promotional images of non-notable performers, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mathias maciel97 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res image of shool uniform and logo, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of non-notable company, little educational value, out of scope. Likely uploaded for promotional purposes.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mahadevan.varadhan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Diagrams seemingly from a personal project, out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Mahaactualcost.png
- File:123mahabuglife.png
- File:123mahabugstatus.png
- File:123mahaprojectburnup.png
- File:12mahasprintburnup.png
- File:Mahabuglife.png
- File:Mahabugstatus.png
- File:Mahaprojectburnup.png
- File:Mahasprintburnup.png
- File:Mahascheme2.png
- File:Mahascheme1.png
- File:MahaTable1A.png
- File:Mahatable1.png
- File:Mahatriangle.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
low resolution screenshots of personal files, misleading filenames, no cats, exif says only "screenshot", short file descriptions, some of the user's uploads already speedied.
- File:Hurshch pics.jpg
- File:Nude poses by hurshch.jpg
- File:Hursh poses instructor.jpg
- File:Who is hurs.ily.png
- File:Hurshch adds.png
- File:Hursh ch in room.png
- File:Hurshch pose.png
- File:Dp pose.png
- File:Nude poses.png
- File:Who is Hurshch catlog.jpg
- File:Lenes add by hurshch.jpg
- File:Nude specialist hurshch.jpg
- File:Hot lips.jpg
- File:Hursh modeling.jpg
- File:Hurshch lips.jpg
- File:Hurshch pic in shoot.jpg
- File:Hursh indoor.jpg
- File:Contact lenses.png
- File:Who is hursh ch.jpg
- File:Who is hursh.png
- File:Hurs.ily.png
- File:Hurshch wikipedia.png
- File:Hursh pics.jpg
- File:Hurshch catlogs.png
- File:Hurshch pics.png
- File:Hcgromers.png
- File:Hursh ch.png
- File:Who is hursh ch.png
- File:Who is hurshch.png
- File:Is hurshch dancer.jpg
- File:Hursh.png
- File:Hurshch.png
- File:Hursh.jpg
- File:Hurshch catlog.jpg
- File:Hursh catlogs.jpg
- File:Who is hurs.ily.jpg
- File:Who is hursh.jpg
- File:Who is hurshch.jpg
- File:Hurshch catlogs.jpg
- File:Hurshch pic.jpg
- File:Hurshch.jpg
- File:Hurshch Catlogs.jpg
C.Suthorn (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
personal images, low resolution, screenshots, no cats, no useful info descripitons, all other uploads by user have been delete with same rationale
- File:Hideme owner.jpg
- File:Hurshch wikipedia.jpg
- File:Hursily pics.jpg
- File:Lens add.jpg
- File:Best choreographer in pakistan.jpg
C.Suthorn (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
copyvio - like before
- File:Nude (X) By Hurshch.jpg
- File:Hurshch website.jpg
- File:Who is hurs.il stewert.jpg
- File:Hurshch.jpg
- File:Hursh ch.jpg
- File:Hursh.ch.jpg
C.Suthorn (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Doesn’t exist 2402:A040:20A:B910:9954:42D:A2CC:BBE9 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per PCP. Probably not own work as declared nor in scope. --E4024 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like uploader also wants deletion. --E4024 (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
F10 - Speedy delete. E4024 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe private usage. No educational value. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a screenshot. --Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Licencing doubtful, source page of https://www.leo-computers.org.uk/photos-of-leo-ii/ does not mention CC licence. Copyright may still belong to the successors of J Lyons or LEO Computers. Shritwod (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Google Maps screenshot, cf. https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.8380549,21.021924,3a,75y,252.93h,83.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVxe9VOvLKHBPSgtONhexZw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVxe9VOvLKHBPSgtONhexZw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D165.67471%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 Michał Sobkowski (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Norway. The artist, Paulsen, died in 1973, so the works are still under copyright.
- File:Il grande esploratore - panoramio.jpg
- File:Tromsø - no-nb digifoto 20141216 00075 NB MIT FNR 18377.jpg
- File:Trømsø - L0049 773Fo30141609290031.jpg
Themightyquill (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sivert Donali
[edit]Norway has no Freedom of Panorama for sculptures. The artist, Sivert Donali, died in 2010 so the images are still subject to copyright restrictions.
- File:Tromso Market und Cathedrale.jpg
- File:Tromsø 2013 06 05 2423 (10118894976).jpg
- File:Tromsø 2013 06 05 3755 (10118937383).jpg
- File:Walfängerdenkmal am Stortorget in Tromsø.jpg
Themightyquill (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This was flagged on 6 Feb 2021 as missing permission, That flag was removed by an IP editor instead of challenging the permission requirement correctly or furnishing permission. Thus I am nominating for deletion to resolve the issue. It is clearly copyright Amnesty International, but it may be licenced by them for wider use Timtrent (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep These sort of photos are published by Amnesty International to inform public. So that they are naturally licenced for a wider publication because they are totaly aimmed to help international socities react and help to make situation better. I think there is somehow a deficiency in wikipedia structure and laws to affirm these photos. This photo is licenced to be freely published and there is no option in the time of uploading a photo like this in wikipedia, to show it that it is licenced. also it is not really easy to contact a busy organisation like Amnesty international about using these photos in wikipedia. please help to keep this photo, I assure you it is licenced.Khabat4545 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not confuse the usefulness of a file with the copyright status of a file. We may not make assumptions about copyright nor about licencing. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond doubt that they have the right to uploading picture. Copyright law is not a popularity contest where we may run a ballot in order to keep a file. Timtrent (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Not being used. Cendrillon2000 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; user request and PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation (taked from https://nmicr.ru/en/about/rukovodstvo/kaprin-andrey-dmitrievich/). Гдеёж? (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Taken from this source, which though it allows sharing images, has no license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Previously published photo: https://twitter.com/arrahmanfc24x7/status/1013090548805074944, requires OTRS verification Ytoyoda (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 10:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Previously published at https://chaibisket.com/rare-pics-our-actors/ Ytoyoda (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 10:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Stock photo, available on https://stock.adobe.com/108127659 (earliest date) and other sites Auric (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 10:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kiera More (talk · contribs)
[edit]Text diagrams out of COM:SCOPE.
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Advertising, COM:HOST
- File:Oracle univ.png
- File:4.learnning streams.jpg
- File:3.learning subs.jpg
- File:2. Training on Demand.jpg
- File:2.training on demand.jpg
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kooberry0209 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Windows UI screenshots in Korean. Not in Commons scope, possibly not CC eligible either.
- File:2. 일시품절선택.png
- File:2. 프린터 드라이버 설치.png
- File:3. 프린터 드라이버 설치 usb.png
- File:1. 프린터 드라이버.png
- File:2.사은품목록.png
- File:3.신규등록.png
- File:4.신상품입력 창.png
- File:신상품 등록하기.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Viacheslav Baykov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Misc illustrations, not in use, seemingly out of scope.
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Advertising for land surveying software, out of scope as is.
- File:3Dsurvey Workflow.jpg
- File:3Dsurvey Multispectral images IR.png
- File:3Dsurvey orthophoto.png
- File:3Dsurvey mesh.png
- File:3Dsurvey dense point cloud.png
- File:3Dsurvey image import.png
- File:LOGO 3Dsurvey.png
- File:3Dsurvey.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hew.stefane (talk · contribs)
[edit]Nonsensical low-res files not in use. Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Chicky's Tail.png
- File:Alice Candox Tide Up.png
- File:Dilnert hunt tied up.jpg
- File:Closing Screen - Denma Ghost & Spectre.png
- File:43r2.jpg 652×870.png
- File:60.jpg 940×1410.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PaulJ Pivot (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused diagrams of text, not categorised, no educational value. Text content should be written in wikitext.
- File:A comparison of EFL and BELF approaches.png
- File:Global Communicative Competence Framework.jpg
- File:EFL vs BELF- a comparison.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Artwork by Leeroy New - https://m.facebook.com/HimalaSaBuhanginIN/posts/823274957726213 as proof. No freedom of pano in the philippines and no permission from that sculptor Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe private usage. No educational value. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope, not useful. Velma (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Headshot, clearly cropped from something else. Unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I, formerly Magicknight94, the original uploader, would like to have this file deleted for personal reasons. Thanks.--Lê (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Uploader request Lê (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Cleveland Tennessee resident Will Jones is pictured here in Jim Webb’s basement viewing a historic spring.jpg
[edit]promotional photo Bneu2013 (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
promotional photo Bneu2013 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
promotional photo Bneu2013 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope, no educational value. Velma (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sendai Daikannon
[edit]No FoP for 3D works in Japan
- File:"Sendai Daikannon" (16745952993).jpg
- File:"Sendai Daikannon" (17158759727).jpg
- File:Sendai Daikannon (8644980536).jpg
- File:Sendai Daikannon(12536113403).jpg
- File:Sendai Daikannon20190127.jpg
- File:大年寺寺山公園から国見方面 - panoramio (cropped).jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Sendai Daikannon. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Erected in 1991, hence copyright still applies. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal image 87.107.4.16 06:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. Mosbatho (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. Mosbatho (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Professional photo, unlikely to be own work and unused Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
copyvio from the university's website : https://www.u-paris2.fr/fr/universite/communication/temps-forts/temps-forts-2015-2016/le-patio-bientot-un-nouvel-espace-de-vie XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused file. Such a format and name is supposed to represent the terminals of Singapore train stations, but there is no such icon in use. Seloloving (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This looks like spam Pmau (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS. Gikü (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is he in scope? E4024 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
copyrighted picture from KapanLagi.com 2001:E68:5425:7EC6:240D:A28F:9AF:47B6 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This file is a duplicate. Please delete. KKapale (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 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) 16:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
because it is not in the right place Jasink (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:OTRS must be used instead. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. Used in promotional Wikidata item. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Inspiredknowledge (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of company of questionable notability, EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in promotional Wikidata item. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Image used for self-promotion Igfalcon (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused text doc, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
grabbbed from https://historija.info/bosnjaci-u-albaniji/ Albinfo (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
grabbed from http://m.pogled.ba/clanak/bosnjaci-dobili-status-nacionalne-manjine-u-albaniji/126566 Albinfo (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. And previously published, needs COM:OTRS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted work - see source https://www.trammelstrace.org/the-map Geoff Who, me? 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused promotional photo of non-notable performer, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jscott.atg8 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal logo, not in use, out of COM:SCOPE.
Kissa21782 (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Apparently from the copyrighted film The Last of the Mohicans (1992) - license is unlikely to be valid. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Most likely not own work of the uploader: User:Mgm365 (the uploader) vs. Russelle Tabuniar (claimed source). If this file is indeed freely-licensed, COM:OTRS email for verification purpose must be submitted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Info Wowzamboanga was confirmed to be MGM's old username, per their user history at enwiki. However, this doesn't disregard the fact that the photo was taken by a different person (Russelle Tabuniar). Hence permission from Russelle (OTRS method) is still a must. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
A version of this exact image was detected at https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/duterte-endorses-lobregat-climaco-zamboanga (via TinEye), and captioned as "PHOTOS FROM OFFICIAL FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS OF LOBREGAT AND CLIMACO". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in ca:Usuari Discussió:Polzampaglione with TeX equivalent:
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of the President of Czechoslovakia (1990–1992).svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Https s3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com psh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4 images 3 1 1 7 25497113-3-eng-GB Cropped-158394330787890164 534154483896216 4002723053866844160 n.jpg
[edit]Out of scope, consent of depicted person missing. en:wp article declined. Till (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep COM:INUSE at a draft. Someone should rename this, though. Elliot321 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)- Delete on second thought, this is probably a copyvio. Elliot321 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cabo da Roca
[edit]unrelated personal photos, there is a plenty of other photos in the category
- File:Portugal IMG 0789 on the road (37726865864).jpg
- File:Portugal IMG 0817 Cabo de Roca (37555092395).jpg
- File:Portugal IMG 0818 Cabo de Roca (37555092315).jpg
— Draceane talkcontrib. 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the first one (mother and child relation, the thingy on which the kid rides etc) and delete the other two (personal/vacational). --E4024 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:Portugal IMG 0789 on the road (37726865864).jpg, as there is surely not plenty of other photos in the other categories this photo is tagged with. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per user:E4024 & Tuválkin. --Wdwd (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably not own work: User:Mgm365 (the uploader) versus "Vernon G Stamm" (claimed source/author). If there was indeed permission from the real author who is the photographer, the uploader must contact that author and that author must submit an email via COM:OTRS process.
- File:Modern Metropolitan Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception -Interior.jpg
- File:La Vista del Mar TreeHouse.jpg
- File:Zamboanga City TreeHouse.jpg
- File:Zamboanga International Seaport Cargo Terminal.jpg
- File:Zamboanga International Airport Terminal.jpg
- File:Zamboanga City RT Lim Boulevard.jpg
- File:Immaculate Conception Cathedral in Zamboanga City.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Metadata indicates "FBMD" (sourced from Facebook automatically). Verification via COM:OTRS is required, as FB-sourced images may not be really self-taken photos by the uploader. If these are uploader's own photos, either upload original versions or, use COM:OTRS process.
- File:Hock Chuan Avalo Chinese Temple.jpg
- File:Fort Pilar Shrine 2016.jpg
- File:R.T. Lim Boulevard Zamboanga City 2015.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
User had a history of problematic uploads. These ones are doubtful if own work: missing or strange (usually non-FB transmission codes) metadata and inconsistent resolutions.
- File:KCC Mall de ZC 1.jpg
- File:Rio de Abong Abong.jpg
- File:La Isla de La Santa Cruz.jpg
- File:BSP Zamboanga Branch.jpg
- File:Zamboanga City Skyline 2016.jpg
- File:Putik Barangay Hall.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused image that should not be an image.
Could be replaced with TeX equivalent:
WIKImaniac 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in es:b:Electrónica de Potencia/Diodo de potencia/Parámetros característicos de funcionamiento with TeX equivalent:
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused image that should not be an image.
Could be replaced with TeX equivalent:
Delete redirect File:Reicke Zinc.png as well, please.
WIKImaniac 18:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused tiny thumbnail, unusable, out of scope. And previously published needs COM:OTRS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. And previously published, needs COM:OTRS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- You want us to delete a used file after 10 years of upload? Please do not lose your time with this request, no chance. Keep. --E4024 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This Bulgarian landmark, opened in 1981, was designed by Alexander Georgiev Barov (d. 1999) and Ivan Kanazirev. There's no Commons-acceptable FOP in Bulgaria: Bulgarian copyright exceptions doesn't permit commercial reuses of images of copyrighted architecture and sculptures, and so doesn't agree with Commons:Licensing. Two images showing the interior architecture are also included here.
- File:05794-Sofia (8268256083).jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 050.jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 051.jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 056.jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 065.jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 066.jpg
- File:20140615 Sofia 072.jpg
- File:Bulgaria-Sofia-01.JPG
- File:Conference Center of Sofia (NDK National Palace of Culture) - panoramio.jpg
- File:National Palace of Culture (Bulgaria) 20180224.jpg
- File:National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria 20090406 013.JPG
- File:National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria 20090406 023.JPG
- File:National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria 20090406 037.JPG
- File:National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria 20090406 038.JPG
- File:National Palace of Culture.jpg
- File:NDK (Palacio Nacional de la Cultura), Sofia, Bulgaria, 2011.JPG
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 05.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 06.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 07.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 08.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 10.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 11.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 11a2.jpg
- File:NDK Sofia IMG 3474.JPG
- File:NDK-front-view.jpg
- File:Ndkkk.jpg
- File:P7120021.JPG
- File:Sofia NDK french flag.jpg
- File:Sofia NDK interior 1.jpg
- File:Sofia NDK interior 2.jpg
- File:Sofia Todor Bozhinov 041009 (3).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have legal background and I'm not sure I understand. Why does bulgarian law apply on wikimedia content? As far as I know there are no wikimedia servers in bulgaria. If this regulation needs to be respected, wouldn't it apply to all images including buildings in bulgaria? Martinkunev (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Martinkunev: the answer is simple: files have to be free both in the United States and Bulgaria for these to be hosted here. If possible, the most used files here may be moved to English Wikipedia, as enwiki's policy only follows U.S. copyright law (and so it applies US FOP for buildings to all buildings from no FOP countries like the Louvre of France and Burj Khalifa of UAE). Commons requires images (and the underlying derivative work like buildings and sculptures) be free and in public domain, but if not PD, then the country should have commercial FOP. Commons doesn't accept noncommercial licensing, and more so no fair use content is accepted. For other buildings, some may be in PD because the architect died more than 70 years ago. Cases of suspected "unfree Bulgarian buildings" (whose architects are either still living or deceased for less than 70 years) should be filed individually or in batches and not the wholesale deletion of all images under "Category:Buildings in <BULGARIAN CITY X>". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Another set of images of this architectural work still in copyright, see my previous nomination for the reason. The title and the architecture's composition of the nominated images mean these cannot be qualified for de minimis.
- File:National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria 20090406 024.JPG
- File:National palace of culture sofia.jpg
- File:NDK, Sofia - panoramio.jpg
- File:Palace of Culture (16462979541).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This photo is my own work. And the person who is in the picture (on the right) does not want it to be on the internet. Ma Prem Turiya (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Павлов Вадим Васильевич 1958 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old photos, unlikely to be own work or PD
Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused and unusable logo pandakekok9 08:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope - cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong structure drawn in. Wrong structure. Not needed. Nuklear (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, unused, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Not wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuklear (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content. --Wdwd (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong structure drawn in. was a joke. not serious efforted. Nuklear (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, unused, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This image is not used; and out of COM:Scope, There is no suitable license for an image of a life person. Dr-Taher (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This image is not used; and out of COM:Scope, There is no suitable license for an image of a life person. Dr-Taher (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This image is not used; and out of COM:Scope, There is no suitable license for an image of a life person. Dr-Taher (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
no indication that the uploader took this photo, looks like a promo shot Lugnuts (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused private photo, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgendem Wiki-Artikel vorgesehen: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Veraltet, keine Information gegeben, der Inhaber möchte die Seite gelöscht haben T4 Stitches (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgenden Wikipedia Artikel vorgesehen, wird aber aufgrund von Ablehnung in der Diskussion nicht mehr verwendet. Demnach ist es redundant diese Datei noch zu behalten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgenden Wikipedia Artikel vorgesehen, wird aber aufgrund von Ablehnung in der Diskussion nicht mehr verwendet. Demnach ist es redundant diese Datei noch zu behalten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgenden Wikipedia Artikel vorgesehen, wird aber aufgrund von Ablehnung in der Diskussion nicht mehr verwendet. Demnach ist es redundant diese Datei noch zu behalten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgenden Wikipedia Artikel vorgesehen, wird aber aufgrund von Ablehnung in der Diskussion nicht mehr verwendet. Demnach ist es redundant diese Datei noch zu behalten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Die Datei war zur Einbindung in folgenden Wikipedia Artikel vorgesehen, wird aber aufgrund von Ablehnung in der Diskussion nicht mehr verwendet. Demnach ist es redundant diese Datei noch zu behalten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_des_Handwerks CMsen93 (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Quellenangabe ist falsch (meine eigene Arbeit) Beat Ruest (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content. --Wdwd (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Building was completed in 2003. There is no commercial FOP in Bulgaria, and authorization (preferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence) from the architect or architectural firm for a freely-licensed image of this architectural work is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no commercial FOP in Bulgaria, and authorization (preferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence) from the architect or architectural firm for a freely-licensed image of this architectural work is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no commercial FOP in Bulgaria, and authorization (preferably via COM:OTRS email correspondence) from the architect or architectural firm for a freely-licensed image of this architectural work is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Superfast1111
[edit]- File:Screen shot - for purposes of dispute resolution only.jpg
- File:Screen Shot - Nagpur - 2.jpg
- File:Screen Shot - Nagpur - 1.jpg
All these files look like uploaded for one-time use. Also these files have no use in future probably. Vatsmaxed (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused; out of sscope. --Wdwd (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like G10 to me. Is it? E4024 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I intend to re-upload an svg format of the same file. Mouryan (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, file is in use. --Wdwd (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
non-free book cover Sporti (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- also file:Vista 3.jpg
Out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fly Project management (talk · contribs)
[edit]Both images can be found under various resolutions using reverse search. Uploader claims to be the manager of this musical group, but I guess they would need to use COM:OTRS for us to be able to verify that.
Gikü (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
most likely not own work HerrAdams (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Twitter image. E4024 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No data on who the subject is, therefore no educational value. Kissa21782 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Surprisingly a reverse Image search brings up nothing, No idea who the guy is .. either way doesn't appear to be a notable/known figure. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that it should be here! Jackignore (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as oos. Uploader is globally locked. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope logo, no educational value Kissa21782 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
CopyVio: Kai Kitschenberg/FunkeFotoServices Drahreg01 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Tmrtzhm96 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Ich habe die Erlaubnis des Urhebers das Bild zu verwenden!
- Hast Du auch die Erlaubnis des Urhebers, es unter Creative-Commons-Lizenz zu veröffentlichen?
- Übrigens scheint ein Missverständnis darüber vorzuliegen, wer der "Urheber" ist. Im Moment steht da "Dr. Markus Keller". Der ist aber nicht der Urheber, sondern der Fotografierte. Er kann Dir also nicht diese Erlaubnis erteilen, außer soweit sie sein Recht am eigenen Bild betreffen. Die Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung unter CC-Lizenz müsstest Du vom Fotografen, also von Herrn Kitschenberg, einholen und dann an den OTRS-Support schicken. --87.150.14.40 08:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
owner requested deletion svmore (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The file has been replaced by the Kit_shorts_chornomorets2020-21_hmLegea.png file. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of Less.PNG Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Concern: .PNG file is much larger
[edit]The .PNG file which contains the screen capture is almost 3 times the file size of the .jpg file.
I realize that the .jpg is flagged as a poor choice of format for this type of image.
Yet, the .jpg looks fine to me.
Is an invisible difference worth slowing down the process of fetching the page over the network?
— Black Walnut
talk 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
Concern: filenames too similar
[edit]@Vitaly_Zdanevich proposes to remove the second of these three files, on the grounds that it is a duplicate, serving no purpose:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Less.PNG * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Less.jpg * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Less.png
This raises another issue:
* File 1 contains a screen capture of the program in action, in PNG format. * File 2 contains a screen capture of the program in action, in JPG format. * File 3 contains the program's logo.
All three files have, essentially, the same name.
It would help if filenames 1 and 3 differed beyond capitalization.
Perhaps we could rename file 1 to something like "Less.screen_capture.png"
and file 3 to something like "Less.logo.png"?
— Black Walnut
talk 01:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, fileis in use andPNG file not equal. --Wdwd (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted image Iojhug (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
promotional photo 174.80.32.42 02:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how this is promotional. I think this photo is under Commons' project scope. Jianhui67 T★C 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - It was uploaded 10-11 years ago and is in use on several projects. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be deleted upon uploader's request. Ahmadtalk 10:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Requesting a file delete- this is my own upload. Thepowernerd (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Also listing File:Explorer Sacagawea .jpg (note extra space in filename), another image by the same photographer of the same artwork. There is no freedom of panorama in the US for public artworks. This was made by Agnes Vincen Talbot in 2005 and we have no evidence of permission from the artist (not just from the photographer) for images here. David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I guess I'm wondering what the meaning is if this photo is deleted? I guess I'm also confused why the photo is requested to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, it is being deleted because the artist who created the statue has not released her rights. When it is deleted on commons, that means is it can't be hosted here because it is not free of all rights, and you won't see it here or be able to link to it from here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete no FOP for all copyrighted U.S. public art, no evidence of permission from the sculptor to have a freely-licensed image of her artwork. @Richardmouser: either: (short term) contact her and ask her to release her 3D artwork under public domain via COM:OTRS email correspondence, or (long term but may span for years) have U.S. copyright law amended to fit into the new media age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, it is being deleted because the artist who created the statue has not released her rights. When it is deleted on commons, that means is it can't be hosted here because it is not free of all rights, and you won't see it here or be able to link to it from here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem with the sculpture. The photo was taken at the Lewis & Clark Interpretative Center in Salmon, Idaho, in a public place. The purpose of the statue is to educate the public of Sacajawea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I contacted the sculpture, A. Vincen Talbot, to make sure I have consent to keep this photo on Wikipedia. Please give me time to see if she responds before deleting this photo! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Richardmouser: I hope you contacted her with the correct question. "Consent to keep this photo on Wikipedia" is inadequate. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons allow images with such specific permissions. It must be consent to make the photo available for world-wide use, regardless of the purpose of that use, including commercial uses, according to Wikimedia commons rules. (More specifically, it should be one of several approved open access licenses.) See Commons:Licensing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doctorindy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Please see COM:DW, COM:FOP US and COM:TROPHY. 2D representations of 3D artwork whose copyright has not expired are considered copyrighted.
- File:ArtRooneyAwardtrophy-displaycase.jpg
- File:WalterPaytonTrophy-DisplayCase2021.jpg
- File:GeorgeSHalasTrophy.jpg
- File:SuperBowlRing-TampaBayBuccaneers-SBXXXVII.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Not likely to be own work. Most are cross-wiki uploads for exclusive use on Wikipedia entries.
- File:Sultan Muhammad V Kelantan.png
- File:Ydpa 16 Abdullah of Pahang.png
- File:Ed Buchanan Wyo.jpg
- File:Governor Gordon 2020.jpg
- File:Sand route.jpg
- File:Matt Mead Wyoming Governor.png
- File:Wyoming-Mark-Gordon-November-2019.jpg
- File:Bandar Labuan, WPL.jpg
- File:Labuan, 2019.jpg
- File:Labuan, 2021..jpg
Techyan(Talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nikrad2020 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probable copyvios per uploader's history, pcp.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nikrad2020 (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Another probable copyvio per uploader's history, pcp.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia. This is legally painted mural, not graffiti, and no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
OOS, unrecognizable unexplained image; description "I’m not you do to Liked", possible private joke or test. - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As no objections nor response, Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The subject, Yuka Shirayuki, is said to be a Media personality, but I couldn't find any permission from the company she belongs to.--Tail furry (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Client's deletion vote.--Tail furry (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
File:ZAMBOANGA CITY Asia's Latin City City Hall and Plaza Rizal (Ayunamiento y Plaza Rizal).jpg
[edit]Probably not own work: Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ mbb8356 (claimed author) versus User:Mgm365 (the uploader). If there was indeed an agreement, Bro. Pioquinto must submit to Commons an email of consent/permission via COM:OTRS process. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw my nomination — just found now the exact image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/90412460@N00/19963645284/ (under acceptable licensing). Though the description page details may need some tweaks such as addition of verification by Flickr reviewer bot. (non-admin closure) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The Dai Kannon of Kita no Miyako park, also known as the Hokkaido Dai Kannon, was erected in 1989. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- So, this is a failed crop work? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The Dai Kannon of Kita no Miyako park, also known as the Hokkaido Dai Kannon, was erected in 1989. No FoP in Japan for statues. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
obviously wrong: word does not exist, see inflection of 'Trauermarsch' at German Wiktionary or Duden online: Trauermarsch Jeuwre (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:37, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
obviously wrong: different content and spelling, renaming isn't useful because File:De-Traumschwingers.ogg already exists. Jeuwre (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:37, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coolicarlito (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion, out of project scope. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
- File:Yz250 Carlito.jpg
- File:Cooli rapping.jpg
- File:Cooli Live performance.jpg
- File:Cooli kx85.jpg
- File:Cooli rapping (cropped).jpg
Achim (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 2 out 5 I can see how some of these images appear to be out of the project scope. If we are going per COM:PS, I would say File:Yz250 Carlito.jpg and File:Cooli kx85.jpg can be used for reasons within the scopes of the Wikimedia project in terms of educational images for motorbikes. In terms of the other images, I see how it can be perceived as promotional and would agree they be deleted until the subjects notability changes. TwinTurbo (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, en:Cooli Carlito was deleted, probably he is non-notable. The photos do not consist any educational value. Taivo (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Unused low-res screenshot fragment and text image, unusable and out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcornelius (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
way out of scope, we have plenty of images that can depict jesus on a cross, we do not need a cartoonish line drawing with dubious copyright claims and it's use would be entirely unencyclopedic in any article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The usefulness of a child's drawing can hardly be compared to its encyclopedic value. The argument seems irrelevant to me IMHO. Παιδιστί (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Manipulated copy of File:Яйцо-Печать.jpg - see left hand side of the egg. Not the uploader's own work. Fences and windows (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
very blurry flickr upload, many better files see File:Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg, File:0 Constantinus I - Palazzo dei Conservatori (2).JPG, File:Constantine Musei Capitolini.jpg, File:CRW 1922-02.jpg, File:0 Constantinus I - Palazzo dei Conservatori (2) (cropped).JPG Oursana (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Not an "own work" but can be in PD. Where did you take it from? E4024 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
copyrighted artwork not de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright holder Augustas Didzgalvis - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
OTRS: 020013010008093 BigHead (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Undelete if OTRS is ever received. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Brazilian album cover. I am unsure this is below the threshold of originality. Lechatjaune (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I toke this picture from my CD. Please, analyse this case. Grkawakami 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. DW, copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like G10 to me. Is it? E4024 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No significant content A09090091 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:SPAM ("add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality"), image is self-confessedly "terrible". Lord Belbury (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No significant content A09090091 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No significant content and there is another really similar one A09090091 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No useful content A09090091 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Can't see why it wouldn't be useful. --Sporti (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in scope, per User:Sporti. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No useful content (a few roofs with road and a park) A09090091 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Can't see why a few roofs with road and a park is not useful content. --Sporti (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in scope, per User:Sporti. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - no useful content A09090091 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, please delete. --Hladnikm (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Très mauvaise photo. Je ne m'en étais pas rendu compte. Lidine Mia (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Not entirely sure if in scope - Taken in 1994 and partially shows a bus and a car as well as old signage (all of which is now history) ... however the main focus is the people in the photo which makes me wonder if due to them if it can ever be used ?, I'm doubting it to be honest.
Probably the least file I've ever wanted to DR too due to the historical-ness, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Likely hoax image. See this editor's other contributions, listed on their talk page. Jonesey95 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
App mockup, possibly not own work and probably out of COM:SCOPE. Kissa21782 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - no useful content A09090091 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: clearly in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - no useful content A09090091 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: more than sufficient quality, in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - No useful content A09090091 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: more than sufficient quality, in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - No useful content A09090091 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: more than sufficient quality, in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - No useful content and there is another one with same farm A09090091 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - No useful content A09090091 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Wrong image Salvabl (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Procedural close: already deleted and replaced on 10 February. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"Film Star Who's Who "
[edit]All these images are from films but improperly sourced. Most of them are probably not public domain anywhere. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marguerite Churchill.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dino Galvani1.jpg.
- File:Gavin Gordon1.jpg
- File:George Curzon actor.jpg
- File:Robert Frazer1.jpg
- File:Norman Foster.jpg
- File:Matthew Betz.jpg
- File:Frances Day.jpg
- File:Peter Gawthorne1.jpg
- File:Eduardo Ciannelli.jpg
- File:Mary Clare.jpg
- File:Tyler Brooke.jpg
- File:O B Clarence.jpg
- File:George Bancroft (1882 –1956).jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bonjour, ces images ne devraient pas être supprimées car elles appartiennent au domaine public. En effet elles répondent aux exigences de la convention de Berne : L'auteur de cette œuvre est inconnu et ce travail a plus de 70 ans. D'après la Convention de Berne et les lois de nombreux pays, cette œuvre est dans le domaine public.. Le photographe est anonyme et la photographie a été publiée en 1938. Donc cela entre dans le cadre de la convention de Berne. Amicalement, --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I try to translate what I wrote before : This pictures shouldn't be removed because they are in Public domain as it is stated in the Berne Convention : The author is unknown and they were published more than 70 years ago. Following the Berne Convention and laws of many countries, these works are in Public Domain. Pics were published in 1938. --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Info @Christian Ferrer, Thibaut120094, VIGNERON, Yann: there seems to be a language barrier here... could one of you kindly explain my position to Mr. Tanguy? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: to be honest, I'm not sure to fully understand your position. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see now (thanks to Christian Ferrer explanation below). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: to be honest, I'm not sure to fully understand your position. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Info @Christian Ferrer, Thibaut120094, VIGNERON, Yann: there seems to be a language barrier here... could one of you kindly explain my position to Mr. Tanguy? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Il est vrai que les photos ont été publiées il y a plus de 70 ans, cependant, si c'est aussi vrai que les auteurs nous sont inconnus, ce c'est pas du tout la même chose que si ils étaient "anonymes ou pseudo-anonyme", raison invoqué pour le domaine publique. Il est aussi très peu probable que la série des livres "Film Star Who's Who on the Screen..." soient la première publication de ces photos donc même si il n'y a pas d'attributions dans ces livres, cela ne veut pas dire grand chose. En clair le status des droits d'auteurs n'est pas du tout évident. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Christian Ferrer: effectivement, ce n'est pas clair et il faut absolument trouver la source originelle (ce qui pourrait permettre au passage d'avoir une image de meilleure qualité). Ceci dit, il me semble plutôt probable que ces photos soient dans le domaine public (par exemple, si elles sont effectivement tirés des films de l'époque - ce qui n'est pas certain - qui sont souvent eux-même dans le domaine public par exemple selon {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}), rien ne permet non plus d'affirmer avec certitude que ce n'est pas la première publication ; bref, il faut plus d'informations. PS: ce n'est pas un livre mais plutôt un magazine, voir cet autre magazine du même éditeur pour avoir un aperçu du type de publication. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The statue was completed in 1967 by Yevgeny Vuchetich (1908–1974) and Nikolay Nikitin (1907–1973). There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for 3D artworks. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and it can be undeleted in 2045 A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: note, this is a non-architectural work outside the U.S.. Meaning to say, falls eligible for COM:URAA copyright restoration for foreign works (foreign in this context means non-U.S. works). So 1967 ("publication")+95+1=January 1, 2063. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and wait for 2063 for a possible undeletion (it's only possible, means that there may have other reasons to hold the undeletion, such as 4-year extending due to WWII contributions...) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The statue was completed in 1967 by Yevgeny Vuchetich (1908–1974) and Nikolay Nikitin (1907–1973). There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for 3D artworks. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and it can be undeleted in 2045 A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- This photo has no problems with NoFoP. But it seems it is not free media bacause there aren't any metadata. --Kharkivian (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Poster is temporary display. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a better version: File:Flag of Kumylzhenskoe RS with a crown.png. — Redboston 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Gundam in Japan
[edit]Copyrighted character.
- File:RX-78-2 Gundam, Shizuoka hobby fair 01.jpg
- File:RX-78-2 Gundam, Shizuoka hobby fair 02.jpg
- File:RX-78-2 Gundam, Shizuoka hobby fair 03.jpg
- File:RX-78-2 Gundam, Shizuoka hobby fair 04.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Gundam in Japan
[edit]No FoP in Japan for statues 3D works.
- File:20210124 - Credit=TamaotyanR63 - RX-78-F00 - Yokohama Gundam Factory - Cloudy day smoke effects.jpg
- File:20210124 - Credit=TamaotyanR63 - RX-78-F00 - Yokohama Gundam Factory - Pointing to sky (cropped).jpg
- File:20210124 - Credit=TamaotyanR63 - RX-78-F00 - Yokohama Gundam Factory - Pointing to sky.jpg
- File:RX-78f00 kneeling on left knee at Gundam Factory Yokohama Factory Yokohama RX-78f00 around sunset 29 Dec 2020 Cr Vernie Jefferies Gundam.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Yuraily Lic: interesting. Can you point me to the wiki guideline on this? Best regards, Erasmus Sydney (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Erasmus Sydney. This deletion request is based on the Com:Freedom of panorama in Japan. Some people might claim that it is not a statue. So I changed "statues" to "3D works" in the reason. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Yuraily Lic: sounds like you're the expert here! But let me understand. I take it you're seeing the artefact as coming under, "reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes." Is that correct?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to know if that's correct, you'll have to read Japanese copyright law. Do you want to read it? s:ja:著作権法, This is Japanese copyright law. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Yuraily Lic: Gosh. That's a 16,000 word document, written in Japanese. I guess I was hoping you might be able to help me understand it as you seem to know it well. And helping me solve a problem - I'm just trying to improve an article. There are loads of images of statues and robots and 3D things and people in great articles on aspects of life in Japan. So, I'm trying to find a respectful way of doing that.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Erasmus Sydney: noncommercial use is not allowed at Commons per COM:Licensing. Files should be freely reusable even for commercial media like post cards. Hence, Delete until Japanese copyright law changes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @JWilz12345: Thanks for joining in. Can you tell me more about the postcard analogy? I take you to mean that, like a postcard, the image can be reproduced, but only if it's done by commercial consent. Am I reading you correctly?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Erasmus Sydney: . For example, your image of a certain copyrighted Japanese sculpture or some 3D artwork was printed on a post card, and then that post card was made to be sold commercially. Due to Japanese copyright law as it stands today, this means infringement of the copyright of the artist who created the artwork, and per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle this situation is best avoided. The exploitation for post card is permitted in countries like UK and Germany due to applicable freedom of panorama. However, in Japan this FOP only extends to regular and/or average buildings, like Tokyo Metropolitan Government building and Tokyo Skytree. Any depictions of other works (e.g. statues and sculptures created by still-living or recently-dead artists) are only allowed to be exploited for noncommercial purposes. Per policies and in compliance with the mission of providing free educational media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, noncommercial is not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @JWilz12345: Okay, in that scenario, if someone used the image on wiki, to make a postcard in Germany, that would be an infringement of the rights of the person who - according to law in Japan - in fact owns the copyright. And I guess we would assume that the copyright is held by the owner of the intellectual property of Gundam (which, I think, would be Bandai Namco). Am I following you?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yep @Erasmus Sydney: . Though existing jurisprudence in courts worldwide tend to be mixed: some tend to follow the copyright law of the country of origin, while others like the U.S. tend to apply their own copyright law over foreign 3D public works (U.S. has no FOP for such works, however, and unfortunately Gundam is "not a building" in the eyes of U.S. FOP). But for the copyright holder of that Gundam artwork I'm not sure if either Bandai Namco or the person who designed them owns the copyright (or, if the person who designed these was actually working for Bandai Namco, I'm not sure however). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: So, I've done a good look around wikimedia commons, and there are many approved shots of robots in Japan, and many shots of sculptures too. I assume they've been uploaded and okayed in good faith. What's the approach?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yep @Erasmus Sydney: . Though existing jurisprudence in courts worldwide tend to be mixed: some tend to follow the copyright law of the country of origin, while others like the U.S. tend to apply their own copyright law over foreign 3D public works (U.S. has no FOP for such works, however, and unfortunately Gundam is "not a building" in the eyes of U.S. FOP). But for the copyright holder of that Gundam artwork I'm not sure if either Bandai Namco or the person who designed them owns the copyright (or, if the person who designed these was actually working for Bandai Namco, I'm not sure however). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @JWilz12345: Okay, in that scenario, if someone used the image on wiki, to make a postcard in Germany, that would be an infringement of the rights of the person who - according to law in Japan - in fact owns the copyright. And I guess we would assume that the copyright is held by the owner of the intellectual property of Gundam (which, I think, would be Bandai Namco). Am I following you?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Erasmus Sydney: . For example, your image of a certain copyrighted Japanese sculpture or some 3D artwork was printed on a post card, and then that post card was made to be sold commercially. Due to Japanese copyright law as it stands today, this means infringement of the copyright of the artist who created the artwork, and per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle this situation is best avoided. The exploitation for post card is permitted in countries like UK and Germany due to applicable freedom of panorama. However, in Japan this FOP only extends to regular and/or average buildings, like Tokyo Metropolitan Government building and Tokyo Skytree. Any depictions of other works (e.g. statues and sculptures created by still-living or recently-dead artists) are only allowed to be exploited for noncommercial purposes. Per policies and in compliance with the mission of providing free educational media that can be used by anyone for any purpose, noncommercial is not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @JWilz12345: Thanks for joining in. Can you tell me more about the postcard analogy? I take you to mean that, like a postcard, the image can be reproduced, but only if it's done by commercial consent. Am I reading you correctly?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to know if that's correct, you'll have to read Japanese copyright law. Do you want to read it? s:ja:著作権法, This is Japanese copyright law. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Erasmus Sydney: for sculptures, perhaps these were already in public domain (i.e. 70 years after their sculptors' deaths). I'm not familiar with other robots, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: There are old and new sculptures in Japan that feature on wiki. So I'm wondering what principle allows that. Would love your thoughts on that. Also, would be interested in any guidance you would have with regards a release from the owner of the IP. If wiki was sent a statement from the creator of the Gundam, that would satisfy matters do you think?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Erasmus Sydney: for old Japanese sculptures they should be fine. For new sculptures, however, you may launch deletion requests by yourself (just choose the "Nominate for deletion" on the left), but you need to provide information on who designed the new sculptures and when these were unveiled or created in your deletion request. If you have user rights to do so, you may want to activate Visual File Change to do a batch nomination (but that's a very powerful tool and shouldn't be abused). For statement, I think it's Gundam who needs to send a statement explicitly allowing your images of their work to be made and released under the CC license that you chose for your images. See also COM:OTRS for a more detailed info regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I had the impression you supported freedom of panorama shots - maybe I was wrong. Tell me where you're coming from in the whole topic. Me? I'm an inclusionist in almost every way. (I want information to be shared freely, just as long as the creators of artwork are paid properly at some point, but that's just me.)Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Erasmus Sydney: I am pro-FOP personally. That's why I am watching our situation here, and hopefully that amendemnt to our copyright law containing an FOP provision based on Australian FOP shall be passed. Also I fully support South African Wikipedians' efforts to have FOP introduced in their country. I'm not sure in Japan, if there's anyone attempting to lobby their legislature to include (at the very least) sculptures and other 3D works located in public places and in publicly-accessible premises. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Very well @JWilz12345: I strongly support what you're trying to do there, and I appreciate you taking an interest here.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: There are old and new sculptures in Japan that feature on wiki. So I'm wondering what principle allows that. Would love your thoughts on that. Also, would be interested in any guidance you would have with regards a release from the owner of the IP. If wiki was sent a statement from the creator of the Gundam, that would satisfy matters do you think?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Erasmus Sydney: Delete COM:TOYS may also be a valid reason against keeping em. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: That is an extremely good argument. Thank for pointing that out! Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:TOYS, at least. --Missvain (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues of Gundam in Japan
[edit]No FoP in Japan for 3D works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
promotional photo; uploader has COI with subject Bneu2013 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no exif, likely copyvio, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
If you look at this image, you can see that there is a frame in the lower left corner. The cover of the video package may have been copied without permission. Request removal for alleged copyright infringement. --Tail furry (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Client's deletion vote. --Tail furry (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a version without the detail in question. If this satisfies the original uploader/requester, then the offending version may be redacted from the page history while leaving the replacement in place. Arlo James Barnes 01:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- The detail is not offending, but an indicator, that the file is a copyvio. It will probably only be kept if the fotographer or copyright owner sends a permission to OTRS. Because of the scarce information, this can probalby only be initiated by the uploader of the file, who has by now not responded. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I misunderstood the situation and thought the uploader was the photographer, but it being an overall copyvio makes sense. So yes, Delete. Arlo James Barnes 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete 日本のアダルトビデオのパッケージをスキャニングしているものである可能性が非常に高い。日本の著作権を侵害していると考えるのが妥当。--Shizuha (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Most likely not own work HerrAdams (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Been here since 2010 - no evidence that it isn't own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of Thomas Malthus.jpg Jonas Magnus Lystad (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: If anything Thomas Malthus.jpg is more cropped than this - this has more detail and is likely the original. --Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. This statue was completed in 2012.
ƏXPLICIT 06:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The statue was completed in 1967 by Yevgeny Vuchetich (1908–1974) and Nikolay Nikitin (1907–1973). There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for 3D artworks. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and it can be undeleted in 2045 A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- As we just got notice of this nomination at en.wikivoyage, I appreciate that this photo has not been deleted yet. I would suggest waiting for Wikipedians to locally upload this photo for the Wikipedia article where it's used. After they do, it can be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not in use at wikivoyage now. --Ellywa (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The Motherland Calls appears to be the main subject here. Authored by w:en:Yevgeny Vuchetich and installed in 1974, it is situated in Russia, that does not provide commercial freedom of panorama for non-architecture. A permission of free license from the heirs of Vuchetich is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no such rules in Russia, photos of monuments and their publication are allowed freely, including in the media. В России нет таких правил, фото памятников и их размещение разрешены свободно, в том числе и в СМИ. Для публикации собственноручно сделанного фото не требуется никакого дополнительного разрешения. A.Morgunovskaya (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A.Morgunovskaya: are you sure? Russian copyright law contains a provision that states commercial uses of images of monuments still in copyright are not allowed. See this online copy of Article 1276 in Russian language, with the restriction found at (1). Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-commercial content. The 2014 introduction of unrestricted FOP only introduces architectural FOP. By the way, Russian FOP-related deletions have been ongoing for more than 10 years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I rely on my experience as a journalist. Photos like this, including with this monument, were used by me for publications in the media. Also, such photos were repeatedly published by other authors, photographers, in many publications that are familiar to me. In the event that the monument is located in the public domain, no permissions are required for the publication of its photo, and no claims have ever been made for such publications. Posting self-made photos is a constant practice in the work of photographers. The exceptions are monuments placed on someone's private territory. Я полагаюсь на свой опыт работы журналистом. Фото, подобные этому, в том числе с данным памятником, были использованы мною для публикаций в СМИ. Также подобные фото неоднократно публиковались другими авторами, фотографами, во многих изданиях, которые мне знакомы. В случае, если памятник расположен в открытом доступе, на публикацию его фото не требуется никаких разрешений, и ни разу за подобные публикации не было предъявлено претензий. Размещение собственноручно сделанных фото является постоянной практикой в работе фотографов. Исключением являются памятники, размещенные на чьей-либо частной территории. A.Morgunovskaya (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it might matter who took the photo, but I can't be sure if it does. Journalists have the right to photograph monuments and buildings without any additional permission in all cases, except for those related to military installations and other objects, access to which is provided under a special regime. The author-photographer can freely publish such photos in various publications, including receiving a fee for this. Я думаю, возможно, имеет значение то, кем сделано фото, но не могу быть уверена, что это так. Журналисты имеют право фотографировать памятники и здания без какого-либо дополнительного разрешения во всех случаях, кроме тех, которые связаны с военными объектами и другими объектами, доступ на который обеспечивается по особому режиму. Такие фото автор-фотограф может свободно публиковать в различных изданиях, в том числе получая за это плату. A.Morgunovskaya (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A.Morgunovskaya: while you are a journalist as you claim, Wikimedia Commons is not a media in which the sole purpose is to inform or to report. Commons is a media repository that hosts commercially-licensed media (either in public domain or free licensing) in which all media are licensed to be reused commercially. Even if you and your fellow peers (fellow journalists) agree to the use of commercial licensing in your photos, you cannot do that in the case of your photos of The Motherland Calls, which is not in public domain, because the last-surviving artist isn't yet dead for more than 70 years. Note that in the context of visual arts copyright is a private right of the artist, even if the artwork is owned by the government or placed in public spaces. The government and the people of Russia only owns the recent monuments, but the artistic copyright is still held by the heirs or estate of the artists, unless there is a tangible evidence of copyright transfer, usually in writing.
- Russian copyright law only provides limited freedom of panorama exception, found at Article 1276. The Russian architectural FOP (1276.(2)) that was introduced in 2014, with the help of Wikimedia Russia chapter's efforts, it does not apply to works that are not architectural. So unfortunately the likes of The Motherland Calls cannot be photographed commercially. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- With regards to this monument, I managed to find the following information: "The Civil Code of the Russian Federation prohibits registering as a trademark images of cultural heritage objects, which include the sculpture on Mamaev Kurgan."
- That is, this sculpture has already been classified as a cultural heritage site. Касаемо данного памятника, мне удалось найти вот такую информацию: "Гражданский кодекс РФ запрещает регистрировать в качестве товарного знака изображения объектов культурного наследия, к коим относится и скульптура на Мамаевом кургане. "
- То есть данная скульптура уже отнесена к объектам культурного наследия. A.Morgunovskaya (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A.Morgunovskaya: trademark is different from copyright. The artist's copyright is the one we are talking about. Copyright subsists even in cultural heritage public art of Russia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A.Morgunovskaya: are you sure? Russian copyright law contains a provision that states commercial uses of images of monuments still in copyright are not allowed. See this online copy of Article 1276 in Russian language, with the restriction found at (1). Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-commercial content. The 2014 introduction of unrestricted FOP only introduces architectural FOP. By the way, Russian FOP-related deletions have been ongoing for more than 10 years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. This statue was completed in 1989.
ƏXPLICIT 07:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Against deletion: This is a building with an observation desk, not a 3D work: FoP applies for buildings in Japan --Toyotsu (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Toyotsu: Are you really sure that this statue isn't the main topic? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The statue is 100 m tall and is a building you can climb in, with an observation deck and other amenities inside. --Toyotsu (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Toyotsu: But then, COM:FOP Japan says: "Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works per discussion." What's the reason this can't be considered as TotS-like? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Maybe because we know the name of the artist for the Tower of the sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar%C5%8D_Okamoto), not for this Kannon --Toyotsu (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- KeepThis is not a 3D work.In addition, the owner has relinquished the ownership of this building, and Japan is the owner. This will be dismantled from this year(また、この建物は所有者が所有権を放棄し、日本国が所有者です。なお、今年からこれは解体されます。).--松岡明芳
- @Liuxinyu970226: Maybe because we know the name of the artist for the Tower of the sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar%C5%8D_Okamoto), not for this Kannon --Toyotsu (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Toyotsu: But then, COM:FOP Japan says: "Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works per discussion." What's the reason this can't be considered as TotS-like? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The statue is 100 m tall and is a building you can climb in, with an observation deck and other amenities inside. --Toyotsu (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment When was this 3D artwoork (statue) built? Who is the artist/sculptor and when did he/she died? @Toyotsu and 松岡明芳: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: The 松岡明芳's comments give me an idea that Idk correct or not: Japanese buildings-only FOP can also apply to temporary located ones, e.g. a tent that is doing COVID-19 tests. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Please, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awaji_Kannon , and note that two people in this discussion consider that it is a building before being a statue. Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: per link given by Toyotsu — "In March 2020 the statue and the surrounding land became property of the Japanese government. The crumbling facilities, in addition to a February 2020 incident in which someone committed suicide by jumping from the observation deck, led to unease among the local population. In April 2020, it was announced that the statue is to be demolished by the end of 2022." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- per link given by myself "crumbling facilities" "someone committed suicide by jumping from the observation deck" : it seems to me that we can discuss endlessly about the nature of this object without reaching a clear-cut decision; we need a Japanese text with a precise definition in Japanese --Toyotsu (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Online sources [1] and [2] verify this as a statue (hence an artistic work in effect). The fact that it once housed museum and an observation deck, and stood on a building, does not negate its non-architectural status. The w:Tower of the Sun does have utilized interiors. Per one of the sources I visited, the Awaji Kannon statue was completed in 1982 "by a locally born businessman who went to Osaka and made a fortune in real estate." That businessman died in 1988. I assume the businessman to be its designer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Source 2: "A 100-meter tall Kannon statue on Awaji Island has become a curse rather than a blessing as the city struggles to find a solution to the rapidly deteriorating building". In one sentence, the same object is described as a statue and as a building. We need a Japanese legal text, not English blogs. Yours. --Toyotsu (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- KeepToyokichi Okuuchi, the first owner of the Buddha, died in 1988 and all families relinquished ownership. Therefore, even if Toyokichi Okuuchi had the copyright, no one took over the copyright. Therefore, ownership and copyright have disappeared.--StrawberryCandle (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:FOP Japan. It is not contested this is not an ordinary building. Therefore it is copyrighted. That it is demolished and nobody owns it any more does not mean that the copyright does not exist anymore. The designer still has a copyright over a dismantled construction as far as I know. Because the designer is not known, an undeletion date can not be determined. --Ellywa (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Radio towers in Johannesburg
[edit]The tower was completed in 1971. There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa, permission from the architect is needed.
- File:Hilbrow Tower edit(taxi).jpg
- File:Hilbrow Tower.jpg
- File:Hillbrow Tower, Johannesburg.jpg
- File:Sentech Tower.jpg
- File:South Africa-Johannesburg-Brixton Sentech Tower002.jpg
- File:South Africa-Johannesburg-Brixton Sentech Tower003.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep nichts Geschütztes auf den Fotos --Ralf Roletschek 08:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nitpicking imo, but I'm too old to argue, so go ahead, do what you want to, its a tower in full public view. --Ossewa (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Changed my mind. Nothing protected in the photos, its a tower in full public view. --Ossewa (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- The tower is complex enough and it is protected by copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, if per Ralf, then all kinds of radio/television towers are ok for uploading even though some countries don't have FOP or FOP is non-commericial only. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- But, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Останкинская телебашня (Ostankino-Tower).JPG (before the limited introduction of FOP, for architecture only, in Oct. 2014) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Georgian alphabet tower? Both show "functional" structures too. Any way, FOP is going to be introduced in South Africa soon (hopefully). @Ossewa: see meta:Wikimedia South Africa/Copyright Amendement Bill. The challenge for South African Wikipedians, however, are some notable detractors like the International Intellectual Property Alliance based in USA and Dramatic, Artistic, Literary Rights Organisation (DALRO). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: I know you can't comment on DR's so please post on my talk Page - FOP talks about Artistic works. How is something utilitarian an artistic work? Gbawden (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP South Africa, which says no FOP for artistic works. In my opinion this tower has artistic elements, for instance the curved shape from bottom to the top. --Ellywa (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. When a NoFoP template can be used, it is limited to images that can be used even if the part protected by copyright is excluded because there is no freedom of panorama, and images that cannot be used except those protected by copyright are copyright violations. 221.133.172.39 10:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: although there is no FOP in Luxembourg, I do not think this logo can be copyrighted. The lion on striped background is in PD, see for instance File:Arms of the Counts of Luxembourg.svg, and the other details can be considered De Minimis. Therefore the image can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1956 photo, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? This is my own work. I took this photo for the cover of one of my father's books. (and I'm not sure that this is the correct way to respond to your deletion request) Ceperman (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per an email to me, the uploader claims to have taken the photo of his father aged 8 Gbawden (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. My father needed to provide a photo to his publisher. I took the picture in our garden; I was 8 at the time. I've uploaded it to be the main image for his bio (currently in draft). Can this deletion request be removed please? Ceperman (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am slightly amused though. I've uploaded an image to Wikimedia previously, asserting my ownership which was not questioned. I can only think that the questioner perhaps thought that someone old enough to have taken a photo in 1956 would have difficulty remembering or operating a computer. It turns out that I can do both! The two books that I know used the photo on their dust covers (The Ship by the Shore and Perils of Pacifico, both published by Brockhampton Press) do not mention attribution. Ceperman (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Per an email to me, the uploader claims to have taken the photo of his father aged 8 Gbawden (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: by discussion, assume good faith of uploader. @Ceperman: , the discussion can become more amusing. Who owns the copyright of a minor child? Is it you or your father. --Ellywa (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Flickrwashing, account has 4 photos, cannot be trusted Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I had contacted the owner of this image (Jackson Groves) and asked to upload the image on Flickr in the public domain then he himself uploaded the image on Flickr. I don't know how i can prove that he himself uploaded the image. Is it mandatory to have more photos on Flickr to upload an image on Wiki? I don't understand why this is being deleted when its in public domain and uploaded by the owner himself. If there is any way to prove it please let me know. Thank you. Mohirfan03 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2021 (IST)
Deleted: per nomination - This does not appear to be a selfie, so it is very unlikely that Jackson Groves actually has the right to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Montage fallacieux prétendant représenter l'arc d'Hadrien, faussement présenté comme oeuvre de Canaletto Ursus (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is not reason for deletion. It is an illustration that in use in other project. All the info is in the file page. -- Geagea (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Merge to File:Flag of Belarus.svg ColorfulSmoke (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. per COM:REDUNDANT the image is used on Wikipedia. --Ellywa (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in Italy rubin16 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:FOP Italy. --Ellywa (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trang Oul as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: file=butterfly trans01.svg |reason=for smooth curve raster image is not suitable
Converted to regular DR per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates (PNG -> SVG). -- Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, svg is better. I note that there are a number of pages that link to this png image; it would make sense to change those pages to link to the svg version before deleting this png. Or perhaps this can be done automatically? I don't know. No reason to break pages just because of a little jaggedness. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've managed to replace most of the occurrences (except one in user's page), one by one. Most of them were displayed as thumbnails, so the change did not break the layout of those pages. A lot of manual work, so I am convinced that there must by a tool to automatize that. Trang Oul (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks for working on this. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: the svg file, File:Butterfly transcendental curve.svg has another color and a scale on the x-axis. So these are not exact copies and this file could be preferred for aestical reasons in some cases. So no need to delete. --Ellywa (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
already exists. and the wrong license. — Redboston 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Wrong ratio: must be 2:3, not 1:1.— Redboston 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) See: File:Flag of Kumylzhenskoe (Volgograd oblast).png.— Redboston 18:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In addation, the image is Redundant and not used on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
How a 1967 scene photographied in 2011 could be an own work ? If there is any exception, the licence should be clarified. The 70 years needed to see the end of copyright rights are not reached either. (see also the 2 extracted pictures / extracted from) - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 20:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Commons includes the warning that Exif metadata "may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong." SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with SecretName101 and it should be own work with adequate EXIF data. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per comment of User:SecretName101. --Ellywa (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a better version: File:Flag of Kumylzhenskoe RS with a crown.png. Wrong license. — Redboston 21:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:DUPE or Redundant. This image is not used on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Redundant photos in Category:October 10, 2016 Eastern Michigan University rally
[edit]Per COM:Redundant. Nominating photos that have multiple duplicates but are of unusable quality (i.e. extremely blurred, poor blocking, etc.)
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1742 Danai Gurira.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1675 Danai Gurira.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1679 Danai Gurira.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1678 Danai Gurira.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1631 Danai Gurira.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1619 Frank S. Szymanski.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1616 Frank S. Szymanski.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1615 Frank S. Szymanski.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 2042 Cory Booker.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 2030 Cory Booker.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1940 Tanasia Morton.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1937 Tanasia Morton.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1905 Debbie Stabenow.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1973.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1861 Gary Peters.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1847 Gary Peters.jpg
- File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1816 Gary Peters.jpg
— BriefEdits (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Not all images nominated (File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1847 Gary Peters.jpg for instance) are of bad quality, and none of particularly terrible quality (there are worse images, certainly, used within Wiki projects). SecretName101 (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hey SecretName101, COM:SPAM list files that add nothing "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" as files that would fail COM:EDUSE. The existence of "worse" quality photos in other categories is not relevant in this case as we are analyzing these photos within Category:October 10, 2016 Eastern Michigan University rally. Now specifically to File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1847 Gary Peters.jpg—the nominated photo is practically identical to File:10-10-16 EMU Rally IMG 1844 Gary Peters.jpg but the subject has their eyes closed. I don't see any instances wherein any wiki project would prefer a file with an obvious blemish when the similarities are that close, which I'd argue the same for all the other nominated photos. If there are any photos that you would like to contest, feel free to let me know. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. These are of some documentary benefit, and in general I'm very inclined to keep "marginal" photos uploaded by any of our significant contributors so that they can keep all their work in one place (Commons) and not have to scatter it over the Internet. Keeping photos like this does not remove anything useful; at worst it is a little bit of clutter. Discussing this sort of thing wastes time out of proportion to any possible benefit from removing these. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Removing clutter may not be as important as a copyright discussion, but it's in the same spirit of properly subcategorizing files for the betterment of usability. The upsides may be marginal but the same could be said about COM:SELFIE yet those can be nominated for speedy. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. These are of some documentary benefit, and in general I'm very inclined to keep "marginal" photos uploaded by any of our significant contributors so that they can keep all their work in one place (Commons) and not have to scatter it over the Internet. Keeping photos like this does not remove anything useful; at worst it is a little bit of clutter. Discussing this sort of thing wastes time out of proportion to any possible benefit from removing these. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per nomination. There are sufficient images left of the persons on the same occasion. (6 of Dania Gurira, 14 of Szymanski, 14 of Booker, 2 of Morton, 4 of Stabenow, 12 of Gary Peters). Is clutter bad? I think it is. Users of the Commons material select the best for their purpose. The images of lesser quality are of no (educational) use. Can we request of our users to sort out the best quality images of a set? I think we may do that. --Ellywa (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carfanatic2019 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- Please see Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Carfanatic2019 (discussion since archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 83#Carfanatic2019)
Basically CarFanatic has included excessive details in file names and descriptions such as registration plates, and excessive vehicle detail
- (example: Spotted in Upwey, Dorset. Colour: Red, Type: LCV, Style: Car Derived Van, Fuel: Diesel, Engine Size: 1686cc, BHP: 64, Registered: 3 Feb 2004, V5C Issue Date: 7 Jul 2014, Registered Near: Chelmsford, MOT Due: 8 Nov 2021, Tax Due: 1 Sep 2021, Last MOT: 9/11/2020 11:08 246,037 miles)
- The excessive details may also violate EU GDPR which goes into detail inregards to this.
Unfortunately the quality of the images are all poor too - Most if not all images have been taken on a phone/tablet.
Because the excessive details violate EU GDPR it would also mean having to edit the file and descriptions and revdelling all 2 thousand files which to be blunt is impossible and rather pointless given the quality of the files.
(Also stating for the record that CF has taken the images from a passenger seat and is not the driver and it would appear he simply enjoys taking random images.)
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Update: Just to clarify inregards to the confusing rationale above - I'm not entirely sure if this does actually violate GDPR or not however that aside the images are still of very poor and unusable quality to ever be used anywhere so either way these should still be deleted - Images pointed out below by participants have been removed this DR. –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC))
!votes
[edit]- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Not all of these images are as described File:Cord Beverly.jpg Looks to be a fine picture to me, No numberplate details in the filename, taken in a Museum open to the public and Metadata says taken with Olympus digital camera. Many images towards the end of this list are like this File:Willys MB "Jeep".jpg File:Cars at Haynes Motor Museum.jpg and File:1967 MG B (KDE 286F).jpg for instance. Images should be reviewed individually to judge their merits, sure this may take some time but so what. User should be encouraged to donate decent photographs and asked not to include numberplate details where that is a problem Oxyman (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Further discussion
|
---|
- Excuse me, but can I barge in for a bit ? I'm relatively new to this, so please forgive and ignore me if I'm saying something ignorant. Shouldn't we have a process to "Quarantine" pictures that are possibly violating either WM/WP rules/spirit and/or external legal limits ? — Should we not have a procedure to make the Uploader (CF in this case) review their own files, and do whatever (Page moving / faces blurring / cropping etc.) is needed to make the files compliant on WM ? — In the case of name or description editing, the user can simply suffice by moving and editing. — In case the files themselves are violating rules, the originals do have to be deleted ASAP, and only edited – compliant – versions can be accepted.
- I think we need a procedure to put the workload on the uploader, by quarantining these files for a limited "expiration" time to be determined, meaning restricting only thumbnails open to the public and search engines, and restricting the larger files only to the uploader, plus suitable admins / reviewers. Anybody interested in spending time reviewing should of course be allowed ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Having compiled a list at User:Davey2010/CF it would indeed seem not all are bad - unfortunately there's no easy fix here tho - Unless we spread the load evenly it's a case of either we delete all or keep all and hand all this to admins (to revdel etc) which seems unfair. I certainly don't mind helping out but no way am I sifting through 2 thousand files on my own. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea why handing an administrative tasks to admins is unfair, Yet apparently deleting good images for convenience is fair. Why not delete every image and close down commons? This would eliminate all the administrative work. Oxyman (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all files taken with a smartphone that are not used in an article. Keep files taken with Olympus camera taken in a museum setting. Nominate all other files for deletion individually if necessary. William Graham (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Great suggestion William Graham thanks for this!, (CC Oxyman) I've gone ahead and removed the camera pics as these are indeed fine and can easily be edited out/revdelled. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep c:File:1987 Citroen 2CV Bamboo (E637 DVJ) (2).jpg, c:File:1987 Citroen 2CV Bamboo (E637 DVJ).jpg are rare pictures of a very rare limited edition of a 2CV for the English market; we only have 4 of them. LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 00:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done - removed those 2, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep c:File:2014 Ferrari F12Berlinetta (LJ14 LXF).jpg c:File:2018 Volkswagen Scirocco R Line BMT TSI S-A (BO11CHA).jpg c:File:1971 Triumph TR6 (HPD 103K).jpg c:File:2015 BMW 435D XDrive M Sport Auto (NL15 KXX).jpg c:File:2014 Seat Leon FR TDI (NL14 XEK).jpg c:File:2014 BMW 420D Gran Coupe M Sport Auto (WT14 KGA).jpg c:File:2018 Vauxhall Mokka X Active Turbo Auto (DV18 OSK).jpg
- These files (and probably others) of outdoor photos of parked cars should be kept. There are far worse photos on Commons. Its should not be difficult to edit for 16:9, and remove people/unwanted objects. Anders (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done - Greatly appreciate you finding these Anders many thanks - I've removed all escept the Mokka as there's a better image of it here. Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep c:File:1999 Ferrari 456 (V980 DCH).jpg - perhaps a bot can sort away any pictures used in a project? It is probably not many, but still. As far as publishing the vehicle data, it is publicly available. I always blank plates as a courtesy, but it is certainly not a requirement: here, someone was even stating that I was acting inappropriately in blurring the face of a person driving a car. While obviously the overwhelming majority of these photos are of no use whatsoever (reminding me of Bull-Doser's old photos), a blanket deletion for having included too much (publicly available) data is an overreach with troubling implications. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not done - We currently have 7 images of that model in that colour so therefore there's no reason to keep a poor image. Yeah blurring faces is OTT, I have blurred a few bus drivers where they're not in the vehicle purely out of respect and purely for their privacy but blurring faces of those who are diving is ott. –Davey2010Talk 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Some files might fight FOP issues in the affected countries, though if all the main topics are only cars then all can be COM:DM applied. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete File:1948 Rover 75 (JET1).jpg for quality reasons (out of focus / blurred) as we have the very similar File:Rover (sort of...) (2398190117).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete All around poor quality and out of scope images that serve no purpose --BlueCrabRedCrab (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- The majority of these images are bad quality but they definitely don't breach any form of privacy laws in the UK. I will breakdown each factors with one example and show where you can get this info publicly and legally.
- Style: Car Derived Van (This can be viewed if you type the registration plate in most third-party UK car checking websites. One I commonly use for my own photos is https://www.instantcarcheck.co.uk/ but there several others you can get the same information from.)
- Fuel: Diesel (This info can be found if you look up a registration plate on the UK government DVLA website. https://www.gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla)
- Engine Size: 1686cc (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website or a third-party car check website as per above.)
- BHP: 64 (Info can be found on a third-party car check website as per above.)
- Registered: 3 Feb 2004 (This info can be found if you go on the UK government DVLA website. Not only you can check basic vehicle information but also their MOT history and last clocked mileage. https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history)
- V5C Issue Date: 7 Jul 2014 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website as per above.)
- Registered Near: Chelmsford (The UK always have a local memory tag to determine which DVLA office the plate was registered in. For example, a post-2001 Chelmsford registration plate example could be EB05 GHK The "E" is a mnemonic for Essex, followed by any other letter except for D and H. If it pre-2001 plate then the last two letters would indicate where the car was registered. For example, N850 GHK.) Further reading here.
- MOT Due: 8 Nov 2021 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website and some third-party car check website as per above.)
- Tax Due: 1 Sep 2021 (Info can be found on the DVLA vehicle information website and some third-party car check website as per above.)
- Last MOT: 9/11/2020 11:08 246,037 miles (This info can be found if you go on the UK government DVLA website as per above.)
- Hopefully this should clarify some concerns regarding the privacy issues. For my opinion regarding the mass deletion, I would say Delete to the ones currently on the list due the poor quality and out-of-scopeness. --Vauxford (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I've spot-checked a number of these images, and they look like they are largely of acceptable quality. The only issue would be blurring or obscuring license plates. This is quite a doable task (either algorithmically or manually). I'd be happy to contribute to such an effort. JPxG (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- JPxG You say they're largely of acceptable quality - Would you say this file this file, this file, this file and this file are all of acceptable quality ?. I wouldn't. Those that have been identified as being of good/acceptable quality have been removed from the above list.
- There are currently 2 thousand and 200 files up for deletion so no I wouldn't say manually blurring these out is doable at all. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:2005 Citroen Dispatch HDI Combi (MF05 ZMU).jpg Not the best photograph in the world but it does show a vehicle from a popular TV program of which we have no alternative image Oxyman (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done - Thank you kind sir, I've removed that file too as completely agree with you, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:1997 Citroen Berlingo 1.9D 600 (P802 EDP).jpg - this is an image of one of the earliest Berlingos to be sold in the UK, of which few now remain (and according to vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk it appears this one has now been scrapped - the search result says "Vehicle details could not be found" - so there won't be any more images produced of this vehicle (and there should be no privacy concerns)). On the issue of all the other files, I think that wholesale deletion is not the right way to go about addressing concerns that are not applicable to every file. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done - We have a plethora of images at Category:Citroën Berlingo I - It being a UK vehicle makes no difference as there's already UK ones there and the main point is that the UK version isn't different to say the Polish or Italian version. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 11:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)- This file seems to me to be, if not exactly the highest quality, at least perfectly adequate, and as I stated above, it represents a vehicle type of which few remain from that year of manufacture (and getting fewer with each passing year). What exactly are your objections to this specific file? If this is the kind of file that you wish to have deleted wholesale, then I say Keep all of them and only assess files individually. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- The file is of mediocre quality as are 95% of the uploaders files. Indeed the majority of 90s/00s UK cars are sadly no longer around but that alone isn't a reason to keep (of course if the picture was taken in the 90s/00s then that would be a different story and if that were the case now then we wouldn't even be here now).
- Files that are deemed of great/good quality have all been removed from this DR. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Files that are deemed of great/good quality have all been removed from this DR". This is disputed, not fact. Also, in your post above you stated that there is "no way am I sifting through 2 thousand files on my own", so how can you know? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, It's a fact. Take a look through their uploads and you will find your answer. People have agreed with the deletion of most images thus far and those they don't agree with are no longer in this DR. A few admins have since deleted a fair few images from this DR so at this point there's no going back and there's no !Keeping (as per consensus in this very DR). Happy editing Pale. –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're mistaking opinion for fact. In the collapsed list of files above, I count 9 files that have been deleted so far - I don't think this constitutes "a fair few". And I don't see any consensus for mass deletion.
I came to this page not because I'm very active on Commons, nor because I'm watching any of the files, but because I happened to chance upon viewing the file I've already highlighted. To me, that file is almost like a museum specimen, as it documents one of the very earliest Berlingos sold in this country (a 'P' reg - I don't think they were sold on any earlier plates than that) and not only that, it also reveals - via the file description and reg plate number - that it had done 197,000 miles, which shows just how long those little Pug XUD engines can last - rather remarkable for such a cheap vehicle. All this I got from a file that you listed for deletion without - or so it appears - even viewing it. And your continued insistence on deletion is quite bizarre. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)- Done kept as per your reply - Being honest it being a P reg or having done x amount of miles means nothing to me however if P reg was the earliest reg it was sold under than I do agree with keeping as like you say it shows history and shows something that is no longer on our roads. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate your change of heart. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done kept as per your reply - Being honest it being a P reg or having done x amount of miles means nothing to me however if P reg was the earliest reg it was sold under than I do agree with keeping as like you say it shows history and shows something that is no longer on our roads. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're mistaking opinion for fact. In the collapsed list of files above, I count 9 files that have been deleted so far - I don't think this constitutes "a fair few". And I don't see any consensus for mass deletion.
- No, It's a fact. Take a look through their uploads and you will find your answer. People have agreed with the deletion of most images thus far and those they don't agree with are no longer in this DR. A few admins have since deleted a fair few images from this DR so at this point there's no going back and there's no !Keeping (as per consensus in this very DR). Happy editing Pale. –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Files that are deemed of great/good quality have all been removed from this DR". This is disputed, not fact. Also, in your post above you stated that there is "no way am I sifting through 2 thousand files on my own", so how can you know? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- This file seems to me to be, if not exactly the highest quality, at least perfectly adequate, and as I stated above, it represents a vehicle type of which few remain from that year of manufacture (and getting fewer with each passing year). What exactly are your objections to this specific file? If this is the kind of file that you wish to have deleted wholesale, then I say Keep all of them and only assess files individually. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Most of his pictures are indeed of very low quality, especially those taken from inside another car. The subject is usually too distant, or the image is blurred or badly framed. To all these I say Delete.
- However, he's got a few sets of very good photos, which I have categorized for easier evaluation. I say Keep to all those in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019
- Besides the four sets above, I've reviewed the whole gallery at User:Davey2010/CF and picked a few more that I would Keep because of their above-average quality:
- File:2019 Bentley Continental GT Auto (LJ69 UUW).jpg
- File:2013 Audi R8 Plus Quattro V10 S-A (OE62 NDY).jpg
- File:2013 Jeep Wrangler Overland CRD Auto (DU63 WAE).jpg
- File:1968 Morris Minor 1000 (OPN 762F).jpg
- File:2015 Jaguar F-Type V6 Auto (SL15 BVY).jpg
- File:2003 Seat Leon Cupra R (HG03 PVF).jpg
- File:2015 Nissan Juke Nismo RS DIG-T (VK65 TWM).jpg
- File:2019 KIA Stinger GT-Line S ISG Auto (HD19 XGG).jpg
- File:2019 Mazda MX-5 30TH Anniversary Edition (HF69 LSN).jpg
- File:2004 Volkswagen Beetle Cabriolet (EN53 ODY).jpg
- File:2014 Chrysler Ypsilon S-Series (HJ14 UYX).jpg
- File:2014 Mitsubishi L200 Barbar-N LB DCB DI-D4X4 A (WU14 USE).jpg
- File:1978 Aston Martin V8 Auto (95 XNU).jpg
- File:2018 Tesla Model S 75D (BN18 PKK) (4).jpg
- File:2015 Tesla Model S (AB11 BOX).jpg
- File:2019 Citroen Berlingo 950 En-Prise BHDI SS (MW68 YJY).jpg
- File:1967 Citroen Hy Van (KSA 360F).jpg
- File:2005 Ford Mustang GT (Y6 KRG).jpg
- File:1967 Jaguar E Type (OYB 350F).jpg
- File:2005 Range Rover Sport V8 HSE A (J18 PWH).jpg
- File:2018 Fiat Ducato Maxi 16V Multijet II (MJ18 KYX).jpg
- File:2017 Mazda MX-5 RF SE-L Nav (R8 FEP).jpg
- File:2005 Neoplan Skyliner (LEN 616).jpg
- File:BMW 2 Series (HK66 XNT).jpg
- File:1995 Mitsubishi Shogun GLS SWB (N586 HVW).jpg
- File:2004 Citroen C2 SX (ND04 FBJ).jpg
- File:2016 Audi A3 S Line Nav TFSU=I S-A (GF16 JBZ).jpg
- File:1934 Riley Nine (AXY 34).jpg
- File:Ferrari California (N1PPA).jpg
- File:2017 Honda Civic GT Type R VTEC (HG17 WFR).jpg
- —capmo (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you capmo for taking the time to sort and categorise their images, A few in the above list aren't great quality but indeed they're not completely bed either,
- My only objection would be the Neoplan Skyliner image which IMHO is awful - There are images of the same coach at Category:Neoplan N 122 which IMHO are all better quality, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: , indeed a couple of pictures in the list above are not of the best quality possible, but they were included in the list nevertheless whenever I saw there were few of them in their respective categories (better have a bad one than nothing at all). But the list is up for discussion, take it as a starting point. —capmo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't know where to even begin with separating the good files from the bad - I've tried separating them but it's not worked, I guess if possible they should still be deleted and then those in those categories should be restored .... If that can't be done then unfortunately I don't know any best alternatives. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to restore files that were previously in a specific category. But I suppose a bot can go through the categories I created and remove the {{Delete}} template from each file. —capmo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies capmo I should've clarified - The batch of files you've put in cats are still in the collapsed list above so I was trying to remove those files from that list but yeah I honestly don't know how too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just asked at Commons:Bots/Work requests if a bot can perform some (or all) of these tasks. —capmo (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies capmo I should've clarified - The batch of files you've put in cats are still in the collapsed list above so I was trying to remove those files from that list but yeah I honestly don't know how too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to restore files that were previously in a specific category. But I suppose a bot can go through the categories I created and remove the {{Delete}} template from each file. —capmo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't check the whole discussion, but the picts in the last list are ok. Regards, --Wikisympathisant (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking! I've included these 30 photos in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019 as a means to keep them from being deleted. —capmo (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- As discussed, all files in Category:Photographs by Carfanatic2019 and its subcategories will be kept. The {{Delete}} template was removed from 280 files belonging to these categories, and 278 entries were removed from the list of files for deletion above. —capmo (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the files which remain in the nom. Random smartphones photos of peoples' cars, including their registration number in the photo and filename, are not appropriate for Commons, and possibly represent personal data which falls under GDPR. Davey has removed the high quality images from this list; those which remain should be deleted. -M.nelson (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
comment
[edit]As this is tangentially related to the deletion request, I thought it would be worth citing it here: I incidentally came across files by Carfanatic2019 (talk · contribs) that had been previously posted by another user, Xboxrocker84 (talk · contribs):
I was puzzled at first, but analysing their uploads, I came to the conclusion that they are the same person. Both accounts only edited on Commons. Xboxrocker84 was his initial username, posting generic things until April 2019. Then he started posting under Carfanatic2019 from December 2019 (lost password?). So, maybe we'll need to make a similar clean-up on Xboxrocker84's files too. —capmo (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks capmo - I've DR their files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xboxrocker84 - Geograph files haven't been nominated as they seem fine, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: I am not a big fan of mass deleting a significant portion (or all) uploads of one user as it is likely that we will lose something valuable alongwith files to be deleted. But here we have a good example of community's contribution that reviewed the files and they were de-nominated from deletion. God bless me, I am deleting others. --rubin16 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)