Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/10/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
exact duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phil_Anselmo_at_Red_Eyed_Fly.jpg but lower quality FMSky (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Unneeded lower res dupe. File name redirected to existing higher res photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
No indication on www.mdex.com that they chose to license their logo GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted License claim not supported by source. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
No indication on www.mdex.com that they chose to license their logo GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted false license-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Wikimedia Commons isn't a porn site. Lack of scientific, educational or artistic goal. File not used. FAP (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep It actually shows pegging. Providing actual photographic images of things is generally considered necessary to educationally illustrate a subject, and there are Wikipedias that use photographs to illustrate sexual practices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that this is the only photograph in Category:Pegging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned by Prosfilaes, there are other photos (such as Category:Pornographic_shows) to show sexual acts. Since this is the only photo depicting pegging, it should be kept for educational purpose. Commons:Nudity states that "If a file depicts some phenomenon or circumstance which we do not already have representations of... then it should be kept, as it adds to the educational content of Commons." Handcuffed (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - It is absolutely true, that there is no reason for keeping this picture. It is pure pornographic. A neutral picture to illustrate the subject is File:Pegging cropped.jpg, which can by no means be considered pornographic. So please delete this picture for we got better ones and this is a menace for children surfing Wikipedia. --Memnon335bc (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Commons (this is not Wikipedia) is not not censored for the protection of the children.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is doing things because one has to and there is doing something because one knows it's right. Interesting to notice, that noone answers on the point, that there are neutral and much more encyclopedic illustration on the topic, which are already existing ... no need for the porn. --Memnon335bc (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then there's doing something because one is sure one's provincial morality is universal. Drawings don't replace photographs for illustrations; photographs are almost universally preferred to drawings in Wikipedia, and by some Wikipedias even in the field of sexuality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And that is exactly you're private opinion and preference. To protect children and persons under a specific age before pornography is absolutely no matter of morality. --Memnon335bc (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then there's doing something because one is sure one's provincial morality is universal. Drawings don't replace photographs for illustrations; photographs are almost universally preferred to drawings in Wikipedia, and by some Wikipedias even in the field of sexuality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We have few if any other images of pegging, and this IS educational in my mind. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
pornograpy 82.55.162.179 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept -mattbuck (Talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Non encyclopedic Elie Hague (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, speedy. It's in use on Wikipedia, and this is the same argument made in the other DRs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: No new arguments, in use on Wikipedia and therefore encyclopaedic. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep image to illustrate the Wikipedia article of pegging. That's why I also created this cropped version. --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep; 4th nomination, absolutely nothing new.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept Human sexuality is within project scope; listed and kept repeatedly in the past. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
unerwünscht 2003:75:F08:3583:553F:BCBA:FA99:F36A 20:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep undesirable (unerwünscht in german) DR and not a single valid reason to delete. File in scope. Tm (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded to illustrate pegging in Wikipedia and in use so please stop this kind of nominations. --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, four works, same reason, a reason that has been solidly argued out and dismissed for at least one of the works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept per above; human sexuality is within project scope, kept in previous nomination; nomination seems based on nothing but personal prudery-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it IS in use to illustrate the Wikipedia article of pegging. That's why I created this cropped version in the first place. --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept in use -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
من آن را به اشتباه آپلود کردم Aziz.N1987 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation: https://www.clipartmax.com/so/clipart-personnage/2/ Daehan (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Image is licensed only for "personal use"[1]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) Chatsam (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by 1Veertje at 18:18, 11 October 2021 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hinata Hyuga.pdf: This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) --Krdbot 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) Chatsam (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by 1Veertje at 18:17, 11 October 2021 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hinata Hyuga.jpg: This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) --Krdbot 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) Chatsam (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 21:49, 11 October 2021 UTC: Commons:Licensing: anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) Chatsam (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 21:49, 11 October 2021 UTC: Commons:Licensing: anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused selfie (one of 3 files of the user that were used for cross-wiki-spam). Mirer (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ra'ike T C 05:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused selfie (one of 3 files of the user that were used for cross-wiki-spam). Mirer (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ra'ike T C 05:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused selfie (one of 3 files of the user that were used for cross-wiki-spam). Mirer (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Really want to be exact same way about you all day long and I don't W I don't know what you doing now baby K Michelle is the user sandbox of Ali khan love Prima flowers and a half hour or so ago and I have to be exact time to get a chance to get the money to buy a new one and I have a good o I don't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali ngtde (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ra'ike T C 05:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chatsam as Copyvio (copyvio) Chatsam (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 21:49, 11 October 2021 UTC: Commons:Licensing: anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
In addition to being a copyvio, this is likely an accidental upload from tlwiki, where local uploads are restricted to admins only Caehlla2357 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
downloaded from the web. uploader is not the copyright holder of the image Dead.rabbit (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation : https://www.lesgrandestablesdesuisse.ch/chef/jean-marc-soldati/ Lagribouille (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
By mistake. It had to be 'category' instead of 'commons' Gpkp (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The Flickr link credits Pierre Thomé, no explicit permission from the original photographer. The Flickr account with the user name ExaltationEngine appears to belong to the Commons uploader ExaltationEngine (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) so this appears to be a case of COM:FLICKRWASH. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am the uploader. I uploaded the photo to flickr and wikimedia with permission of the author. Email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the author is on the way. ExaltationEngine (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ExaltationEngine: Thank you. I've added {{OTRS pending}} to the file. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 10:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Not "Own work" Schrike (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "user page image" should be an accepted usage when it is the only thing on the user page, nor when the only edits made by the user are self promotional items across all projects. Quakewoody (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: With the exception of Commons, the user has had their creations deleted and has been blocked on those local projects where they occurred. Quakewoody (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dear closing admin, when you close this request, if the Category:El Polimata is empty, please also kindly delete that cat. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, in addition copyright problem. Small photo without camera data, probably not a selfie as claimed. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
image was previously deleted. permission is missing. and uploader has been globally blocked. Snackmurat (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's last remaining contribution. This is not a previously deleted image, but I delete it as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Ethiopia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP in the US for sculptures.
russavia (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Without OTRS permission after 9 days Alan (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP in the US for sculptures.
russavia (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Deleted -FASTILY 07:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As per this decision.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 09:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted some, kept some. For File:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg, since it's being used to illustrate the plaza, it would be a better to crop out The Bean rather than deleting the whole thing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Obviously, it's time for another Cloud Gate DR. I've tried to be as generous as I felt was reasonable about only including the images that violate the copyright in this sculpture. For context, en:Cloud Gate is a public sculpture erected in 2006 in McCormick Park in Chicago. It is not only copyrighted (with no FOP for sculpture in the US), but the City of Chicago has licensed it from the artist, and requires permission for any commercial use of photographs (which is incompatible with Commons). I've tried to weed out the ones where either the Bean is a de minimis aspect of an image of the park itself, or where it's shape is not visible and it's only 'a mirrored object'. Most of these are simply not okay.
Reventtalk 12:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Regular cleaning of this category of new uploads of images that depict too much of this copyrighted work of art. - Reventtalk 22:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP for sculpture in the US, as per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above.
— Jeff G. ツ 04:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC) In File:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg, the bean is de minimis, image hardly even has the bean in the photo. The sculpture is not even visible in File:Tented cloud gate.jpg. File:Cloud gate construction.jpg is simply a photo of a construction site, the sculpture had yet to be erected. It is inarguably de minimis in File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. It is also minimus in File:Millennium park,chicago.JPG. It is hardly even visible in File:Millenium Park (7391867314).jpg. Seems to be de minimus in File:Bean from Kemper Tower (14958184744).jpg. Also, hardly the primary focal point of the image File:Chicago Bean.jpg. Not at all included in the image File:Cloud gate, Chicago skyline.jpg, as far as I can tell (not sure why it is in this category). Certainly not included in the image File:2008TIBE Day5 Hall1 ThemeSquare On the Road with Cloud Gate.jpg (should not be in this category at all). Not the primary focal point of the image File:The Bean - Millennium Park - panoramio.jpg. Some of these certainly should be spared, and the category itself should not be deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg would be particularly catastrophic, and utterly unnecessary. This is a valuable (and widely-used) image, in which the sculpture inarguably is de minimus. SecretName101 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: most per nom. 'kept some due to de minimis or similar. --JuTa 09:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
still copyrighted, noting here so that it may be undeleted someday Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Deleted: speedily deleted as copyvios. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyrighted work, no freedom of panorama for public art in the US.
— Rhododendrites talk | 16:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No FOP for sculpture in the US, and per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of them can be cropped or have the work of art blurred out of them, and still be useful. I deleted the obvious cases, though.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Another set of derivative work copyvios: of a sculpture protected by copyright by its living artist w:Anish Kapoor. Previously these were categorized under Category:Millennium Park so they got undetected. See [6] and [7] for the basis of nomination for these perhaps last non-trivial images of the copyrighted sculpture. There is no freedom of panorama for all copyrighted artworks in the United States, see COM:FOP US. US de minimis is sharper (COM:DM United States), as it uses "triviality" concept instead of "incidental".
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Still another set of derivative work copyright violations. No FOP of any sort for copyrighted public works in the U.S. except architecture, and sculptor Anish Kapoor does not allow free culture (commercial) reuses of visual appearances of "his" artwork! See also above nominations. American de minimis uses triviality concept instead of incidental/accessory concept like those in Europe or much of Asia.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Cleaned up the nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no freedom of panorama for copyrighted public art in the United States, and none of the nominated images show the sculpture in a trivial manner (U.S. de minimis is too narrower than European ones). This sculpture has been the subject of a copyright lawsuit by its living sculptor, Anish Kapoor, against a commercial user, NRA. See also the following resources regarding Kapoor's lawsuit against NRA: Artnet, The Guardian, and BBC.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted all but one per DM. — Racconish 💬 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Several new files have been added that populate this category. I'm also tagging several older files that haven't been discussed before to gather consensus on whether they should be kept on de minimis grounds. At issue is that these files depict Cloud Gate, a copyrighted sculpture permanently installed in the US where there is no freedom of panorama for public art. Quoting an earlier successful deletion request, "this sculpture has been the subject of a copyright lawsuit by its living sculptor, Anish Kapoor, against a commercial user, NRA. See also the following resources regarding Kapoor's lawsuit against NRA: Artnet, The Guardian, and BBC." IMO the litigousness of the copyright holder should not affect our consistent application of standards around copyright law but it's been brought up before so I suppose it's worth bringing up again. First, there is one photo that is entirely of Cloud Gate for which a de minimis rationale would not apply: Second, there are several photos in which Cloud Gate appears at a distince within the larger context of the setting. A de minimis arguement could be made for these, and we have kept two files in the past (File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg and File:Millennium park,chicago.JPG) on these grounds. However, in both of those cases Cloud Gate is a significantly smaller and less focal portion of the image.
Third, several photos depict a portion of Cloud Gate up close, often with the inclusion of other elements in the foreground or background. Do these files qualify as de minimis inclusion of the copyrighted work? Consider this file which had most of Cloud Gate coropped out to focus on the background elements instead.
Finally, one photo is simply a selfie taken by way of the mirrored surface of Cloud Gate. This might be argued to be entirely a photo of the sculpture, or to be a completely de minimis usage. In either case, I'm nominating it here for consensus: Any of these files that aren't deleted (or that are partially cropped and saved) can be added to Category:Incidental views of the Cloud Gate. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - kept one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--e880c103d180ad29063d63b2b99bf703.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
._png.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
._gif.gif){kind=link}
._gif.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_seal_(chopmark).png){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4131954934).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4865734246).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night_2.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night.jpg){kind=link}
,_downtown_Chicago.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(302020237).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_night_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_night.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_downtown_Chicago.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(302020237).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179489717).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179490139).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179492567).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179493853).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179495047).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179495495).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9181703314).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9181706070).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004162135).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004164355).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004257826).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004321464).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004322814).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004323314).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004382903).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago_1_26_18_(26388865178).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago_1_26_18_(39343630775).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago,_IL.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_jmcmichael.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(5).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198161).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198196).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198236).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549620631).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549628831).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549635591).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35640530046).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35679751185).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198259).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198289).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(34839034874).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(34839040474).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549651301).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_vanz.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198126).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198144).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(801715).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Cloud Gate 14
[edit]- File:Miniature Bean (28865844563)~3.jpg
- File:The Bean, Millennium Park, Chicago, Illinois (28865844563)~4.jpg
~3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama for sculpture in the US, and per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, many similar earlier listings. COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by AntiCompositeNumber at 01:48, 17 October 2021 UTC: Content created as advertisement (G10) --Krdbot 07:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE fantasy flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". COM:SPAM: There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. GPinkerton (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-free content : movie poster EZBELLA (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shubhoomi2019 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:Scope, unused selfies.
- File:Shubham Patel 1o1.jpg
- File:Shubham Patel, the youngest producer of Gujarati cinema.jpg
- File:Shubham Patel.jpg
MKFI (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image of really bad quality that already exists both as a PNG and an SVG Nutshinou Talk! 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Image of really bad quality that already exists both as a PNG and an SVG Nutshinou Talk! 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Symply Tacha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. Professional photos available on different sources. No original authors and permissions.
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait.jpg
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait-6.jpg
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait-3.jpg
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait-5.jpg
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait-2.jpg
- File:Symply-Tacha-Portrait-4.jpg
- File:Symply Tacha getfit ambassador.png
- File:Symply Tacha.png
- File:Tacha-bbnaija2019-birthday-gift-autojosh.jpg
- File:Sympy Tacha at netflix Nigeria.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Collection of personal photos, not in use.
- File:João e Melanie Martinez em 2015.jpg
- File:Rascunhos dos stickers de Girl From Rio.jpg
- File:Rascunho dos Stickers de Love Again da Dua Lipa.png
- File:João Victor e Zara Larsson no Rio de Janeiro em 2018.jpg
- File:Mirror dsoul (Espelho da alma).jpg
- File:Lindas madeixas azuis de mirror dsoul.jpg
- File:O Artista e ilustrador João Victor aka Mirror dsoul.jpg
- File:Um pouco sobre mirror dsoul.jpg
- File:Mirror dsoul artista.jpg
- File:Mirror dsoul.gif
- File:Mirror dsoul.png
- File:João Victor aka (mirror dsoul).jpg
- File:Joao victor aka mirror dsoul.jpg
- File:João Victor aka Mirror dsoul.jpg
- File:Artista mirror dsoul.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Smooth O (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BathSony890 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. Random internet images.
Smooth O (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cinemafalado (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cinemafalado (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Theenimy (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by AntiCompositeNumber. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by AntiCompositeNumber. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Half photograph 181.203.12.12 02:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupted file. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Viral world 500 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No educational purpose. Out of the project scope
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—MdsShakil (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Velma (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
appear to be a copy of promotional material Bozs (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality penis snapshot. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Likely promotion. ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:M24 new.jpg
- File:Logo clarin nuevo.jpg
- File:Lacosta FM 88.3.png
- File:Oro FM 92.3.png
- File:Inolvidable 93.1.png
- File:Atlantida fm 89.9.jpg
- File:Laley106.7.png
- File:Radiomundo 1170.png
- File:CX46.png
- File:Fmhit 90.3.jpg
- File:DEL PLATA FM.png
- File:Radiocero 104.3.jpg
- File:Latina FM.jpg
- File:Aire FM.jpg
- File:Alfa FM.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:Gnan.prabhakar
[edit]
Personal quotes; out of Project scope. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thietkenoithatatz (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Spam. ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 10:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated fantasy flag; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". GPinkerton (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated fantasy flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host".The user's (an SPA) only contibution. GPinkerton (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Avowedly out of COM:SCOPE user-generated fantasy ("ficticia") flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope
--Alaa :)..! 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
image used only in vandalism page deleted off eswiki DS (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a commercially produced map. Unlikely to be own work. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Appears to come from https://traveltriangle.com/blog/cruise-to-andaman/ which in turn says they got it from http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2188008 , which looks like it was uploaded by a user there. No indication of a free license, and definitely not "own work". Would need COM:VRT permission from Bob Scott (the photographer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyviol 80.104.106.188 22:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.lapupila.cu/index.php/la-guitarra-insomne-y-el-parpado-cerrado/ Frodar (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, out of scope. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete Really don't need this file anymlre due to its controversial nature. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously not "own work". License is unknown, the author info is missing. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
affirmation - own work - false - copy (© Copyright Portal Épico 2009-2020. Todos os direitos reservados) https://www.folhadejandira.com.br/bom-prato-de-jandira-mantem-o-funcionamento-seguindo-medidas-de-higienizacao/ Samuca Berro (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (see http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2016/07/gestores-do-bom-prato-ameacam-encerrar-atividades-em-sao-paulo.html). --BrightRaven (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Gambar XL 181.203.12.12 02:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair use Tulip97 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free source. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Remove authorization to be on Wikimedia Commons Escapement (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: A CC license cannot be revoked. --Jcb (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded from a private collection without permission from copyright holder. Tincash (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you clarify that statement, please? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I was wrong and confused at the time, there was/is no public domain for it, sorry. Not my own work, delete.Escapement (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright infringement, please delete this. Tincash (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|Copyright violation}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincash (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Will you please delete this, it is not public domain and is not my own work. Escapement (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Given the 2017 request, I see no reason to believe the new statement here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Please delete, this is not my own work and is not public domain. the photo source is from my aunties camera, not mine. Escapement (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Licences are not revokable. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Not my own work, image is copyright of private property, I made a mistake, I am sorry, it is not my own work, are you going to punish those in the photo who have not given any permission because of me. It is private property and not public domain. This not my own work. please delete. Escapement (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept. Repetitive deletion requests by the same user. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Source video does not indicate a Creative Commons license. It's possible that the uploader obtained permission to share a screenshot under a free license, but there is no evidence of this either. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free source. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Illegible scan of unidentified publication Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope and probably a copyvio too. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1980 y photo of unknown author, doubt to be ow work of uploader. Drakosh (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1980 y photo of unknown author, doubt to be ow work of uploader. Drakosh (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Désolé mais cette image n’est pas intéressante pour une encyclopédie Nathor69 (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (copyvio too, since the film posters are not COM:De minimis). --BrightRaven (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Désolé mais cette image n’est pas intéressante pour une encyclopédie Nathor69 (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Not own work as claimed Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hariszulqarnain as Fair use (Non-free use rationale) and the most recent rationale was: logo Simple logo below COM:TOO, so it is not a copyvio. However it is not in use and out of scope (logo of a non notable law firm, advertising). BrightRaven (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. Pbrks (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
File licensend with PD-old without any proof of age. Source does not give a date [9]. It is very likely that this picture was taken around 1990, when the statue was inventarised [10]. Jergen (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free source: "© Ministère de la Culture (France), Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine, Diffusion RMN-GP". --BrightRaven (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Logo of https://bees.aero/. Not own work and above COM:TOO (unless the font used is freely licensed, though COM:PCP should be applied). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Simple logo below COM:TOO (there is no specific information about TOO in Ukraine, but this kind of logo is generally below TOO). Fonts per se are copyrightable, but not images of short text written with a font. See Commons:Licensing#Simple design. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Il s'agit d'une photo de moi dont je ne souhaite pas la diffusion. 89.3.1.164 18:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite pas la diffusion de cette image qui me représente. Laclédusonge (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
{{delete}} Laclédusonge (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Speedydelete droit à l'image}} Laclédusonge (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Speedydelete / violation du droit à l'image}} Laclédusonge (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep The subject is notable, the image is properly licensed, the image does not seem to be made in private context; I see no valid reason for deletion. Ankry (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept, per Ankry. Taivo (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I am Laura Alcoba and I oppose the publication of this image. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:E9DD:6C1D:6996:47EA 13:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Je suis Laura Alcoba et je m'OPPOSE à la publication de cette image qui est une atteinte à ma personne. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:E9DD:6C1D:6996:47EA 14:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Photo diffusée sans accord de Laura Alcoba 80.13.50.138 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- "I don't like it" has never been a valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 10:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Cette image a été prise à mon insu. Je m'oppose à sa diffusion. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:56E:7844:E040:565A 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Je m'oppose à la publication de cette photo qui me représente. Je l'ai déjà fait savoir au photographe qui ignore mes demandes. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:6119:C0CA:70B5:F8FD 17:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Ticket:2021101410006838 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 23:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ticket:2021101410006838. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Je demande la suppression de cette photo qui a été prise à mon insu. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:8525:F767:211B:5B94 17:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ticket:2021101410006838. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Publication faite en total désaccord avec la personne représentée. 2A01:CB08:281:9D00:D567:7D17:F309:D64 14:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep No new reason given for deletion, vexatious reopening of multiple previously resolved DRs. 69.174.144.79 00:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The gallery marked the license as CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 IT, which violated Common's policy 119.237.239.221 11:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The image is previously published at https://www.linkedin.com/in/rhondavetere and https://www.vettoceo.org/advisors. An OTRS ticket is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
It was only a placeholder to present the proposed page. Tacozwaanswijk (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
It was only a placeholder to present the proposed page. Tacozwaanswijk (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Photo Dr Ahmad Al-Shoky 191.126.33.82 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader lists the author as Dr Ahmad Al-Shoky, but this person is also the subject of the photo and it doesn't look like a selfie. It is unclear where the picture comes from, who the photographer is and whether proper permission has been obtained. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If it was extracted from an image that had to be deleted for not being under a free license, the cropped version should probably be deleted, as well. RJFF (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nomination --Jahobr (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Skimel (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this file is PD-old Skimel (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously PD-old. It's not even true that there is no source for the underlying image. The source is clearly described in the image file name. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DW of a {{PD-old}} work. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Per EXIF. Photo by Goran Saletto, photographer from Croatian Post (https://hr.linkedin.com/in/goran-saletto-393a01109). No permission. Smooth O (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot of page vandalism. The vandalism got reverted by Cluebot immediately and taking a screenshot of it might be an attempt to make a point. Schwede66 13:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The webpage of the source indicates a copyright. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free source. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Photo/screenshot of a Tesla image shown on vehicle dashboards. Not own work, unclear what the license is. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work, non-free source. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
bad format Branaire (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- mauvais format Branaire (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Published previously on Facebook: [11]. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Photomontage with no educational value. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope: Too low quality for an educational purpose. Ies (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination (blurry image). --BrightRaven (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source.. However the gentleman in the photo died in 1879. So this image is at least 142 years old. I think it's likely to be out of copyright by now and not eligible for deletion, however the license is wrong and per Turelio's comment could be fixed to PD-Art or PD-Old. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-old. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. Dated 1879, this file is old enough to possibly be retained under PD-Art or PD-Old as proposed by Turelio. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-old. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Other version of photo is at http://lmcshipsandthesea.blogspot.com/2010/06/pallas-athena-in-lisbon.html ; the note there is that it is copyrighted by L. M. Correia with no permission for others to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused image Angelgreat (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Not actually unused. No other reason given for deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no reason for delete it. Apparently, the original creator was the one who placed his own work, so it cannot be related to possible copyright infringement. I think that opening a request for delete an image just because "it is not used" or "the user who makes the request doesn't like it" cannot be the reason for justify and to carry out such an operation. --79.151.31.9 12:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I am going to upload a more accurate version. Edit: My apologies, I've only just created an account today so I didn't realise you could just replace the image. I've replaced it with the more accurate version so I'd like this to be removed from the nomination page please. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jedi Master Wysk (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn deletion request. --BrightRaven (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. No metadata Kadıköylü (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
An old photo, the author is unknown. Not the user's own work. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtful authorship. --BrightRaven (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Because the image is inaccurate and not clear to the viewer, and because the background lighting and the image are not clear Redfox6600 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — Racconish 💬 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This picture should be deleted because it is not clear the photography and the background lighting of the picture is not good and because this picture is not educational 2001:1670:8:ED5A:D4E3:6ED9:FFBA:BCA8 06:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The image is not clear due to the reflection of the shooting light on the camera 2001:1670:C:FEBD:A9BD:25F9:A601:C75 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept per previous keep. Better quality than most "penis selfies". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I request to delete this image because it is not clear and it is in my previous account, which I do not use and I have new images on my new account, which is Redfox2003 Redfox2003 (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Quality issues were addressed in the previous requests; the fact that it was uploaded by an old account is not a valid reason. Brianjd (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, even the uploader admitted that the image is useful and of good quality. Brianjd (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This image was previously kept twice and has good quality. Tm (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The picture is not appropriate because it belongs to the penis of a teenager who has not reached the legal age 2001:1670:8:67FA:14EC:8A8A:4924:AD32 19:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- A startling claim suggesting anon either is the subject of the photo or has intimate knowledge about them. I suggest you present your specific evidence proving this allegation privately, email as detailed at COM:VRT. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN at any rate Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious self claim. Wallpaper res, no EXIF, uploaded among bulk copyvios (see deleted contribs), etc. Duck/PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Delete Per nomination. I suspect that they are screenshots. I would like add other images of the uploader with the same problem:
- File:Снимок экрана (145).png
- File:Снимок экрана (144).png
- File:Снимок экрана (143).png
- File:Снимок экрана (142).png
- File:Снимок экрана (141).png
- File:Снимок экрана (140).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Mosbatho (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I recently tagged 140 as a copyvio. These screenshots are from the video "TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K)" by YouTube user melodysheep. Delete unless they can be proven free or own work. Caehlla2357 (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, all filenames mean "screenshot" in Russian, so they are not own works. Taivo (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is my own file - I must have selected the wrong file for upload as the image does not match the description. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted per uploader request; upload mistake; unused uncat -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Inappropriate license. Obviously not uploader's own work, RJFF (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted false source & license claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
wrong image with a cover preview, wrong file type Tom Jac (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
right one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZackSearchengineScreenshot2021-10.png --Tom Jac (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful license, w:File:FA Women's League Cup logo.png is non-free, the element above TOO would be the horse(centre right) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted False license claim -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful license, The Observer is a UK newspaper, and is not known generally for releasing media under Creative Commons licenses, Permission confirmation via OTRS needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted unsupported license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful own work claim, Seal held by "Texas Tech University" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted false license & claims -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful licence claim, w:File:Code Lyoko logo.png is non-free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
--e880c103d180ad29063d63b2b99bf703.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--e880c103d180ad29063d63b2b99bf703.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doutbful own work claim, Logo for an event run by WWE, so logo most likely held by them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
--e880c103d180ad29063d63b2b99bf703.png){kind=link}
Deleted - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
--e880c103d180ad29063d63b2b99bf703.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Web resolution image from uploader with history of copyright violations. Unlikely to be own work. EXIF data attributes copyright holder as being "MotionTeam". IronGargoyle (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copied from https://www.ecklers.com/media/wp-content/ecklerscorvette/uploads/2014/12/Ecklers-new-DC.jpg Ske (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Unsupported license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It does not deal specifically with the topic of male ejaculation. Additionally, it is offensive to those who see this as an attack on Catholic institutions. 72.238.67.165 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept Public domain, in scope. Sexual fantasies involving priests and nuns has centuries old history (perhaps in part because some consider it offensive - and it is not the job of Commons to make sure that no media has any potential offense to anyone - much of human history and culture is or has been offensive to someone somewhere.) If something in the description or categorization is inaccurate, that can be corrected, and is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo shopped Articseahorse (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prank or troll image, OOS. - - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I've made this picture of my colleague and uploaded it here. Now, he kindly asks for its removal for personal reasons; see the discussion page. Rießler (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept, free licenses are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Ich habe dieses Foto meines Kollegen hochgeladen und glaubte, dass ich es selbst gemacht habe. In Wirklichkeit ist der Rechteinhaber ein dritter Kollege, der mit der Veröffentlichung in Commons nicht einverstanden ist. Rießler (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
On hold: Requested more info from the involved parties. --Achim (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've got e-mails. Niko Partanen confirms that he is the photographer, so the uploader's claim is correct. Both of them as well as the depicted Rogier Blokland ask for deletion. --Achim (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:CSD F1 and COM:BLP. --Achim (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Image found at http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=273877 with a note that it is copyrighted by Chad Carleton ; we would need COM:VRT permission directly from him to keep this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doubtful own work claim , Sports club logo for "Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) " ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Disputed license, w:File:Manishi Dey, Bombay, 1952.jpg was non-free, but this looks to be old enough to potentially be PD-India? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Original might or might not be out of copyright, but copy here had false claims and false license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful license , w:File:Paolo De Stefano.jpg is non-free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful own work claim, w:File:GeorgeSecretKey.jpg is non-free ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
[12] states clearly “Copyright © 2012 Stuart Tingley” Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
redirect from old name with no incoming links Cherurbino (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
this is a cropped image - the bigger image was found here in 2019 - https://cjsmblog.com/2019/04/03/medicine-through-movement-the-cjsm-podcast-with-dr-jane-thornton/ or here https://ioc-preventionconference.org/atpc2021/wp-content/plugins/gange/LenaSCG.Gange.DB_Widget.SessionPlan_popup3.php?code=MDAwMDAxMzMyOTE0&hs=31c62509986372b2c2ae5085d2685b8b&sp=1 - we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted CV, false claims -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it and I want it to be deleted. Arian Writing (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A high res was available from here http://media.ngage.co.za/jaquar-world-complete-bathroom-destination-showroom-for-sa in 2018 - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work. Low res, no EXIF, appears professionally lit/shot, etc. Duck/PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The photo has bewen previously published at this site and elsewhere online. An OTRS ticket is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
CC BY-NC-ND --NoFrost (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Посмотрите сначала сколько тысяч изображений загружено с этого сайта. Повальный вынос на удаление загруженных мною файлов — это преследование в чистом виде. Вы мне отвратительны. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- «в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт» — это просто ложь. Это один и тот же сайт коллекций музея. По приведённой мною ссылке можно найти полно трёхмерных объектов, сфотографированных фотографами, в том числе флаги. Ваш интерес тут не в чистоте Викисклада и соблюдении авторских прав, а чтобы уязвить меня, особенно если учитывать что ваши номинации были сделаны в один день с обсуждением моей персоны в связи с Викискладом. И ультиматумы мне тут выдвигать не надо. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, CC BY-NC-SA is unsuitable license. Taivo (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
CC BY-NC-ND --NoFrost (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Посмотрите сначала сколько тысяч изображений загружено с этого сайта. Повальный вынос на удаление загруженных мною файлов — это преследование в чистом виде. Вы мне отвратительны. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- «в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт» — это просто ложь. Это один и тот же сайт коллекций музея. По приведённой мною ссылке можно найти полно трёхмерных объектов, сфотографированных фотографами, в том числе флаги. Ваш интерес тут не в чистоте Викисклада и соблюдении авторских прав, а чтобы уязвить меня, особенно если учитывать что ваши номинации были сделаны в один день с обсуждением моей персоны в связи с Викискладом. И ультиматумы мне тут выдвигать не надо. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, CC BY-NC-SA is unsuitable license. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
CC BY-NC-ND --NoFrost (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Посмотрите сначала сколько тысяч изображений загружено с этого сайта. Повальный вынос на удаление загруженных мною файлов — это преследование в чистом виде. Вы мне отвратительны. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- «в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт» — это просто ложь. Это один и тот же сайт коллекций музея. По приведённой мною ссылке можно найти полно трёхмерных объектов, сфотографированных фотографами, в том числе флаги. Ваш интерес тут не в чистоте Викисклада и соблюдении авторских прав, а чтобы уязвить меня, особенно если учитывать что ваши номинации были сделаны в один день с обсуждением моей персоны в связи с Викискладом. И ультиматумы мне тут выдвигать не надо. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, CC BY-NC-SA is unsuitable license. Taivo (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
CC BY-NC-ND --NoFrost (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Посмотрите сначала сколько тысяч изображений загружено с этого сайта. Повальный вынос на удаление загруженных мною файлов — это преследование в чистом виде. Вы мне отвратительны. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- «в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт» — это просто ложь. Это один и тот же сайт коллекций музея. По приведённой мною ссылке можно найти полно трёхмерных объектов, сфотографированных фотографами, в том числе флаги. Ваш интерес тут не в чистоте Викисклада и соблюдении авторских прав, а чтобы уязвить меня, особенно если учитывать что ваши номинации были сделаны в один день с обсуждением моей персоны в связи с Викискладом. И ультиматумы мне тут выдвигать не надо. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Engelberthumperdink Во-первых в ваш поиск попадает в основном не этот сайт. Во-вторых вы должны понимать разницу между двумерным сканом произведения искусства, которое уже перешло в общественное достояние и фотографией трёхмерного объекта, то есть скульптуры или монеты. Согласно законов США под какой бы лицензией не было размещено двумерное изображение двумерного произведения искусства, перешедшего в ОД - неважно - можно использовать игнорируя указанную лицензию. Но с фотографиям трёхмерных объектов (даже если сами они перешли в ОД) так делать нельзя - права на подобную фотографию принадлежат фотографу и надо его согласие на размещение под свободной лицензией. На указанной вами странице лицензия не свободная. Поэтому это изображение грузить на Викисклад нельзя в отличие от тех "тысяч изображений", что вы показываете. Что касается вашего оскорбления - удалите его пожалуйста или я через час обращусь на местный форум администраторов. --NoFrost (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, CC BY-NC-ND is unsuitable license. Taivo (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Jefftemp (Camila Merino)
[edit]Two nearly identical smaller photos of Camila Merino, both claiming to be own work by different people, neither with camera metadata, neither to be believed.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - New user upload, no metadata available, both file have similar resolution. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp ("tourist snaps" or personal pictures)
[edit]'"tourist snaps" or personal pictures' uploaded by Matlin per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=566818733&oldid=566765145
- File:2003 03 28 Szentgotthárd DSCF0002 (51025373677).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0003 (51024543468).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0008 (51025279781).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0087 (51025373897).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0088 (51025373832).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0019 (51025279741).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0024 (51025374227).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0025 (51025374192).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0033 (51024543763).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0034 (51025279601).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0035 (51024543713).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0036 (51025374017).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0081 (51025373987).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0082 (51025373947).jpg
- File:2003 04 18 Robert 009 (51002931976).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (TUGAS POSTER KELOMPOK 6)
[edit]Both files are identical, were uploaded by different users as own work, and probably are copyvios as posters uploaded as part of an assignment named "Digital Literation Mid-Term Test".
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (Adminpedia files)
[edit]Created for attack/harassment. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg.
- File:Adminpedia-de.svg
- File:Adminpedia-en-2.png
- File:Adminpedia-en.png
- File:Adminpedia-en.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fa-2.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fa.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fi.svg
- File:Adminpedia-image.png
- File:Adminpedia-it.png
- File:Adminpedia.png
- File:Adminpedia-image.svg Added per restoration of this file at COM:UNDEL; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and restore the deleted one. This is not attack, but smart criticism. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the point to have these files here, except for annoying people. --Yann (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, Also not the first attempt. This isn't an attack it's a form of criticism and admins delete images for myriads of reasons like copyright laws and privacy protection, so pointing out that they delete images isn't an attack, it's literally what we expect of our volunteers with the tools to do so and this might mean that valuable images that are used in high visibility pages also get deleted. You've been trying for around 4 (four) years to get these deleted. Also it's never a good face for any establishment to deny any satire, a realistic way that these images could be used is in an article critical of admin action on Wikimedia websites, something which plenty of articles have been written about (see necessary websites like Wikopediocracy, numerous others like it, Reddit's WikiInAction, among others, as well as a number of Signpost articles about deletion debates, or just in general bad calls by admins when they are being discussed). Any image could be used as an attack image, a Vietnamese-Gernan user I know was constantly attacked with an in scope pornographic image by Musée Annam who was sexually harassing her, but that doesn't make that image less useful for educational purposes, it just means that he is a [insert explicitive here] (not meant as an actual attack, more like a joke, I don't hate him). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung: That attempt was just for File:Adminpedia-image.png, and I have precedent this time. The non-svg versions are still low quality, and all are still in poor taste. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Low quality images usually only get deleted if a better quality image of that same image exists, as far as I can find there are no high quality versions of all images and SVG files shouldn't automatically lead to the deletion of non-SVG files, simply because in many cases many websites only allow the usage of JPEG and PNG images. I never said that they weren't in poor taste, but satire almost always is. In fact it's extremely rare to find satire that isn't in poor taste, but I don't think that this should be a reason for deletion onto itself, these images are simply critical of admin action and were used by "anti-establishment" users to express this. Again, I would not prefer to have an establishment that wouldn't tolerate satire of itself, especially mild satire like this. With "mild" I mean that much more condemning images (which could be seen as attack pages) could have been used. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung: That attempt was just for File:Adminpedia-image.png, and I have precedent this time. The non-svg versions are still low quality, and all are still in poor taste. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If one could argue that it was created only to attack/harass and also can only be used for that, then we might have a reason for deletion. As to the first I am not a mind reader, so I will admit that it's possible that they were created only for that purpose, but they can be used to show the power disparity in the project which hosts the website with the number of visitors per day being overshadowed only by Google (I am talking about the project we are on right now). So the question is: "Is criticism of the second most popular project on the web notable enough to have a few files?" I believe that the answer is: "We probably don't have enough". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete I'm all for intelligent, constructive, criticism -- we could use more of it. But these are not constructive. Simply saying that we delete things does nothing to improve the project -- of course we delete things -- well more than a thousand per day. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Do you know the concept of satire? -- Chaddy (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Isn't all of this falling under Satire? Fleshgrinder (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For me as a longtime administrator on de-WP this sign is an important part of the daily work and characterizes in an excellent way the sense of administration. The deletion request is ridiculously humorless in the highest way. --He3nry (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep und verbessern statt löschen!!!! --Gardini (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Harharhar, suffering of boredom, lately? Those files exist for some 15 years, and here you come... --Amga (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Simply no -- Chaddy (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Well... Fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy? --Björn 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Preventing criticism has always been a good idea, right? Halbschwabe (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep irony, sarcasm... are important parts of critics and life --Über-Blick (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Info for transparency: These "keep" votes from people active in German Wikipedia are now coming in because He3nry alerted the administrator's noticeboard there. Well, like He3nry, I'm an admin in German-language Wikipedia, and not only there, but here on Commons too, and I don't feel offended at all by these satirical "anti-admin" banners. This is a way for people who think that admins delete too much to let off some steam, it's entirely harmless. The basic variant File:Adminpedia.png is widely in use on user pages in German-language Wikipedia (per GlobalUsageCount 238 times!), for many years (it was created in 2006 and is basically part of de-WP's folklore, I'd say) and I never heard of an admin there who would have felt harassed by this. So, I'm joining the Keep votes, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)- Keep Nü, es sollte schon bleiben. Etwas Humor und Selbstironie schadet definitiv nicht. Humor ist der Kitt, der Welten verbindet. Viele Grüße --Itti (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with 4nn1l2 - these images are not attack/harassment, although the irony they contain may not sit well with some people. A little off-topic, Debate between deletionism and inclusionism has been going on for over 10 years (even longer) in various projects, which reasonably explains why such images exist - and will also exist in the future. Stang★ 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Pages in Category:Jefftemp (Commons ban pages)
[edit]- Category:Banned Commons users
- Commons:BAN
- Template:Banned user
- Template:Banned user/doc
- Template:Db-g5
- Template:Db-meta
These pages were created by Gwilliams124 by fiat against policy, as attempts to change COM:BP without consensus by importing concepts from enwiki. Banning has been considered here for many years to be too bureaucratic, and process creep. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Gwilliams124. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, no idea why this was allowed in the first place. The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy basically allows any individual admin to ban a user while it requires wide community consensus to unban a user, this basically means that once a user is banned (s)he's banned for life unless they managed to have made enough friends before the ban to vouch for them. Importing these templates and categories legitimises these user-unfriendly processes, though I do think that a number of these templates and categories for globally banned users would be useful, even though I'm personally against the concept of banning a user here locally because of conduct on another website. That aside, there are simply no good reasons to have a template that explicitly links to The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy to be used here, that simply doesn't make sense under any circumstances. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I'd like to try to assume good faith here, but I find is awfully suspicious that an account registered only 5 (five) days ago suddenly creates policy pages and imports the English-language Wikipedia's G5 speedy deletion policy and general banning policy without ever engaging any content or policy discussions here. My guess is that this might be trolling. Interestingly enough, at the Wikinews (where they have registered only 8 (eight) days ago they made a number of import sockpuppet templates). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (oficinadopaisagista)
[edit]These files contain spam for oficinadopaisagista.com.br in their structured data. See also COM:ANU#Spamming using multiple accounts.
- File:Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Projetos paisagísticos Transplante de árvores.jpg
- File:Projetos paisagísticos Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Palmeira.jpg
- File:Viveiro de árvores, plantas para paisagismo.jpg
- File:Árvores para paisagismo Palmeira Imperial para paisagismo. Oficina do Paisagista.jpg
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't this stretching the definition of "spam" here? Let's say that there's a photographer who own a business and wants that business to be attributed, if we get OTRS / VRT permission and link to their business in the attribution we'd consider that "a donation" and such content is welcomed. Yet if such photographers upload these high quality images themselves here wishing for the same attribution it somehow becomes "spam"?! The Wikimedia Commons contains a lot of images from commercial websites, as long as these images are realistically educationally valuable. Why delete the image when you can simply remove the links? That is even if links for attribution are considered unwanted. If these images were imported from Flickr with the same description nobody would complain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung These are not links on Flickr that we have merely copied. This is part of a concerted effort directly on Commons to promote that website and sell more trees that has already seen deletion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. These files are part of a larger group of files (mostly already deleted) that were uploaded in a multi-user effort that is clearly for the purpose of advertising. The links to a commercial website are not part of the file sourcing. They are embedded as part of descriptive text such as "Plant nursery specializing in large trees, buy trees". File names in some cases are promotional text plus the company name. I don't think the nominator is stretching the definition of spam at all here. In addition, some of the deleted uploads from this group were identical to images found on other websites and mostly likely falsely claimed as own work. Under these circumstances, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle may apply with regard to sourcing/attribution. If these images are kept, at minimum the promotional links should be removed from the structured data. Marbletan (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Niraj kumar nani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to link author and uploader, no proof the author did place the file under a free license. So, suspected copyright violation. 空 (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Photo online in blog [13] months before supposed date of photo and before Wikimedia upload. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HaythamKenwai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious licenses/COM:LL - sourced to non-WMF wikis. For example, File:Altiatlasius.jpg was uploaded to source 2 June 2020, but was here 2016. File:Oligopithecus reconstruction.jpg was uploaded to source 7 October 2011, but was here 2010; etc. PRP issue.
- File:Kayentavenator restoration.jpg
- File:Altiatlasius.jpg
- File:Arctocyonlf.jpg
- File:Oligopithecus reconstruction.jpg
- File:Ambulocetusnatans life restoration2 .jpg
- File:Bohlinia attica life restoration.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HaythamKenwai (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:NOTHOST - unused, poor quality personal drawings
Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unclear sourcing. photo credit "© Yuriy Kvach" - same or different person than uploader @Veroforus: ? - and circular source link, goes to page in it:w on which this image is used. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Better version exists at [14] Boylarva99 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Felis_silvestris_grampia.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Russia for artwork, including sculptures. — Redboston 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Pretty obviously a product shot, facebook or smaller size, not likely to be own work. No useful metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader is author of this image, she's an actress, this looks professional. The file is small and unlikely to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, small and low quality file. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Facebook size and quality, may not be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation again 2A00:23C5:FF80:F301:2036:2B71:A96A:9EF6 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Supposedly has permission from "a BugGuide". Submit that permission via COM:VRTS. No permission template added to photo page. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; unused personal photo OOS -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE low-quality user-generated fantasy flags and map; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host".
- File:Bandera de las islas vírgenes españolas.jpg
- File:Bandera la dorera.jpg
- File:LocalizaciónIslasAsturianas.jpg
- File:Bandera Territorio insular Principado de Asturias.jpg
GPinkerton (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this picture, and the picture has no relevance. The photographer, Amrei-Marie, agrees with the deletion. Kaethe17 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; can't identify you in this pic. --Gbawden (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
No FOP. Building in Italy from 2012. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.7.205 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP, no exif, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.7.205 23:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lutheraner as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Hochlader offensichtlich nicht identisch mit Urheber / Rechteinhaber - kein Hinweis, dass Hochlader berechtigt ist, das Foto unter eine CC-Lizenz zu stellen YouTube description has it under CC-BY license. Has all the hallmarks of an original production by the channel that uploaded it. I see no problem here. Vera (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 07:14, 21 March 2021 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 14:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The flame is not a simple geometric shape, so {{PD-textlogo}} cannot be used. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; artwork seems over TOO. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Il ne sert à rien. Lemigouz (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted unused personal photo, uncat since 2019, uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
redirect from wrong name with no incoming links - uploaders’ request Cherurbino (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The image seems to have no realistic educational use, nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it is an image to illustrate pegging. --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Hannolans; human sexuality is within project scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous deletion requests of similar image of the same kept in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Strap-on pegging.jpg. Tm (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Close as Kept, no support for proposed deletion -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The low quality image seems to have no realistic educational use nor a purpose within the Wikimedia projects Veroforus (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous deletion requests on original image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Strap-on pegging.jpg. Tm (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Closed as Kept, no consensus to delete, no reason requiring deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine any possibilty to use this picture in one of our projects. I don't see that the people in this picture agreed to publish this picture under a free licence (on flickr), so their rights may be violated. Paintdog (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per previous; no faces are visible so personality rights do not seem a problem, this photo and a couple others from same series are the only actual photos as opposed to artwork depictions we have of the practice; the subject "pegging" has articles in more than 30 languages. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, but not for the proposed reason. Both this image and File:Strap-on pegging (cropped).jpg are cropped versions of File:Strap-on pegging.jpg. This file is unused and low-resolution; the other cropped image is in use and higher resolution, and is cropped slightly differently to focus better on the subject. Nothing is lost by deleting this version. Omphalographer (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don’t see this as being any better or worse than the others; having a bunch of functionally redundant versions of a file is acceptable even if it’s not really an ideal situation (i.e. look at how many nearly identical versions of File:Anime Girl.svg there are) Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Huanvilla1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope. Likely promotion. In description: Công ty tự động hóa Đông Phương đơn vị sản xuất máy CNC gỗ, máy khắc gỗ, máy đục chạm gỗ hàng đầu Việt Nam (Dong Phuong Automation Company is the leading manufacturer of CNC machines, wood machines and wood chisels in Vietnam).
⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 10:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Even if these photos were uploaded to promote the respective company, they are not out of COM:SCOPE. Having photographs from lines of machine tools in Vietnamese manufacturing companies is a good thing. The problem here is that such images are usually not the own work by the uploader and have been published before. This appears to be the case here (see https://shop ee.vn/dongphuongcnc). Hence, I think that we shall delete them per COM:PRP unless the uploader contacts the support team to clarify the copyright status of these images. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC) URL was mutilated with an inserted space to get through the filter as it appears to be blacklisted
Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an image taken from a computergame. I doubt that the uploader can release this under CC. Crusio (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The case is already being discussed (very slowly) at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#Minecraft_images (Category:Minecraft - mass DR might be appropriate). NVO (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep taken from a copyrighted computer game, the creators of which allow the distribution of screenshots. Beta M (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the original uploader forgot (or didn't want to) to add the correct license, that is now fixed. House (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Of which computer game was this thing taken? Was this computer game release under a free CC licence? --High Contrast (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- From Minecraft. No. Beta M (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the link in NVO's comment because the discussion has been archived. See also the new discussion Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Minecraft screenshots where I raise some concerns about some formulations in the terms of use. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Rosenzweig τ 16:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Minecraft texture, copyrighted, see https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/File:Enderman.png#Summary Nutshinou Talk! 10:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this picture, and the picture has no relevance. The photographer, Amrei-Marie, agrees with the deletion. Kaethe17 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this picture, and the picture has no relevance. The photographer, Amrei-Marie, agrees with the deletion. Kaethe17 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this picture, and the picture has no relevance. The photographer, Amrei-Marie, agrees with the deletion. Kaethe17 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this picture, and the picture has no relevance. The photographer, Amrei-Marie, agrees with the deletion. Kaethe17 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Old photos, most are from FB per MD. Need proper info to determine PD status or OTRS
- File:In meeting on 23-09-2003.jpg
- File:In meeting on 23-09-2002.jpg
- File:While joining the office as minister on 26-08-1999.jpg
- File:While joining the office as minister on 26-07-1999.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Doutful licence claim, Film poster artwork, most likely work of "Corpulenta" or the films' distributor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
No claims from the films' distributor or anyone involved in Identifying Features, in this case or any situation like this, also the image is in English Wikipedia and no one has claimed it. Got it from a free license film posters website . ReiRojas (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- ReiRojas: Wikimedia Commons deletion requests are not based on whether a copyright claim has been made, but whether copyright exists. In addition, the image may be allowed on English Wikipedia under the doctrine of “fair use,” which is not policy on Wikimedia Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Unsupported license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This UK logo may be well above the TOO, which in the UK is set extremely low (if at all exists). In particular, the stylised inscription that features a lightning sign in place of an apostrophe indicates artistic creation, which alone is sufficient to establish that there was "sweat of brow" involved. See Commons:UK. — kashmīrī 18:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please can the uploader provide further details to confirm this file is their own work. Appears to be a screenshot from a video (titled 'snapshot' and in PNG format). Potentially not own work as claimed. No usage on Wikimedia projects. mattbr 18:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Unused, lacks context info for any in-scope usefulness; questionable license claim-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Only uploader's contributions. Too small, no EXIF, source indicated is "Own family album". This means these two are not self-photographed images of Thrall312, but their photographer. Needs COM:VRT permission of commercial license release from the photographer (not the uploader or the person depicted).
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, pretty straightforward problem of "who's the author?" 69.174.144.79 15:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not self-photographed images as the uploader claimed (false own work claims). Four old photos, from 1972, 1975, 1978, and 1980. Certainly fail {{PD-Philippines}}, and need COM:VRT correspondence of licensing permission from the copyright holder of the old photos. May also be COM:URAA compliant.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom, false own work claims. These all look like yearbook photos and should be presumed copyrighted. 69.174.144.79 15:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Jarmarka 2013 LMA
[edit]Art or sculptures photographed at an art academy. No FOP in Latvia unfortunately
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529497253).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529384005).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529510883).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529414194).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529375475).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529468616).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529516113).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529374235).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529500353).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529505773).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529402494).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529469296).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529379205).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529458936).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529513713).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529367415).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529425424).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529393675).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529471516).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529456896).jpg
- File:Jarmarka 2013 LMA (11529378415).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Terminator758 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated fantasy flag and maps; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host".
- File:Vesteysian Flag.png
- File:After War Map.png
- File:End of War Map.png
- File:Vesteysian Third World War.png
- File:A Roman Empire Flag.png
- File:Vesteysian World.png
GPinkerton (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Gbawden. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
FoP not appplicable. We received a ticket ticket:2021100810009187 via the VRT system. The picture was not taken from a public spot, and the owner of the house would like to have the picture removed. The uploader admitted as much and asked for the picture to be deleted. O.Koslowski (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion (linked above) has been archived in the meantime: w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:O.Koslowski/Archiv/2021/#Foto. -- Martinus KE (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, in order to avoid potential problem for the uploader/photographer, but without recogniizing any legal necessity. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hirdesh haswani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Claimed as own work but all are professional photos and at least one has the photographers name as a watermark. None have meaningful exif except to point out they are probably from FB. All need OTRS. Also, not sure about scope
- File:Jaanvirajoleoo.jpg
- File:Jaanhaviiii90.jpg
- File:Jaaanhavi.jpg
- File:Janhavi78.jpg
- File:Janhaviactress.jpg
- File:Jaanhavi.jpg
- File:JanhaviRajole3.jpg
- File:JanhaviRajole2.jpg
- File:Janhavi Rajole.jpg
- File:JanhaviRajole.jpg
- File:JanhaviRajole1.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dispositions as follows:
- Delete File:Jaanvirajoleoo.jpg, File:Jaanhaviiii90.jpg, File:Jaaanhavi.jpg, File:Janhaviactress.jpg, and File:JanhaviRajole1.jpg as professional photographs without permission. Even if permission comes in, I say delete because of the obnoxious watermarking and minimal value of these images to Commons' mission (some promotional work is clearly going on here).
- Delete File:Jaanhavi.jpg, File:JanhaviRajole2.jpg, File:Janhavi Rajole.jpg, and File:JanhaviRajole.jpg as above, though these lack the obnoxious watermark. I still say delete even if permission comes in because of the evident promotional purpose of these uploads.
- Weak delete File:Janhavi78.jpg because of the number of other suspect images, and it's likely that the uploader is in the image (and therefore, copyright belongs to whoever took the photo). The lack of EXIF is disconcerting as well.
- Weak delete File:JanhaviRajole3.jpg because of the number of other suspect images. This image may be professionally taken as well like the others, but I feel less confident about it. Regardless, due to the lack of EXIF, other suspect images, and promotional intent of the uploader (as seen here and in the file description), I believe this image should also be deleted.
- 69.174.144.79 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mattbr as no permission (No permission since)
Converted from no-perm to regular DR just as it's on Commons since >5 years. However, I didn't see any permission oder free license on the source-site and the metadata state "(C) SOEREN LAMBERTH". -- Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Unclear on origin and license [15] Boylarva99 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP UK, photographs of graphic works in the UK, even when displayed in public, are considered copyrighted. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lutheraner as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Hochlader offensichtlich nicht identisch mir Urheber / Rechteinhaber , es gibt keinen hinweis, dass der Hochlader berechtigt ist, das Foto unter eine CC-Lizenz zu stellen YouTube video is CC-BY licensed. Seems a legit channel with a regular show going. See no problem here. Vera (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the source video is appropriately licensed and I don't see any obvious evidence of license laundering. clpo13(talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
These images of paintings have been marked as the uploader's own work, but they're clearly not.
- File:Portriat of Two Sisters 1908.jpg
- File:Portrait of Hims 1902.jpg
- File:Keewaydin Mansion.jpg
- File:Inception of the Birth of Oregon 1923.jpg
- File:Blessing of the Wheat at Artois.jpg
- File:Apple Still Life with Knife.jpg
Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC) It is my hope that these images can be retained and not deleted. As a new contributor to Wikimedia Commons I have tried to read through the applicable rules and I believe that these images do not violate copyright laws or Wikimedia Commons rules. In each case I personally took the photographs for these images; the photos are indeed my work. These photos are considered "derived" work under the copyright laws. In each case the original works were completed prior to the Jan 1, 1923 effective date of the copyright laws. Several of these works I personally own; for the others in each case permission of the owner was asked and given to photograph and use these images. It is my belief that these images are properly represented and described and that no rules are violated.
1) Portriat of Two Sisters 1908 is signed and dated 1908 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work"
2) Portrait of Hims 1902 is signed and dated 1902 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work"
3) Keewaydin Mansion.jpg is not signed and not dated .. it was executed in about 1895 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work"
4) Inception of the Birth of Oregon 1923 is signed and dated 1923 .. how ever is documented to have been copyrighted as a finished work in January 6, 1920 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work"
5) Blessing of the Wheat at Artois is not signed and not dated .. it was completed in 1882 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work"
6) Apple Still Life with Knife is signed and dated 1902 .. the creation date of the original work is prior to the 1923 effective date of the copyright law and is, because of it's date of creation, considered "public domain"; therefore the display of an image of this painting is a derived work and does not violate the copyright rules .. this image is from a photograph that I took myself .. the photograph is "my work" Sincerely, Ted Gegoux NNYArtist .. new contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNYArtist (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-expired. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни у селі Колиндяни. Тернопільська область.jpg
[edit]
And also
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. uk:Пам’ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни (Колиндяни)Created 1971. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a PD work. Source is Russian textbook on geography. This was also indicated by the uploader (see link in field "author"). — Redboston 05:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Так как изображение значительно изменено мной, я изменил лицензию на другую - Knyaz-1988 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Даже значительно изменённое изображение остаётся производным от первоначального произведения и наследует его лицензионный статус.— Redboston 00:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC) У вас не было прав на изменение оригинального изображения.— Redboston 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as missing essential information to confirm licensing status. The file description indicates that it's a scan, and the website listed as the source appears to allow user contributions. And as we see from the uploader's response above, it's a derivative work and the uploader seems to have misunderstood the requirements. Unless that is fixed and proper attribution is achieved (and its availability under a compatible license proved), this file needs to be deleted. 69.174.144.79 14:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:DW. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets our Commons:Coats of arms policy. --RAN (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
._png.png){kind=link}
._png.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
._png.png){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source. Although it looks like someone took the original scan and added color to it, that would not make it copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
._png.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. This one gives a date in 1781, however the image uploaded is obviously computer drawn and cannot possibly date from the 1700s. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source. The colors are newly added to the original source, but that wouldn't restart the copyright. --RAN (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Fictional flag of the real city Innopolis. Real flag is different. Also
should be deleted for the same reason. The last is actually is File:Coat of Arms of Verhneuslonsky rayon (Tatarstan).gif (CoA of Tatarstan district) MBH 08:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. You also could do it yourself. MBH 10:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate it for deletion, so why should I have done your job? Absurd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. You also could do it yourself. MBH 10:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: fake flags, not in use. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
._gif.gif){kind=link}
._gif.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. This is obviously computer graphics, but claimed to date from 1780. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
._gif.gif){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing. --RAN (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
._gif.gif){kind=link}
._gif.jpg){kind=link}
._gif.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Claimed to be 1905, but obviously computer drawn. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
._gif.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
._gif.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image not found at source provided. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- @Ellin Beltz: www.heraldicum.ru/russia/ Sibjects of Russia http://www.heraldicum.ru/russia/subjects/towns/images/sololw.gif Зайцев Руслан Викторович (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Зайцев Руслан Викторович: : Where does it show the license, please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is still no direct connection between this image and that author. There is no single place which provides source, author & license. If possible, could you provide the information in such a way that the closing administrator is not guessing? Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Source: heraldicum.ru. {{PD-RusEmpire}}. B. Köhne's authorship is controversial. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source. These would be better handled as one
combined deletion request, or testing a single one for deletion first. --RAN (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
-2021-11-01T02:35:00.000Z-File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Iletsk_project_(1854).png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets our Commons:Coats of arms policy. --RAN (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Claimed to be 1780 date but created on computer. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing. --RAN (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing. --RAN (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source. The colors are newly added to the original source, but that wouldn't restart the copyright. --RAN (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. Very small derivative work. Also the Camera Location is probably not correct and the uploader might prefer it not to be on the image if it is retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing. --RAN (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; COA. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Graphic stated as own work. Is it a screenshot of something? No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
superseded JPEG by Black rat range map.png — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Je ne désire plus que cette photo de moi soit publiée merci 91.179.125.87 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Image is in use and was taken in public at a public event (a bike race). Public events are one of the exceptions to subject consent being needed for a photograph in France per COM:IDENT. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per above, in use and doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
File:George Orwell - 'Politics & the English Language' (1946) (IA orwell-politics-the-english-language-1946).pdf
[edit]"Politics and the English language"was renewed in the US (Renewal: RE014467) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Confirmed renewal in 1978. This was published as part of Shooting an elephant, and other essays in 1950 per IA. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, it's copyright is 95 years after publication (2046). I'm not 100% if this was published in UK as well. If so, with Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom, this won't be PD until 2051 as Sonia Orwell is the copyright holder (70 years after death). In either case, it's not PD yet. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- The terms of protection in UK copyright are based on the author, not the copyright holder. The author is George Orwell, who died in 1950, so this text (en:Politics and the English Language, first published in the UK in 1946) is in the public domain in the UK. --Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Doubtful own work claim, Spots club logo, copyright most likely with club concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hungarikusz Firkász as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The author is not unknown. The picture shows Angelo. Angelo = Paul Funk. Funk died in 1974. Vera (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The work is credited to the corporation. If I'm not mistaken that's similar to work published under pseudonym: 70 years after publication. Also started DR so it could be tagged with an undelete category. Vera (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- When the author identity is known it doesn't matter whether it was signed (not published!) by his phseudonym, or a graphical symbol, or anything else. Authors are unknown only when we do not know who they are. :-) grin ✎ 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Geneviève de Paris (talk · contribs)
[edit]Mexican images from the 1930s and later but without known authors (so PMA cannot be determined) or with authors who died relatively recently. These images are new enough so that these works fall under PMA Mexican copyright laws (as opposed to earlier post-creation terms). Licence claims images are CC-BY-SA, which is dubious given age of most. Museum/INAH sources claim that licences are Creative Commons Non-Commercial (which is again dubious because of age and the unlikely status of INAH or museum as copyright holder), but that still leaves these images in uncertain copyright status and unlikely to be public domain per COM:CRT Mexico.
- File:Patio del Convento de la Encarnación, hoy Secretaría de Educación Pública, vista parcial.jpg
- File:Pascual Díaz y Barreto, retrato al óleo.jpg
- File:Patio del Hospitalito.jpg
- File:"El Hospitalito" conjunto del contrafuerte.jpg
- File:El Hospitalito.jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No COM:FOP Italy. Sculptor Vittorio Di Cobertaldo died in 1979; not yet 70 years pma.
- File:Analemma @Taranto (30847625776).jpg
- File:Monumento al Marinaio di Taranto.jpg
- File:Monumento marinai Taranto.JPG
- File:TARANTO-ITALIA (11210992305).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-M.nelson (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
_seal_(chopmark).png){kind=link}
_seal_(chopmark).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
For whatever reason the VTRS permission wasn't approved. In the hopes of preventing its deletion I am nominating it for deletion on the basis that this file may be ineligible for copyright © under the assumption that United States copyright © law doesn't protect simply stylised calligraphy. of course, this is usually tested towards Latin script and not Chinese seal script so I nominate it here to have a wider discussion on the subject. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
_seal_(chopmark).png){kind=link}
- Keep, as this is a simple shape (circle) with Seal script (an ancient script) in it, it was made in the United States of America (which requires creativity to be used in making a logo) and this file is simply text in a circle. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:TOO US and {{PD-textlogo}}. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
_seal_(chopmark).png){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Russia for monuments, so, the image won’t be free as we have non-trivial relief image here rubin16 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
_03.jpg){kind=link}
- rubin16, перенесите, пожалуйста, фото локально в РуВики. Спасибо. --Mitte27 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Считаю нужным фото оставить на Викискладе. В России запрещено публиковать скульптурное изображение, если оно является основным элементом публикуемой фотографии. При этом открытым (то есть четко не прописанным в нормативных актах) является вопрос, что считать основным элементом? В Екатеринбурге недавно Арбитражный суд вынес решение о том, что публикация скульптуры Памятник Татищеву и де Геннину не нарушает права скульптора, так как скульптура опубликована вместе с постаментом (постамент даже меньше скульптуры на фото), на который не распространяются права скульптора. В случае данного надгробия, о котором идет речь ситуация на мой взгляд еще более очевидная. Надгробие на фото состоит из элемента защищенного авторским правом (барельефа) и тривиальных элементов (каменной доски, надписей и стандартных изображений шахматных фигур). При этом барельеф занимает менее одной пятой изображения каменной доски, то есть барельеф не является основным элементом фото. Следовательно, данное фото не может рассматриваться как нарушающее авторское право скульптора, изготовившего барельеф. Остальные же элементы тривиальны и авторским правом не защищены. Обращаю также внимание на позицию в Русской Википедии - рекомендации по итогам обсуждения, в ходе которого было принято, что обычные надгробия сами по себе не защищены авторским правом. Конечно, рекомендации сами по себе необязательны, но в них та же позиция - тривиальное изображение (к которому относится большинство надмогильных типовых памятников) авторским правом не защищено. Иван Абатуров (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- the court decision is curious but I wouldn't lean to it here: the dispute has already gone to the Supreme Court and back and this is just a one0off decision of a lower level court that couldn't be considered as a real indicator of existing practice, it is likely to be disputed again. rubin16 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- nope, it's only for official documents. We even don't have automatic PD for government works (though it's also not a case here)
- rubin16 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, just Delete, maybe providing an undeletion year would be love. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, just
- Delete under the Commons understanding of what Russian FOP means. 69.174.144.79 14:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
_03.jpg){kind=link}
Фото содержит старый (неактуальный) логотип компании (АО "Чепецкий механический завод") Lara chmz (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion. I'm not entirely sure if the problem is that the logo is old (we don't delete something simply because it is outdated) or because the logo is copyrighted. In this case, the old logo is almost certainly de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Probably not public domain, the artwork is by non-federal employee in a poster contest https://blogs.va.gov/VAntage/76450/winning-design-selected-2020-veterans-day-poster-contest/ Bri (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucas666Mullet (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyvio. All photos of or related to hijackers in the September 11 attacks. Licensed as unknown author, but suspected failed verification/permission/source to use these photos.
- File:Ziad Jarrah in Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Ziad Jarrah in flight school.jpg
- File:Khalidal-Mihdhar.jpg
- File:Khalid al-Mihdhar.jpg
- File:Mohandalshehri.jpg
- File:Abdelghani Mzoudi and Marwan al-Shehhi.jpg
- File:MohamedAtta.jpg
- File:RedbandanaHijackersFlight93.jpg
- File:Saeed al-Ghamdi burned passport.jpg
- File:Fbanihammad.jpg
- File:Ahmed al-Nami burned passport.jpg
- File:Ahmed al Haznawi.png
- File:Ahmed al-Haznawi.jpg
- File:Jarrah-2000-Flying-Florida.jpg
- File:Marwan alShehhi.jpg
- File:ZiadJarrahAndAtta.jpg
- File:Hamza al Ghamdi.jpg
- File:Satam alSuqami.jpg
- File:Hamza al-Ghamdi speeching.jpg
- File:Nawaf al Hazmi.jpg
- File:Saeed al-Ghamdi.jpg
- File:Mohand al-Shehri speeching.jpg
- File:Ziad Jarrah Young.jpg
- File:Atta university party.jpg
- File:Mohamed Atta young.jpg
- File:Abdulaziz Al-omari passport photo.jpg
- File:Abdulaziz al-omari.jpg
- File:Abdulaziz Alomari in ATM.jpg
- File:Nawaf and Salem airport.gif
- File:Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the following images...
- File:RedbandanaHijackersFlight93.jpg as {{PD-USGov}}
- File:Abdulaziz Alomari in ATM.jpg. This is CCTV and lacks any creative input.
- File:Nawaf and Salem airport.gif. This is CCTV and lacks and creative input.
- File:Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.jpg. This is CCTV and lacks creative input.
- IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dispositions as follows:
- Keep File:RedbandanaHijackersFlight93.jpg and File:Saeed al-Ghamdi burned passport.jpg and retag as PD-USGov provided they can be shown to be US federal government photographs (I think it's safe to assume so)
- Weak keep File:Ahmed al-Nami burned passport.jpg, as I believe the copyrightable portion of these images may be de minimis (I'm open to debating that one)
- Weak delete regarding the photos marked or resembling driver's license photos. I think some more research can be done to determine whether some of them were taken by government agencies whose works are PD, but the default is to delete. I only mention these separately to call attention to the possibility that they're PD.
Unsure for File:Abdulaziz Alomari in ATM.jpg and File:Nawaf and Salem airport.gif. I don't buy the claim that security camera footage lacks copyright under U.S. law. However, File:Nawaf and Salem airport.gif may be PD-USGov anyway because it was taken by security equipment at Dulles International Airport, which airport is owned by the federal government. I think, though, the resolution of this image may depend on whether it's w:Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority's image.- Delete all other images, particularly the screencaps from television.
- 69.174.144.79 15:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination most are deleted, except those mentioned. File:Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.jpg was deleted already in another request. --Ellywa (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Images are credited to "Daryll Ignacio Baybay". Is "Daryll Ignacio Baybay" the same as uploader Arvzk3n (talk · contribs)? Note that all of the uploader's other uploads are credited as "Arvzk3n", not "Daryll Ignacio Baybay", and so casts doubt if these two images are really Arvzk3n's self-photographed images.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There may be FOP issues here as well. See COM:FOP Philippines. I can't say for sure, but it's possible that both buildings are post-1972, and the artwork in File:Far Eastern University Chapel.jpg may also be subject to copyright. Not going to !vote on the different author credit name vs the uploader name either way as I don't think it's sufficient a problem on its own. 69.174.144.79 15:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- @69.174.144.79: the Chapel as per w:Far Eastern University#SCA Chapel was completed in 1959, and the 2D artwork here was created by w:Botong Francisco (who died in 1969, hence should have been public domain here since January 1, 2020 or 50 years p.m.a.). Unsure with the building at the other image though, but a similar image shows the same scene and describes the foreground object as a grandstand; Google Maps (satellite mode) searching reveals the building behind the grandstand as Nicanor Reyes Hall, which dates to 1939 as per enwiki article. Thus all buildings pass {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}} as pre-December 1972 buildings. But I still have doubts on authorship vis-à-vis the uploader (if they are the same person or not). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of these images. Dear uploader, if you made some of these images by yourself please upload the unedited versions again with the complete exif data, or ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. --Ellywa (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Protocetus
[edit]File:Protocetus BW.jpg (other files are derived therefrom) was here prior to Commons upload, where it has the Creative Commons 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license. No evidence of purported CC-by 3.0 license.
Эlcobbola talk 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- The artist is the uploader so doesn't matter what the site says, dual licenses are allowed. But the website also says "All illustrations on this site are copyrighted to Nobu Tamura. The low resolution versions of the images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license meaning that you are free to use them as long as you properly credit the author (© N. Tamura)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. These 4 images were not uploaded by the artist, but by other users. Although the artist states on en:User:NobuTamura that the images are licenced Creative Commons, no additional details are added – such as NC or no NC. In addition the user stopped editing per December 2020. --Ellywa (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [16]. Yann (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dates, Sources and Authors cannot be "n/a" to avoid proper licensing. This one is supposed to be 1781, but with no source and obviously computer generated. Very small derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to meet Commons:COA licensing per the over 100 in the category from the same source. The colors are newly added to the original source, but that wouldn't restart the copyright. --RAN (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of RAN. --Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Heavily degraded image which does not respect the original colors. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with this assessment. I don't see where it's "Heavily degraded". Can you point out where. And as for "does not respect the original colors", how do you know the original colors? And I notice you've submitted two very different versions. Who decided which is correct? The contrast and color are better than File:Ca' Rezzonico Sala Lazzarini - Ercole e Onfale - Antonio Bellucci.jpg Do you imagine an artist would paint such a dull image? Are you just jealous that it looks better than what you uploaded? Also I have followed the terms of your licensing - "You are free to - to remix – to adapt the work". So what are you objecting to? Pixel8tor (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment You have degraded the entire image your colors are fanciful and do not respect the reality of the painting (which is yellowed and dark). In all the images in the category only yours has these problems. Personally I know the painting and I take my photos myself. It is good practice to ask the author before starting an edit. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's dark and yellow because of ageing and poor curation/conservation, not because that's what the artist painted. By remastering the colors I've restored them *closer* to their original colors. I am sure the artist would say my interpretation is closer to his vision than the dull, aged image you are defending. You talk in broad generalities without any specific supporting evidence, just your opinion. Well I have an opinion too, and everyone knows marble isn't dull yellow. I don't even know what you mean by "In all the images in the category only yours has these problems." What are you talking about? And just because you own a camera doesn't make you a professional. You also failed to explain your first upload. Why did you upload a second one? Did your opinion change? But you say "Personally I know the painting and I take my photos myself." So what? I've seen plenty of poorly photographed paintings. Was your color temp. correct? How about exposure? If we look at your first upload you failed on both of these. And obviously you agreed because you replaced it with a different version. Did you go back to the museum and take a new photograph or did you just edit it to make it brighter? And why would you need to do that if "Personally I know the painting . . ."? And no, there is nothing in the license saying to ask someone before creating a derivative version. So your statement "It is good practice to ask the author before starting an edit." is silly and shows a lack of understanding the license you published this under. Once it's on Wikimedia it is free for anyone to use. And your opinion really has nothing to do with it. I fear your ego is getting the better of you. You need to be less arrogant, and your bullying is really unpleasant. Pixel8tor (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- We must show reality, and refrain from repainting the picture to our liking. Our license allows it, but in this case we will have done Art and this is not allowed us either. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's dark and yellow because of ageing and poor curation/conservation, not because that's what the artist painted. By remastering the colors I've restored them *closer* to their original colors. I am sure the artist would say my interpretation is closer to his vision than the dull, aged image you are defending. You talk in broad generalities without any specific supporting evidence, just your opinion. Well I have an opinion too, and everyone knows marble isn't dull yellow. I don't even know what you mean by "In all the images in the category only yours has these problems." What are you talking about? And just because you own a camera doesn't make you a professional. You also failed to explain your first upload. Why did you upload a second one? Did your opinion change? But you say "Personally I know the painting and I take my photos myself." So what? I've seen plenty of poorly photographed paintings. Was your color temp. correct? How about exposure? If we look at your first upload you failed on both of these. And obviously you agreed because you replaced it with a different version. Did you go back to the museum and take a new photograph or did you just edit it to make it brighter? And why would you need to do that if "Personally I know the painting . . ."? And no, there is nothing in the license saying to ask someone before creating a derivative version. So your statement "It is good practice to ask the author before starting an edit." is silly and shows a lack of understanding the license you published this under. Once it's on Wikimedia it is free for anyone to use. And your opinion really has nothing to do with it. I fear your ego is getting the better of you. You need to be less arrogant, and your bullying is really unpleasant. Pixel8tor (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: of no educational use imho and therefore out of COM:SCOPE. Image is currently not used on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
