Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/02/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
wrong file Yaku975 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
wrong file Yaku975 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Photoshop. No scope. DW — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.125.63.138 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete as used photoshop on someone's image in a bad or a troll way. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & OOS. --Achim55 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
nikhil paralikar Mrunmayi Katkar (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: we do not delete users' talk pages. --Achim55 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Wrong Upload photo Raidraga (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Selfie with the text ”i like you” and category “sex” Pacha Tchernof (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#F10. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: from https://www.instagram.com/meysam_eddie/?hl=en. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Shanyl De Schoeisitter met gouden medaille Wielrenfan (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & no evidence of a free license. --Achim55 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; Since blocked multiple-account abusing uploader mostly of blatant copyright violations. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marte200023450), so no reason to delay deleting this unused blurry photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As this was taken from their Facebook page, the image is a clear copyright violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jazmin Nicol (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality, out of scope images.
Yeeno (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Not own work: see metadata Bradipo Lento (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and after request for speedy deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was created by a user who is currently blocked in Simple English Wiki for evading another block. The only page which includes this file has been deleted and this file is not useful educationally. Fehufanga (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Same problem with:
Deleted: Commons:Project scope. --Polarlys (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Photo for abandoned userspace article w:User:Hansottowirtz/sandbox Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, with no prejudice against a simple undelete if the above page is undeleted per w:Wikipedia:REFUND. HouseBlaster (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zubair Areekadan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal photos
- File:MD ESHAN ZUBAIR AREEKKADAN.jpg
- File:Salman zubair Areekkadan.jpg
- File:Areekkadan.jpg
- File:Areekkadan Nalukettu 1911.jpg
- File:Areekkadan eldest membe Muhammad sha.jpg
- File:Areekkadan Nalukettu.jpg
- File:IMG-20180422-WA0168.jpg
- File:IMG-20180220-WA0064.jpg
* Pppery * it has begun... 00:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zubair Areekadan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
* Pppery * it has begun... 02:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sayan Ghosh Official's (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal photos
- File:Sayan Ghosh Official's .pn.jpg
- File:Sayan Ghosh at Sundarbun...2022 january.jpg
- File:Sayan Ghosh Official's.jpg
* Pppery * it has begun... 00:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AminTmiwiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]questionable copyright status (AminTmiwiki is very likely Amin Tahmasebi's own username; cf. File:Amin Tahmasebi N1.jpg's author field). Some of the files were used in a promotional way at Wikidata, too.
- File:Amin Tahmasebi N1.jpg
- File:Amin Tahmasebi snow.jpg
- File:Amin Tahmaseb Cr.jpg
- File:Amin Tahmasebi Iphone.jpg
- File:Amin Tahmaebi Sargarm Nasho Music Video.jpg
- File:Amin Tahmasebi.jpg
Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:StinkyRumpfunt
[edit]- File:Scary bridge 1.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 2.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 3.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 4.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 5.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 6.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 7.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 8.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 9.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 10.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 11.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 12.jpg
- File:Scary bridge 13.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:StinkyRumpfunt (globally locked). I believe they should be deleted because they are likely copyright violations. All of the low-resolution images seem to be screenshots of this Youtube video, e.g. bridge 1 at 0:03, 2 at 2:10, 3 at 6:29. --Entbert (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted image, same exact campaign picture was uploaded a year ago and deleted 47.223.90.202 15:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 03:49, 17 February 2022 UTC: No permission since 9 February 2022 --Krdbot 08:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Lacks a license for home country Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- We house over a dozen from the same photos studio under the same license, many from other photo archives listing them as PD or CC. --RAN (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- The postcard was published in 1908 and is clearly out of copyright everywhere! Jack1956 (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- This photo is 114 years old and very comfortably in public domain in all jurisdictions. I have updated the copyright tags accordingly to cover both US and UK, so I trust this has addressed the problem satisfactorily, and that this deletion request can be cancelled. Cnbrb (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: This image originates from the UK. It is in Category:Foulsham & Banfield, where it says right at the top "Author is either Frank Foulsham (1873-1930) or Arthur Clive Banfield (1875-1965)". Since no specific photographer is named, I'll go with the precautionary principle and assume Banfield was the photographer. Since he died in 1965, that would mean the image is still protected in the UK until the end of 2035 (and not "very comfortably in public domain in all jurisdictions" or "clearly out of copyright everywhere"). The file can be restored in 2036. --Rosenzweig τ 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Not own work //LevandeMänniska (talk), 15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope
- File:Boys, pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen.jpg
- File:Hills, pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen, suhrab010.jpg
- File:Hills, pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen, suhrab010,.jpg
- File:Hills, pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen, suhrab010,suhrab 010.jpg
- File:Boys pose 2022, Suhrab Hussen, Suhrab 010.jpg
- File:Hills, pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen, suhrab010,suhrab 010,.jpg
- File:Pose, boy pose, boys pose, boy pose 2022, boys pose 2022,suhrab hussen, suhrab010,suhrab 010, monuments, monument.jpg
* Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
It is imposible to play it Import(santi);True (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
it is old flag, key is no longer associated with the party. Now it is changed to this https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1062994434600534017/1640847260/1080x360 according to both Facebook (https://facebook.com/psplofficial) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/psplofficial) of the party ~ 2409:4063:2187:624F:2504:3DF9:4434:1383 01:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-ineligible}}. --Yann (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright infringement from [1] 2003:EC:5F0C:3900:4D06:5A8:D359:50B9 14:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hessen hat die Daten zum 01.02.2022 zum kostenlosen Download unter OpenData-Bedingungen bereitgestellt. Auch das entsprechende Gesetz ist vollkommen eindeutig: https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-VermGeoInfGHEV6P18
- § 18
- Nutzung der Daten des öffentlichen Vermessungswesens
- (1) Jede Nutzung der Geobasisdaten und zugehörigen Metadaten ist ohne Einschränkung oder Bedingung erlaubt. Die bereitgestellten Geobasisdaten und Metadaten dürfen für die kommerzielle und nicht kommerzielle Nutzung insbesondere 1. vervielfältigt, ausgedruckt, präsentiert, verändert, bearbeitet sowie an Dritte übermittelt werden, 2. mit eigenen Daten und Daten anderer zusammengeführt und zu selbstständigen neuen Datensätzen verbunden werden, 3. in interne und externe Geschäftsprozesse, Produkte und Anwendungen in öffentlichen und nicht öffentlichen elektronischen Netzwerken eingebunden werden. Rouven Meidlinger (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- siehe Info des Erstellers, Hessen hat die Geo-Daten entsprechend freigegeben. Behalten. mfg --Commander-pirx (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: HVGG, § 18. --Emha (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation from [2] 2003:EC:5F0C:3900:4D06:5A8:D359:50B9 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I thought before as well (as it was in the past), but now looking on the website they seemed to changed rights and put them free under easy conditions:
- see under "Kosten": "Die Produkte von Geodaten online stehen zum kosten- und lizenzfreien Download zur Verfügung. Die Geobasisdaten können privat oder auch gewerblich genutzt werden. ... " the rest is only if personal data will be used, which is in the case for the landscapes without personal info's not the case)
- but I would support to ask officially the Hessische Verwaltung für Bodenmanagement und Geoinformation (to use: recht@hvbg-hessen.de-mail.de )
- Hessen hat die Daten zum 01.02.2022 zum kostenlosen Download unter OpenData-Bedingungen bereitgestellt. Auch das entsprechende Gesetz ist vollkommen eindeutig: https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-VermGeoInfGHEV6P18
- § 18
- Nutzung der Daten des öffentlichen Vermessungswesens
- (1) Jede Nutzung der Geobasisdaten und zugehörigen Metadaten ist ohne Einschränkung oder Bedingung erlaubt. Die bereitgestellten Geobasisdaten und Metadaten dürfen für die kommerzielle und nicht kommerzielle Nutzung insbesondere 1. vervielfältigt, ausgedruckt, präsentiert, verändert, bearbeitet sowie an Dritte übermittelt werden, 2. mit eigenen Daten und Daten anderer zusammengeführt und zu selbstständigen neuen Datensätzen verbunden werden, 3. in interne und externe Geschäftsprozesse, Produkte und Anwendungen in öffentlichen und nicht öffentlichen elektronischen Netzwerken eingebunden werden. Rouven Meidlinger (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: HVGG, § 18. --Emha (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture is also found in an official handbook made by the French Army. Own work by the uploader is highly unlikely. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a press picture service (Horstmüller Pressebilderdienst https://www.foto-horstmueller.de/). The "own work" refers to the photographing of the newspaper image - copyrights violated. --91.89.129.11 09:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The picture was taken by a press picture service (Horstmüller Pressebilderdienst https://www.foto-horstmueller.de/). The "own work" refers to the photographing of the newspaper image - copyrights violated. 91.89.129.11 07:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brandonng06 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like scan from a professional drawing, maybe from an old book, but I doubt it is own work.
Avron (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is from PD Grays Anatomy See File:Gray 111 - Vertebral column.png --RAN (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, so it is a duplicate then.Avron (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Delete we already have it. --RAN (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It was uploaded by mistake. DefatX (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Listed at source as "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND" incompatible with Commons Kingofthedead (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: No longer applicable, nomination should be closed as keep and I've reviewed this. ' Kingofthedead (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
attribution has been updated it seems to Attribution-ShareAlike - Creative Commons BY-SA, which is allowed by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing [photo source] Sahiljain22 (talk)
- @Sahiljain22: Thanks! I'd like to withdraw the deletion nomination. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: license fixed. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
For those of you around the world who knew Felicity, and have not yet been told, Felicity died in Auckland on 7 July 2010. The funeral is in Wellington on 13 July. 191.125.63.138 00:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- deleted, Personal photo. matanya • talk 07:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: closing. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Photoshop. Scope no 191.125.63.138 01:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Visually blank image, apparently meant as a duplicate of File:XIV Parliament of Portugal (2020jun).svg. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Diagram with wrong party colors, incorrect seating order, and unnecessary, distracting (likely unplanned) blinking animation. (See File:AR Eleições 2022.svg for a better one.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
no evidence of compatible license - widely shared on social media and Kpop news sites Evaders99 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
no evidence of compatible license - widely shared on social media and Kpop news sites Evaders99 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
no evidence of compatible license - widely shared on social media and Kpop news sites Evaders99 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete As the metadata shows, this image is authored by "NASHVILLE CORPORATE PHOTOGRAPHY". There is no evidence to suggest the uploader is authorized to release images from this company. Given that the company's sole reason for existence is to make money off of photographs, it is highly unlikely they would release images under the cc-by-sa-4.0 license stipulated, nor any other free license. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment It is allready tagges with a "no permission" so it is redundant to start a DR. Either someone send a permission and problem is solved or they do not and file will be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since I've previously been blocked on this site for following established procedures, I'm going to continue nominating things for deletion as the only method of properly deleting anything, even if it is redundant. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why? If allready tagged with a "No permission" you could just ignore the file? There are allready too many DR's to handle so there is no reason to create extra work. --MGA73 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- With respect, the discussion of why I do this is not pertinent to this discussion. If you'd like to discuss that, feel free to contact me directly. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why? If allready tagged with a "No permission" you could just ignore the file? There are allready too many DR's to handle so there is no reason to create extra work. --MGA73 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since I've previously been blocked on this site for following established procedures, I'm going to continue nominating things for deletion as the only method of properly deleting anything, even if it is redundant. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation of the sculpture. The sculptor w:fr:Léon Lamotte died in 2011, and this photo requires permission from his heirs. Freedom of panorama does not apply, see COM:FOP France. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. Original picture is hosted here: http://barura.comilla.gov.bd/ Tamingimpala (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
No EXIF/metadata, no proof that the uploader owns the copyrights. Seems like a clear case of copyvio. Seems like promotional and useless as this person has no useful page on any project of Wikimedia. Jack D. Reich (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Low quality and resolution image of an unidentified man. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic and screenshot claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
not own work, hi res image from 2016-03 on https://sdarabia.com/2016/03/%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%B6%D8%AE%D9%85-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1/ Achim55 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Not own work: see metadata Bradipo Lento (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Not own work: see metadata Bradipo Lento (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
NFTs and logos taken from https://opensea.io/collection/anur3, with (ironically) no confirmation that the uploader is the copyright holder.
Lord Belbury (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Clipart, unlikely to be the author's own work. Tineye finds many hits going back to 2010, before being uploaded here in 2015. -M.nelson (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Publicity photo, it has been uploaded before commons as a backdrop of a youtube video. Propably copyvio. C messier (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I am unable to verify this license. Most of the videos appear to be (c) Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
A copy of https://www.niepolomice.eu/felietony/niepolomiccy-krotkofalowcy-w-kosmosie/#iLightbox[gallery-1]/4. The file without appropriate license Michał Sobkowski (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thaolinh0610 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality, unusable-
- File:Cricket on cricket.jpg
- File:Ducks flying under the sun.jpg
- File:Flower and sky.jpg
- File:Birds on wire.jpg
- File:Rainbow through the wires.jpg
- File:A farm at Australia.jpg
- File:Treehouse but not on trees.jpg
- File:Liriope spicata.jpg
- File:Melbourne underground.jpg
- File:Confusing apple.jpg
- File:Bướm đêm Nine-spotted.png
A.Savin 12:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I've seen many photographs in Commons with much less quality. Concerning the files in discussion, I guess it depends on how large they are to be shown on a Wikipedia article. I'm having more problems with the lack of additional information: Where was the picture taken? What exactly is depicted? Also, metadata is completely missing. Till (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violations: there is no acceptable freedom of panorama in UAE that will permit free commercial uses of images of copyrighted public works like architecture by living or recently-deceased artists. These images of two recent architectures need correspondence of commercial license permission (via COM:VRT) from the ff. artists: architect Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa and DP Architects for the Dubai Mall. For Burj Khalifa, two prior deletion requests are found at COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa and COM:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa.
- File:Dubai Mall (3884854156).jpg
- File:Dubai Mall (3884862840).jpg
- File:Dubai Mall (3884074125).jpg
- File:Dubai Mall (3884933636).jpg
- File:Burj Dubai (3884086129).jpg
- File:Dubai Mall (3884925922).jpg
- File:Burj Dubai (3884120903).jpg
- File:Dubai Mall (3884927586).jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
photos of graphic works are not ok as per COM:FOP US, i think?
- File:To Open a Portal (51379478450).jpg
- File:Koi Truck With Cyclist (50220602171).jpg
- File:Koi Truck (50193581138).jpg
- File:Goldfish Truck (49522304042).jpg
- File:Aquarium Mural I (46570096055).jpg
- File:Bait and Hook Mural (14323096482).jpg
- File:Urbanimal (36213245515).jpg
- File:Truck Goldfish (35408520453).jpg
RZuo (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The website does not indicate the image is licensed under CC-2.5. There is a note here on the website that says "We are happy to provide images free of watermarks on our collections search database. You are free to download them for personal use, please use the following credit line for any publication: Photo credit: Enfield Shaker Museum". I feel like this unfortunately does not meet the copyright standards; although I would love to be wrong because it's a useful addition to the page it's added to. TartarTorte (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Derrivative work of Simpsons franchise. Matlin (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Self promotion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cesssarflores (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ItsZippy23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright. Uploder accepts that the author is not he himself. Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Solavirum (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright. Uploder accepts that the author is not he himself. Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sajjadmoloo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images, some with FB code in EXIF data.
- File:Tanzanairs F406.jpg
- File:Tanzanair's B200.jpg
- File:Tanzanair B200.jpg
- File:B350i Interior.jpg
- File:5H-DJS.jpg
- File:Beechcraft 1900D.jpg
- File:Tanzanair-Caravan-II.jpg
- File:Tanzanair-Caravan-I-2009-DSM-76-300x200.jpg
- File:Reception Pax Lounge 1.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional images, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Either DW, missing essential info and permission, or personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. Unused. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of snow, no context, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stephanie Scholz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, no educational value, out of scope. Only used on userpage of user without meaningful edits. And not own work: subject is same as uploader.
- File:Stephanie Scholz 2010.jpg
- File:Stephanie Scholz.jpg
- File:Stephanie Scholz als Kleinkind 1999.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. Only used on userpage of user without meaningful edits. And likely not own work: subject is same as uploader. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable performer, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused indistinguishable tiny thumbnail, unusable. Likely screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wolfienotorious (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable event/people, no educational value, too small to be useful, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Personal doodle, no educational value, out of scope. Only used on userpage of user without meaningful edits. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused text table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused marketing table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. And likely not own work but screengrab judging by the visual characteristics. Also added:
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
JopkeB (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused tiny crop of unknown work, possibly PD but missing essential info: original author, source, date. And too small and grainy to be useful. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ankit yadav 529 (talk · contribs)
[edit]SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
JopkeB (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused text doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused text doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of nondescript place/building, no location, little educational value, out of scope. No value over the numerous alternatives in Category:Emergency departments and its subcategories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused poor diagram without clear purpose, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, this diagram has no clear purpose taken solely. It is used as an other name in the wiki article Séparation magnétique as any picture not homemade is subject to copyrights. Gabriel Bédard (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Only used on sandbox page of non-contributing user. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
What is this? A screenshot from a TV show? Stefan4 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Unused screenshot snippet, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res icon, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yelkencigroup (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical or professional photographs. Can be found elswhere. Own work claim unlikely.
- File:YELKENCI1-0536 1-1.jpg
- File:8 History copy.jpg
- File:8 History.jpg
- File:Butiküretim.jpg
- File:About factory.jpg
- File:Fabrikagörsel.jpg
Natuur12 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yelkencigroup (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And COM:DW. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo, no educational value, out of scope. Only used on sandbox page of user without meaningful edits. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album (Unusual) —MdsShakil (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album —MdsShakil (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
According to source the images are copyrighted, a permission must be requested (see EUROfusion's Media Library and Imprint Andibrunt (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
A not very useful map, badly cropped, and the caption and description which contain just obvious nonsense show that the uploader is a troll or similar who just wants to annoy us. Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Useless curve graphs, ineligible submissions for WLF 2022
[edit]A new user has uploaded a bunch of curve graphs without any useful description and with bad filenames that are completely unrelated to the contents of the images. In addition the user has nominated all of these graphics for Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 – which is obviously nonsense, WLF is a competition for photos or videos documenting folklore. The fact that the user uses totally unrelated filenames and nominates the images for a competition to which they do not belong indicates that the user is a troll. Therefore I suggest to delete all of these images.
- File:2021-11-09 10.37.21 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-01 09.14.51 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-01 09.37.46 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-01 09.52.45 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-01 10.00.02 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-01 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:2022-02-03 12.26.38 hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
- File:Dis is so koll hadde eksistert siden 1967, men viste seg til slutt uvillig til å implementere en bredere reform, noe som isolerte ham politisk, både hjemme og i utlandet.png
Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
copyrighted promo material which is unfree (unless the real person is cut-off) Mateus2019 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The DR contains words believet to be copyrighted and therefore we have no rights to place them under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. I will not repeat the words because then we would also have a problem with this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MGA73: Why can't you just redact it and hide the revisions which contain it, rather than crowding Category:Malformed deletion requests? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Hmmmm. I guess that would work too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:PolandEagle
[edit]- File:Bukowice Village.jpg
- File:Kolaczki - A Polish Pastry Type Of Cake.jpg
- File:PolskiSernik.jpg
- File:MakowiecCakb.jpg
- File:PiernikCakeb.jpg
- File:Baba or babka wielkanocna.jpg
- File:Boza krowka.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:PolandEagle. I believe they should be deleted because they are probably copyright violations. Most of them can be found online wither larger resolutions and earlier upload dates: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].--Entbert (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album —MdsShakil (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Harassment image, has no potential for constructive use (though it’s almost too comical to be offensive, it’s the intent that matters) Dronebogus (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused poor photo of nondescript event, no context/location, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). I don't think this has a copyright issue since the photograph is licensed, but this does have a COM:Scope issue. Abzeronow (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable band, no educational value, out of scope. And taken from FB as per EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo above COM:TOO, missing permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of nondescript building, no location/description, little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res thumbnail of nondescript building, no location/description, little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused signature of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Own work? 191.125.63.138 00:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Facebook 191.125.63.138 00:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phillip_David_Taylor 191.125.63.138 00:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Phillip David Taylor 1993, fecha de la foto 2021! 191.125.63.138 00:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Además es de Facebook... — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.125.63.138 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
No es trabajo propio 191.125.63.138 00:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Facebook 191.125.63.138 00:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Misleading, incorrect diagram with wrong number of elected MPs. (See File:AR Eleicoes 2022.svg for a better one.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, as it is in use. Tuvalkin is so wrong it just makes me wonder where his argument is: 230 seats is the right number since 1990; currently (for a few days still) there are four unfilled seats while consulate ballots are tabulated. I am not arguing against that, which he claims I am, but that’s false. This user is misleading on what actually is the case. I am going to update my diagram, as soon as all seats are declared. -- FellowMellow User talk:FellowMellow Special:Contributions/FellowMellow 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- My argument was about that big bold "226" at the bottom of your diagram, till its recent correction. It misleads into thinking that 226 is the final total, not a partial total randomly in midcount. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also, having only 226 circles instead of 230 is misleading for the same reason, although not so noticeably. In general, in this kind of transient diagrams that are showing a midcount state while the results are yet not all in, chosing to entirely ignore those still unknown outcomes instead of using placeholders is a very bad idea, and I hope that it is not a widespread practice. (Later I noticed that 226 was being shown as the total also in the infobox, without any kind of caveat about 4 seat still being unattributed, so maybe after all this is not bad criteria, just bad research.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- My argument was about that big bold "226" at the bottom of your diagram, till its recent correction. It misleads into thinking that 226 is the final total, not a partial total randomly in midcount. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: Diagram now corrected. (However it is now a {{Duplicate}} of File:AR Eleições 2022.svg…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn after correction. --Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 191.125.63.138 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; likely OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Jaime martinez rascasens? 191.125.63.138 01:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; possibly OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Pointless duplicate of File:SC Wiener Neustadt vs. Floridsdorfer AC 2018-05-04 (004).jpg Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: It's sad when you can't see the differences between the pictures. I only can laugh about such stupid comments. The main thing is to make a crazy comment. If the photos were the same, I wouldn't have been able to upload them at all. Thank you very much! --Steindy (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Steindy: Instead of insulting me can you point out what the difference is? Because if they are different it should be pretty easy for you to say how they are instead of being petty about it. In the meantime what I'm laughing at is that you think someone can't upload the same image lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: My comment is not offensive, it is yours. Your statement is insulting with which you document that I am too stupid to upload different photos and that I and a sysop are wasting my time. If you look closely you will see the difference. However, I cannot learn to look at you. --Steindy (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Steindy: Instead of insulting me can you point out what the difference is? Because if they are different it should be pretty easy for you to say how they are instead of being petty about it. In the meantime what I'm laughing at is that you think someone can't upload the same image lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
-
The same file? -
No! Look to the right hand and look to the shirt.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){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§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PL_gingerbread_from_Torun.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baba_wielkanocna_z_polewa_czekoladowa.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Steindy: Whatever you say. Your the one that called my nomination stupid and crazy multiple times. Which I'm pretty sure is offensive. Whereas, there's nothing offensive about nominating a file for deletion. In the meantime where did I say your to stupid to upload different photos? I haven't said jack about your intelligence. As far as if they are the same image or not, I think they are. Maybe they are different superficially, but the guy moving his arm by half an inch in one of the pictures doesn't really change the nature of the images or justify both being hosted in Commons. Especially since most people aren't going to be able to see the difference unless they literally put the images next to each other and zoom into them. Personally, I say pick which one is better, keep it, and delete the other one. Other people might disagree with me though. That's fine, but I really don't appreciate being repeatedly insulted over it in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Very similar pictures, but obviously not identical. Whether it makes sense to upload two very similar pictures remains to be seen. In any case, we do not have a space problem on commons. But there is clearly no reason for deletion. If you want to organise a private war, then please find another platform and don't burden the admins here with superfluous work. --Smial (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know what your "private war" comment is in relation to since me and Steindy have never interacted with each other outside of this and I could really give a crap who originally created the file. I don't think Steindy really cares that I'm the person who nominated the file either. Except that he generally seems to have an attitude about things. But in no way does that make is this a war on either side, private or otherwise. Outside of that, if someone uploads two extremely similar images then it comes off like treating Wikimedia Commons like a personal file host. Since a single serves the purpose of Commons:Project_scope#Scope_of_Commons just fine. There is absolutely nothing educationally advantageous about it and in no way does two images of almost the same thing serve a unique purpose for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation that can't be served by a single image. So I really see no reason to have both of them. Unless Steindy is mainly concerned with the extra clout or whatever. Otherwise, I'd like to know what the unique benefit of the extra image to the project is. As a side to that, I assume that if someone held down the continuous shot button on their camera and uploaded all the pictures that it wouldn't be OK even though there's unlimited storage space. So why is this different? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Commons has not been a repository for media exclusively for Wikipedia purposes for many years. It is therefore not our role to prevent or prohibit the upload of very similar images. Some may assume that such an image sequence is useless for Commons or Wikipedia, but for one thing, no one can foresee whether there might not be a useful use for such image sequences in the future, and for another, useful uses of image sequences already exist in many fields. As is well known, one valid counterexample is enough to disprove a thesis, and of course there is at least one counterexample where a sequence of very similar photos are used in several language versions of Wikipedia. How exactly can you justify that Steindy's image sequence might not be useful at some point? --Smial (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- I don't know about that. Files are deleted for being out of scope and un-used on other projects all the time. Except in cases where they serve an educational purpose. Which is why I brought up two extremely similar files not serving an education purpose. The fact that you ignored that part of my comment makes me think they don't serve one. So the only reason to keep both is if having both serves Wikipedia. Which I see no evidence of. I guess there's your example, but what I'm interested in is how having two extremely similar versions of this image is useful, not how it's useful to have a sequence of multiple images in the same file. That's like trying to compare these images to a collage. I'm sure you get the difference. In the meantime, anything someone uploads "might" be useful at some point, but that comes off more like an insincere post hoc justification then it does a genuine reason to keep the file. How about making an actual argument? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Commons has not been a repository for media exclusively for Wikipedia purposes for many years. It is therefore not our role to prevent or prohibit the upload of very similar images. Some may assume that such an image sequence is useless for Commons or Wikipedia, but for one thing, no one can foresee whether there might not be a useful use for such image sequences in the future, and for another, useful uses of image sequences already exist in many fields. As is well known, one valid counterexample is enough to disprove a thesis, and of course there is at least one counterexample where a sequence of very similar photos are used in several language versions of Wikipedia. How exactly can you justify that Steindy's image sequence might not be useful at some point? --Smial (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- Keep Similar, but not identical. --XRay 💬 16:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, not identical. --Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Misidentified person Kiwichris (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; professional photo, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
GoogleEarth Copyvio Enyavar (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
..jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
..jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio. (Also this deserves to be on the “accidentally based” Twitter for making Antifa and the EU look totally badass even though they’re probably villains) Dronebogus (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Self-promotion, not educationally useful. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Private snapshot and completely out of project scope. LexICon (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Self promotion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Spam, out of scope. //LevandeMänniska (talk), 15:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; @LevandeMänniska: Next time tag as Speedy F10. --Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Low quality, out of scope //LevandeMänniska (talk), 15:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; probably a screenshot. --Gbawden (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Der Urheber "Daniel Wocinski - dw-Fotodesign" gibt für seine Fotos nur Lizenzen zur PRIVATEN Nutzung durch die Kunden. Jbergner (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; source clearly says © Copyright 2020 by Milli Majlis. --Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
copyright 82.127.43.234 16:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
copyright flagrante 82.127.43.234 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Info Likely also a similar logo: File:Logo-pannier-OR871C-bdef.jpg. Ankry (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; complex logos, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; source clearly says © Copyright 2020 by Milli Majlis, please provide a link to the CC license claimed. --Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arabic's mathematics (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album
—MdsShakil (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
There are doubts that the uploader is the author of the photo. The photo was clearly taken in the studio as a photo shoot, there is no EXIF data GAndy (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laura jaimes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photo and signature of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Deletion approved. Laura jaimes (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tegshbuyan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very unlikely own works: low-res or thumbnail diagrams with disparate quality and styles. Visual characteristics suggest screengrabs, see especially File:Grapic.jpg.
- File:Халдлага эсэргүүцэх систем.png
- File:HIDS.jpg
- File:Snort.jpg
- File:Nids2.jpg
- File:Nids.jpg
- File:Grapic.jpg
- File:IDS center diagram.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable band, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Very unlikely own works: low-res diagrams with disparate quality and styles. Visual characteristics suggest screengrabs, especially obvious at File:Mpeg.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res web-sized images with disparate quality and styles, missing EXIF data. File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara en Concierto EMSEL.jpg taken from FB. And non-notable performers, no educational value, out of scope. All unused.
- File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara en Concierto Sacro en Margarita..jpg
- File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara en Concierto EMSEL.jpg
- File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara en Margarita.jpg
- File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara.jpg
- File:Quadrivium Coro de Cámara (Dirige Silena Martínez)..jpg
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Simonsarazin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused screenshots and text tables that should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope.
- File:Liste des communs sur la base de donnée de la fabmob.png
- File:Exemple cobudget dans la fabmob 2.png
- File:Contributeur à un commun.png
- File:Fiche de commun.png
- File:Liste des communs de la fabmob.png
- File:Liste des communs.png
- File:Exemple defis fabmob.png
- File:Exemple cobudget financement fabmob.png
- File:Utilisation de cobudget.png
- File:Carte-soucieux.png
- File:Relation-PrestationEconomique-Communs.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused event program/promotional image, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable team, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused text image and photo of non-notable persons/event, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Desarrollo Luz Dorada (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused advertising images and logos, out of scope, and images not own works but taken from FB.
- File:Harold Moskovitz, reconocimiento.jpg
- File:Logo Luz Dorada Genérico.png
- File:Libros de Harold Moskovitz.jpg
- File:Logo Luz Dorada.jpg
- File:Curso de Sanación..jpg
- File:Harold Moskovitz.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Redundant with File:Freman College, Buntingford - geograph.org.uk - 471675.jpg. The two files are pixel-identical; the only difference (and the reason I can't use {{Duplicate}}) is that this is a PNG and the original is a JPEG. I don't think there's generally any benefit in keeping PNG copies of photographs, though. bjh21 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Apparently traced from https://ko-fi.com/i/IV7V04P8O8, a work by digital artist JellyJo. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Violation of COM:EDUSE + no use + self-promotion Renvoy (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
File from globally locked cross-wiki spammer. Previously deleted under this file name and multiple others (see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lpecy.jpg). Marbletan (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Watermark on the image doesn't match the uploader name Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I cannot find the image from the band's Facebook page, but if it's from there, it's clearly a copyvio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As this was taken from their Facebook page, the image is a clear copyright violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The file is using {{Cc-zero}} but I don't see that license at the source; on the contrary, at the bottom of the page there is a copyright notice "© Rekstrarfélag Sarps". It is a photo of a 3D object taken by the National Museum of Iceland. The object itself is certainly not copyrighted, but the photo will be, unless a free license / PD release can be shown. Does the National Museum of Iceland publish its own photos under CC-zero? If yes, I will be happy enough, but we need some evidence. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader is creator and copyright holder for these images. 3 images are lacking exif data, and files with exif data (File:Photo of singer Brian Evans in 2022.jpg, File:Brian Evans.jpg) credit a "Cesare Bonazza" as creator and copyright holder. File:Brian Evans and Bob Saget.jpg can be found on twitter and in bottom right corner mentions "Ian Nelson" as copyright holder. There may be a chance the uploader is the images' subject (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman), however we should apply the precautionary principle here: He still might not have a license to upload the images here, and might infringe on copyrights himself by uploading them online.
- File:Brian Evans and Louie Anderson.jpg
- File:Brian Evans.jpg
- File:Photo of singer Brian Evans in 2022.jpg
- File:Brian Evans and Bob Saget.jpg
- File:Frank Sinatra, Barbara Sinatra, Tom Selleck, and Evans.jpg
Njd-de (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Copie de https://infodunordtremblant.ca/culture/2021/12/16/lorsque-le-coeur-derange-parcourt-les-festivals-du-monde/ Habertix (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AndresVenegas1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of the images have been uploaded as own work, yet File:Brian Evans and William Shatner.jpg has a copyright watermark in the bottom right corner: "Copyright © 2015 Ian Nelson". Unlikely that uploader is this person, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Joan4505A.
- File:Actor Jeff Bridges and singer Brian Evans.jpg
- File:Brian Evans and William Shatner.jpg
- File:Photo of singer Brian Evans.jpg
- File:Brian Evans (Singer).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Njd-de (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Monumento Fernandino
[edit]COPYRIGHT TOYM IMAO. 2003 Monumento Fernandino, 5 figures, 35’ pounded brass on granite base,
San Fernando City, Pampanga - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 01.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 02.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 03.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 04.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 05.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 06.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 07.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 08.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 09.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 10.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 11.JPG
- File:9998Monumento Fernandino Pampangafvf 14.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 08.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 09.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 10.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 15.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 16.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 17.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 18.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 19.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 23.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 24.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 25.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2842 26.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 01.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 02.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 03.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 04.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 05.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 06.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 07.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 08.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 09.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 10.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 11.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 12.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 13.JPG
- File:SanFernandojf2868 14.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we still do not have FoP legal rights sadly, with the legislature now focused on other issues (elections, COVID-19 response issues, and more recently, Senate investigations on more than a dozen missing cockfighters: Philippine News Agency article, Inquirer article). As intellectual property law revisions are set aside and with little chance of being passed these images may need to go as violating the living sculptor's copyright. Toym Imao is still alive. Perhaps undelete if FoP is truly introduced here, though unsure if when. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by VincentBadenkov (talk · contribs)
[edit]w:Michel Robida died in 1991, and Ces Bourgeois de Paris was a 1955 book so it cannot be public domain in France yet. It is not public domain in the US either.
- File:Ces-bourgeois-de-Paris-LEMONNIER.jpg
- File:Ces-bourgeois-de-Paris-3-siecles-chronique-familiale- 57.jpg
- File:Ces-bourgeois-de-Paris-3-siecles-chronique-familiale.jpg
Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 07:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
selfie by a notable individual, uploaded by a new account with no other edits. According to EXIF, seems to have been copied from VSCO, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 10:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- This image (JPEG) was provided by the subject directly to the editor (vvaliquette) and specifically to update the former and older portrait. The image is wholly owned by the subject and was taken by her family with full consent and transfer. If the image appears on VSCO, it remains the subject's image and is under her control. The image is appropriate for Wikipedia use as provided and the edit (by vvaliquette) was performed with diligence. 68.110.8.14 21:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Hi! I decided to look into this myself to see if this image was previously published elsewhere and then uploaded to commons. First, I usually use Google's Search by image feature to see if the image had been published anywhere else before and the only other versions were from other Wikipedia-related sites and one site that uses wiki commons image links. Here's what the search looks like. Unless the image was posted on a private account, it seems pretty likely that Commons was the first place this image has been published on the internet.
- I couldn't find a VSCO account belonging to Haley Lu Richardson, so I went to check her Instagram to see if it was published there as well and I couldn't find anything. But, from the wording in the EXIF metadata I believe that it could be possible that it was never published on the VSCO app only that the app was used to add filters to image. Notice how it says "Processed with VSCO with h3 preset". However, even if that isn't the case, VSCO says in their Terms of Service: "Some areas of the Services allow Users to post, publish, submit, upload, transmit, or otherwise make available on the Services (“Make Available”) content such as profile pictures or information, photos, images, music, videos, information, comments, questions, messages, works of authorship and other content or information (any such materials that a User does Make Available is referred to as “User Content”). You retain ownership of your User Content."
- I also want to make sure that the user Vvaliquette wasn't a dummy account. It isn't a new account, they joined Wikipedia in 2012 according to their Global account infomation page. They also were the original uploader of the previous Infobox image before it was transferred to Commons and were the one to provide the permission ticket for the image to be used. (Not really a relevant to this but in the File History it says that the user FastilyClone transferred the image, is this one of your bots that you created?). Because of the image transfer the file's history only dates back to 2016 this activity isn't listed there, but from looking at Vvaliquette's Talk Page, you can see that they were the one who was asked to email the permission for the photo and Vvaliquette confirmed that they sent the email on another user's Talk Page here.
- The main concern that I came across when looking at Vvaliquette's account is that it appears that they have a personal connection with Haley Lu Richardson. Their contributions on Wikipedia pretty much only consist of edits on Haley Lu Richardson and her father, Forrest L. Richardson's pages. According to their Wikipedia User Page they are from Phoenix, Arizona same as Richardson. Most of their edits occurred in August 2013 and also they were the one who created the Haley Lu Richardson article in the first place, and if you read the first version of the article, you can see from the wording that it is clear that the writer has a personal relationship with the subject. This goes against Wikipedia's guidelines as it is a Conflict of interest. I am unsure how to approach this because it looks like they realised this because the last edits they have made are uncontroversial like grammatical corrections, fixing formatting and adding citations or categories. Aside from the edits they made in August 2013, personally I wouldn't say they've violated any rules and I am not sure if it's worth reporting. But an important thing to note is that editors with a COI are encouraged to share images on Wikipedia.
- I think best thing to do is to add this template to ask for an email with permission from the owner, which I'll do after I've published this. In case that doesn't work out and the image ends up getting deleted because the permission hadn't been received or approved, I have uploaded a couple images that are a little less recent but are licensed under Creative Commons, one from 2018 and one from 2019.
- I know this was slightly long, I just wanted to make sure that I covered everything. Hopefully this all makes sense, if there's something I missed or you're confused about, please reply back.
- Thanks :)
- SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- The image was provided by the subject (Haley L. Richardson) to accompany her Wikipedia page. I am not sure why my initial reply comments were not taken seriously, but since have obtained a signed FREE LICENSE from the owner of the Work so this can be put to rest and there is no more debate about the image. The FREE LICENSE specifically acknowledges Wikimedia Commons and has been submitted. Thank you. Vvaliquette (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, permission needed. — Racconish 💬 13:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Own work? 191.125.63.138 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022021710012142 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 10:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Ticket:2022021710012142. -- Geagea (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Misleading, incorrect diagram with wrong number of elected MPs. (See File:AR Eleições 2022.svg for a better one.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright TOYM IMAO. Mural of San Fernando History, 45’ x 13’ acrylic on canvas. San Fernando City Hall, Pampanga - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monumento Fernandino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright TOYM IMAO. Mural of San Fernando History, 45’ x 13’ acrylic on canvas. San Fernando City Hall, Pampanga - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monumento Fernandino. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wedeirzukic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 07:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright TOYM IMAO. Mural of San Fernando History, 45’ x 13’ acrylic on canvas. San Fernando City Hall, Pampanga - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 31.JPG
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 36.JPG
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 37.JPG
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 38.JPG
- File:9597jfSan Fernando Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 22.JPG
- File:9597jfSan Fernando Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 23.JPG
- File:9597jfSan Fernando Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 25.JPG
- File:9597jfSan Fernando Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 33.JPG
- File:9597jfSan Fernando Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 35.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexdimpetrov (talk · contribs)
[edit]Album covers etc. All need OTRS I think
- File:Sorcery Inside Visual.jpg
- File:The Creation Visual.jpg
- File:Life Motion Visual.jpg
- File:The Power Of Mind Visual.jpg
- File:Touching The Divine Visual.jpg
- File:My Kind O' Lovin Visual.jpg
- File:Д-р Милен Врабевски в Intelligent Music Studios.jpg
- File:Intelligent Music Project feat. Ronnie Romero, Bobby Rondinelli and Carl Sentance on "The Creation Tour 2021".jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- The first six files are of album cover artwork, these need license validation by email to VRT. The last two files should be considered seperately:
- File:Д-р Милен Врабевски в Intelligent Music Studios.jpg – a photograph of w:en:Milen Vrabevski, so it is in scope. This was published in a news report that is dated before the upload here,[9] so the license needs to be verified by email to VRT.
- File:Intelligent Music Project feat. Ronnie Romero, Bobby Rondinelli and Carl Sentance on "The Creation Tour 2021".jpg – published in a news report that is dated before the upload here,[10] so the license needs to be verified by email to VRT. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete all. Uploader was notified on 6 March 2022. Evidence of permission has not been provided. — Ætoms (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already speedily deleted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is an own work Oesterreicher12 (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion - don't just cast an allegation, say why (BTW, image not found elsewhere using TinEye and Google Images, and image fits upload pattern by this user). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Not own work, source material unknown. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
File:Battle of Navarino in 1827. Entrance to the bay of the squadron of the coalition of Russia, England, France. V.Kosov 67.5x180 oil on canvas 2020.jpg
[edit]
на викискладе есть более качественное изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
на викискладе есть более качественное изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate of File:Наваринское сражение. Вход в бухту объединенной эскадры. 67,5х180 х.м.2020 г Художник Косов В.В.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
As per comments made at by Etriusus at en:Talk:QAnon/GA1: "The supposed author in the sourced article denies that it is QAnon related. I also cannot confirm its copyright status as 4.0 cc, the commons page implies 'own work' by the uploader but this contradicts the image's caption. Please point me in the direction of the original copyright info." Etriusus suggests a free use rationale, but I think it's best to delete it given that the author (unconvincingly) denies it to be Q-related, and this is only being used to illustrate QAnon topics. There is an abundance of imagery (from the Capitol riots, and from other sources); we do not need this IMO. AFreshStart (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment the design is most likely not above the threshold of originality (just a slight modification of the US flag), so copyright isn’t an issue as the license is functionally invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (image copyright is not my forte; this issue was just raised on the GA review). Happy to withdraw this request if other editors agree. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: below TOO, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative works of graphic artworks. Philippine freedom of panorama is still not existent. A search on the names found on these two graphic works brings forth more tremendous rationale for this deletion request: see the nomination proper for details.
- Photographs
— these bear the names of their photographers Ruston Banal (website) and Bruno Tiotuico (Instagram account, Artflakes.com description page, YouTube channel). These two are professional photographers, and are not government employees. These freely-licensed images of their works violate their copyrights.
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 06.JPG
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 09.JPG
- Painting with date 2009
— the bottom left bears the name and signature of Kapampangan artist Noel Lopez Catacutan, who is not part of the government. (Facebook article about him)
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 10.JPG
- File:9538jfSan Fernando City Hall Pampanga Interiorfvf 11.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.144.101 13:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright – This is a poor recording of the Peter Breiner and the Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra version, which is copyright Naxos of America. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaoGKvMnxAg. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Y'all may just delete it. Best regards AverageSampoernaAEnjoyer (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of second, better-named file Watty62 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lichtströme in Koblenz
[edit]copyright violation; contemporary artworks, not permanent in public place – no freedom of panorama.
- File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Festung Ehrenbreitstein Lichtströme 1.jpg
- File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Festung Ehrenbreitstein Lichtströme 2.jpg
- File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Festung Ehrenbreitstein Lichtströme 3.jpg
- File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Festung Ehrenbreitstein Lichtströme 4.jpg
- File:Kurt Laurenz Theinert and Ursula Scherrer audiovisual performance @ Lichtströme Koblenz 2011.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Google Translate gives the description as Tabriz Islamic Jihad logo. It is not at all a textlogo, and no reason to believe we have a free license for it. 66.76.243.26 17:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Maometto97 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Posted to source as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons. This needs further discussion as the image appears to be from {{Mehr}} and from the same collection. Please, see [11] 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
![[11]](https://media.mehrnews.com/old/Original/1392/11/08/IMG12174753.jpg){kind=link}
- As we see in the review confirmation template, according to the phrase "confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." the main condition seems to be the availability of the file, and I think such a link that is not visible to the public can not be an example of availability. --Maometto97 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is surely a Mehr photo by Armin Rahmani. The version without watermark seems like a mistake. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Not any source/copyright/probably screenshot Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Maometto97 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Posted to source as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons. This needs further discussion. The images does not exist in the collection of the provided source (not even in its archives), but available on the Mehr website under https://media.mehrnews.com/old/Original/1392/02/18/IMG12125930.jpg 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- As we see in the review confirmation template, according to the phrase "confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." the main condition seems to be the availability of the file, and I think such a link that is not visible to the public can not be an example of availability. --Maometto97 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Mehr photo by Vahid Zare. Looks like a mistake in website maintenance brcause it was first published 9 years ago (it is available in /old/ version). HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res photo of nondescript notebooks, no clear purpose, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently part of the documentation of some events (see categories), here the organisational part, so probably in scope. --Rosenzweig τ 03:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Battle of Mabitac
[edit]2000 Mural of Battle of Mabitac, 42’ x 14’ cold cast marble on concrete base wall with cast bronze accent, Mabitac, Laguna - COPYRIGHT TOYM IMAO - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 07.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 08.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 09.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 10.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 11.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 13.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 15.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 16.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 17.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 18.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 19.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 21.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 22.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 23.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 24.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 25.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 26.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 27.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 28.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 31.JPG
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 32.JPG
- File:IJVMabitacBattle1.jpg
- File:IJVMabitacBattle2.jpg
- File:IJVMabitacBattle3.jpg
- File:IJVMabitacBattle4.jpg
- File:IJVMabitacBattle5.jpg
- File:IJVMabitacBattle6.jpg
- File:Labanan sa Mabitac historical marker location.jpg
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 20.JPG
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 21.JPG
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 22.JPG
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 23.JPG
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 24.JPG
- File:Mabitac,Lagunajf1285 25.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Labanan sa Mabitac (September 17, 1900 - Mural, Busts of Juan Cailles-Jose Rizal and VFP Laguna Post)
[edit]2000 Mural of Battle of Mabitac, 42’ x 14’ cold cast marble on concrete base wall with cast bronze accent, Mabitac, Laguna - COPYRIGHT TOYM IMAO - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panoram
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 07.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 09.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 10.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 13.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 14.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 15.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 16.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 17.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 18.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 19.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 20.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 21.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 22.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 23.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 24.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 25.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 26.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 27.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 28.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 29.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 30.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 31.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 32.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 33.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 34.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 35.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 36.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 37.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 42.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 45.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 46.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 47.jpg
- File:2263Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 50.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 01.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 02.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 03.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 04.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 05.jpg
- File:2313Mabitac, Laguna Barangays Roads 06.jpg
- File:BattleofMabitacjf1336 21.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
2000 Mural of Battle of Quingua Historical Shrine, 32’ x 12’ cold cast marble on mortar base wall, Plaridel, Bulacan. TOYM IMAO artwork - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 23.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 26.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 27.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 28.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 29.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 30.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 31.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 32.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 33.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 34.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 35.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 36.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 37.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 38.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 40.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 41.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 42.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 43.JPG
- File:07039jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Hall Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanfvf 44.JPG
- File:07088jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Monument Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanf 02.JPG
- File:07088jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Monument Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanf 03.JPG
- File:07088jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Monument Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanf 05.JPG
- File:07088jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Monument Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanf 06.JPG
- File:07088jfTabang Sta. Ines Agnaya Monument Lumang Bayan Sipat Plaridel Bulacanf 07.JPG
- File:Battleofquinguajf.JPG
- File:Battlequinquajf.JPG
- File:FvfAgnayaPlaridel1175 37.JPG
- File:FvfAgnayaPlaridel1175 39.JPG
- File:FvfAgnayaPlaridel1175 41.JPG
- File:JfBulacan3285Provincefvf 13.JPG
- File:JfBulacan3285Provincefvf 14.JPG
- File:Johnjf.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Needs commercial license permission from the artist himself who holds copyright over his public work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
TOYM IMAO reliefs, such as 2000 Mural of The Moro Wars, 3.1 m. x 3.65 m. cold cast, National Historical Commission of the Philippines Building, Manila and Mural of The Dagohoy Rebellion, 3.1 m. x 3.65 m. cold cast, National Historical Commission of the Philippines Building, Manila. - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no frewdom of panorama
- File:NCHPjf9433 02.JPG
- File:NCHPjf9433 05.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 01.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 06.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 07.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 11.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 25.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 26.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 27.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 28.JPG
- File:NHCPjf9403 30.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
PLM Landmark, 25’ pounded brass and marble/mortar, Manila City. By TOYM IMAO - https://img-cache.oppcdn.com/fixed/40167/assets/GFFbkqM85z9AmvW2.pdf. no freedom of panorama
- File:03988jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 40.jpg
- File:03988jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 41.jpg
- File:03988jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 43.jpg
- File:03988jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 46.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 12.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 13.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 19.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 34.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 35.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 36.jpg
- File:04037jfIntramuros Manila Heritage Landmarksfvf 37.jpg
- File:04412jfIntramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 44.jpg
- File:04412jfIntramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 48.jpg
- File:04477jfIntramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 08.jpg
- File:Plmpic.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation; shows contemporary artwork; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Ehrenbreitstein Festungskirche 7649-063.jpg
- File:Koblenz im Buga-Jahr 2011 - Festung Ehrenbreitstein 42.jpg
- File:Koblenz-ehrenbreitstein-kirche01.jpg
- File:Koblenz-ehrenbreitstein-kirche02.jpg
- File:Staub der Türme 2.png
Martin Sg. (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- taking pictures inside is not forbidden. check out: Fotografieren und Filmen. presumably the photographers had the necessary permits.--Michael (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP Germany in interiors such as inside a church. We would need permission from the artists of the works that are inside the church. -M.nelson (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artwork is by de:Madeleine Dietz, born 1953 (triptych with light column) and de:Aloys Rump, born 1949 ("Staub der Türme" installation). The files can be restored 70 years pma of these artists, respectively. --Rosenzweig τ 19:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright meclis.gov.az/news-dep.php?id=519&lang=az Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Source is labeled ©; no evidence of CC license at the source. -M.nelson (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PCP; no proper specific source link nor link to license at source site. --Rosenzweig τ 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Sehr viel Fleisch, keine wissenschaftliche Verwendung. Lots of meat, no scientific value. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep how many other images do we have showing the erectile process while wearing a cock ring? Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Regardless, the file is of very poor quality and has no scientific value. There are many other files on Commons that are similar in nature and can be used in lieu of this file. In addition, I am asking for this file to be deleted as a courtesy deletion and would like the illustration removed completely. WikiFan (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I am still seeking, per personal request and per original nomination, that this file be deleted as a courtesy deletion since it falls outside of the Commons scope due to it not being realistically purposeful nor having scientific value or purpose. The reasons for a courtesy deletion are valid and legitimate, and I continue to kindly request to have this file removed completely as a courtesy by an administrator. There are many other similar files on Wikimedia Commons that can be used in lieu of this file that are much more scientifically purposeful. No significant loss of information will be experienced through this file’s removal. Thank you. WikiFan (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleting collage. Deleting Category:Middle-aged men with cock rings también. Como saben la edad de nadie mirando su pene?! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.126.188.174 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete I am seeking, per personal request, to have this file deleted as a courtesy deletion or speedy deletion. The file is of low quality and falls outside of the Wikimedia Commons scope since it does not have a realistic educational purpose nor have scientific value or purpose. There are other higher quality files on the same subject that Wikimedia Commons holds that can be used instead of this file and there would be very minimal loss of information if this file were to be removed as a courtesy deletion. In order to avoid any confusion, I am the nominator and the uploader of the file. I do believe I have a well-reasoned request for a courtesy and/or speedy deletion and am hoping an administrator will grant this request. Thank you for any help WikiFan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Of obvious educational value and uploaded too long ago for automatic courtesy deletion. Why would you think this is outside the broad scope of human knowledge encompassed by Wiki projects? Also note the previous deletion nomination, closed on July 15. Are you going to nominate this again in 2 weeks when it's kept again? And speedy yet! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ikan, I understand your point. However, aside from the reasons listed above, I am requesting that this file be removed due to personal reasons and misleading information and/or usage. I am not sure how else to go about requesting removal/deletion other than nominating again. I greatly apologize if the speedy delete seems redundant. As stated previously, I am hoping that an understanding administrator will see this and remove this file. I truly believe little or no information will be lost from Commons if the file is to be removed. If there is another way that I can request removal, would you be so kind (or anyone else for that matter) inform me of another removal request process on Commons? I want to request removal appropriately and this is the only way that I know how to do it. Thank you. WikiFan (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Question You say "little or no information will be lost from Commons if the file is to be removed." Can you link any comparable file or series of files that nearly as clearly shows the process of putting a penis ring onto a penis? If the personal reasons are because you uploaded this file in 2017, I'm sympathetic to your thinking better of it, but I don't think there's any personally identifiable information in these photos, no-one knows who you are, and it's useful, so in spite of my sympathy for you, I would advise the admin who eventually considers this case not to do a courtesy deletion. However, if the subject is not you, then your personal reasons are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that sounds callous, but you agreed to the terms of the Copyleft license when you uploaded the photo (if you are indeed the uploader, which is not at all obvious), and at least you didn't include your face; think about people who actually act in porno films and then want them withdrawn from the market. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
Speedy keep We went through this nonsense earlier in July, as you note, but also in February and in 2017. Brianjd (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Information not accurate with very little educational value. Quality of Image also very low and grainy in appearance. Delete and remove. 131.150.66.34 12:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- see previous discussions, it is looking fine Keep ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as before. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Own work? 191.125.63.138 01:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Looking at the user's other uploads, they seem to understand the rules correctly, so there's no reason to believe this isn't "own work". —howcheng {chat} 22:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Recent artwork (light art). No FoP in France TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Restored: No copyright on light. Yann (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Artistic work. No FoP in France. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The projection is an artistic work, projecting video of artwork/animation onto the church (https://www.fetedeslumieres.lyon.fr/fr/installation/les-chrysalides-de-saint-jean). No COM:FOP France. -M.nelson (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as well as the others nominated. I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, I had the same idea, until one of my uploads was deleted for this reason. So if there is a consensus to keep these files, please undelete that file as well. --Maometto97 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers). -M.nelson (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment See also the discussion at VPC: [12]. --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licencing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers). -M.nelson (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licencing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licencing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licencing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as well as the others nominated. I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as well as the others nominated. I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as well as the others nominated. I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as well as the others nominated. I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Received, not taken by Mehr photographers. Maometto97 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Also
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (19).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (20).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (21).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (22).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (23).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (24).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (25).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (26).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (27).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (28).jpg
- File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (29).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}
4nn1l2 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I imagine that like the Associated Press and United Press International and Agence France-Presse, they have the right to release images distributed by them under whatever license they choose. We also accept CC licenses and "no known restriction licenses" by archives at Flickr Commons even though individuals took the images, and not the archives themselves. --RAN (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: On website, 'حسین اسماعیلی' is the photographer. Click on the link. HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems he is a Mehr photographer and his name appears in watermarks. example: [13] [14] [15] HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (21).jpg is taken by Hossein Velayati for Fars News. (File:Opening naval review of Velayat 97 (44).jpg). HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (26).jpg is taken by Hossein Velayati for Fars News. (File:Opening naval review of Velayat 97 (58).jpg). HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment:
File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (16).jpg and File:Opening naval review of Velayat 97 (39).jpg are the same picture.HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — I made a mistake. They are slightly different. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC) - Keep It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers).
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 4nn1l2 as no source (No source since) This needs further discussion. Original images of {{Mehr}} usually name of photographer but this one does not. However, this image seems to be first published at Mehr on 26 Dey 1400. I couldn't find any prior publication on the web. I think we can keep the image. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per various discussions. My 2 cents: I consider photographers who sent their content to Mehr news similar to photographers who upload their work to Commons. As the licence is so clearly listed on the bottom of each page on the Mehr website, a photographer will be aware of the licensing and will implicitly agree with it. So the content can be copied under the CCBYSA licence to the Commons website and it used according to the licensing on the Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. --Ellywa (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
