Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/04/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
![4 File:Rapport "La langue française dans le monde - 2022" - Synthèse.jpg](#File:Rapport_"La_langue_française_dans_le_monde_-_2022"_-_Synthèse.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_-_Laterale.jpg){kind=link}
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Wlyshen (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Wlyshen (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
jhhigjjkv11bcn 2405:201:E007:C04D:CC8C:7FAC:D78E:6017 14:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Nous avions considéré par erreur qu'aucun droit n'était attaché à ce dossier. Ce qui n'est pas le cas. Il faut donc renoncer à sa publication. Merci Obslf (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/25#c-Obslf-2022-04-25T15:08:00.000Z-File:Rapport_"La_langue_française_dans_le_monde_-_2022"_-_Synthèse.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![16:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/25#c-Achim55-2022-04-25T16:09:00.000Z-File:Rapport_"La_langue_française_dans_le_monde_-_2022"_-_Synthèse.jpg){kind=link}
chlechte Qualität auch nicht zeigenswert 2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:856D:A01F:18A7:BC87 09:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by known LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität 2A02:1210:96E7:4E00:A846:BD64:374E:35B8 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by known LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität 2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:819C:7D8E:CDF2:D87D 07:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Request by known LTA vandal. --Achim55 (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Kein schönes Foto Archo08 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Gibt schöneres Foto Archo08 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Request by known LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hauptsächlich Strassenbelag zu sehen 2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:10F2:608D:D398:AF9E 13:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Keep no valid reason for deletion. IP is currently blocked due to vandalism. Günther Frager (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:12, 25 April 2022 UTC: Media uploaded without a license. --Krdbot 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:08, 25 April 2022 UTC: Media uploaded without a license. --Krdbot 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:28, 25 April 2022 UTC: Media uploaded without a license. --Krdbot 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:29, 25 April 2022 UTC: Media uploaded without a license. --Krdbot 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copy vio from this site: https://gazeta-ru.turbopages.org/gazeta.ru/s/army/photo/posledstviya_boev_na_zavode_azovstal_v_mariupole.shtml 95.31.188.32 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrigh violation - source https://mediastore.fc-zenit.ru/gallery/1593/?view=vertical Valmin (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Captain-tucker at 23:28, 25 April 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: https://mediastore.fc-zenit.ru/gallery/1593/?view=vertical --Krdbot 07:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It contains some personal information I did not realize was in the photo that I do not want to be visible even in the old version of the file. Jibreel23 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Revision deleted first file version (also per off-wiki request). --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criterion F10: personal photos of non-contributors. I don't think these files are within scope.
- File:Tamal Hadiul - Heemadrit.png
- File:Tamal Hadiul.jpg
- File:Tamal Hadiul - HTH.jpg
- File:Tamal Hadiul - Cold.jpg
- File:Tamal Hadiul Vocalist (2).jpg
- File:Tamal Hadiul - Heemsmile.jpg
- File:Tamal Hadiul - Prince.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; F10. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
copyrighted image, according to the cited source page and Terms of Use page there Steve Morgan (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of a suitable licence or permission to upload on behalf of the copyright holder. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ich möchte das folgende Bilder aus Wikimedia Commons gelöscht werden. Begründung: Dies sind meine eigenenen Bilder und sind nicht schön und haben keinerlei Bezug auf Weinfelde 2A02:1205:5073:FEA0:9D0E:62DE:13AB:D24A 10:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in scope, and doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion (no proof even that requester is uploader!). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Qualität auch nicht zeigenswert 2A02:1210:8CDB:E100:856D:A01F:18A7:BC87 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Known LTA vandal. --Achim55 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Schlechte Qualität Lukas 91 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Kein schönes Bild OLMEL149 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
kept (non-admin-closure) Not a valid reason for deletion. The image has no quality problem at all (except maybe to much sky). --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Kein schönes Bild Archo08 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Gibt schönere Fotos Archo08 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Löschen|1=''Gibt schöneres Foto'' --[[User:Archo08|Archo08]] ([[User talk:Archo08|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)}} {{copyvio|Kein schönes Fotos} für eindeutige Urheberrechtsverletzungen. {{bad name|Lukas 91}} für falsch benannte Kategorien. {{rename|Stadt Weinfelden.jpg}} für falsch benannte Dateien. {{duplicate|Stadt Weinfelden.jpg}}
Kept: per previous four nominations. stop. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, replaced by File:Styrallyl acetate.png. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We have a better version of this chemical structure. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 08:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, many alternatives in Category:Succinimide. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, many alternatives in Category:Diphenylacetylene. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 08:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
According to description: GoogleMaps CopyVio? Unused Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: apparently a derivative work of Google Maps (at least). --Strakhov (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a book which might be copyrighted. There is no specific permission given for its use . 511KeV (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The file was deleted recently and has been re-uploaded. There is no credible permission to use the file. 511KeV (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: snippet text view from a presumably copyrighted book, "source=twitter", COM:PRP, COM:VRT. --Strakhov (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Educationally useless, offensive description (removed) and probably non-consensual Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, low value file with additional issues. --Strakhov (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: "COM:VRT needed" (complex logo) or "out-of-scope" (personal art work). --Strakhov (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
hatred image Reiro (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: low resolution ...meme? caricature? Probably not own work. If this is own work, there are scope issues. --Strakhov (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
bad image shizhao (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, blank image. --Strakhov (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
No indication that this is free. Who's who probably took this from the Navy, and don't have permission to release it into PD Gbawden (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no free license at source. --Strakhov (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Credited to instagram here https://briefly.co.za/80583-tbo-touch-issues-warning-south-african-women-human-trafficking.html before upload. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unlikely own work. --Strakhov (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Flickrwashing, flickr account has 0 followers, 3 photos Gbawden (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --Strakhov (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Image taken from the internet. Lord Maximoff (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
GoogleEarth CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
GoogleEarth CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Taken from here: https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-jow2vdce48/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/14857/5459/VenusBack__18441.1609273701.jpg?c=1 Kun Kipcsak (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work, COM:VRT needed. --Strakhov (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what's happening with this image: it's a photoshop of a fan page photo of the actress at https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4975185049215207&id=2319728928094179 (or vice versa, or both are a photoshop of something else), and the woman in this image doesn't seem to match the IMDb photos of Anu Sithara (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6788819/) Lord Belbury (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's also a third variation of it at https://livecinemanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Anu-sithara-images-115656.jpg, which is possibly the original file with the fan page above being a version passed through some kind of face filter. It is not the woman shown in File:Anu Sithara.jpg. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. --Strakhov (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Buildings uploaded by ManuelContreras1996
[edit]I have always suspected that the pictures of buildings uploaded by ManuelContreras1996 (talk · contribs) are not actually his. Contreras has been uploading a lot of files and many of them have been deleted because Contreras doesn't seem to understand completely the meaning of copyrights. This file, for example, was uploaded with a "self" license, even though he is not the designer of a coat of arms from the 1800s. However, the shields are PD in Mexico and the logos are pretty simple.
Nevertheless, the buildings are a different thing. The metadata on the files always says "FBMD" and includes a number. I assume it means "FaceBook MetaData" but I never found these files with the reverse Google search, until now. First, File:Linea 3 del Tren Eléctrico Urbano de Guadalajara en Zapopan.jpg caught my attention because it says: "Source: File:ZMG-GDL.jpg; Author: Elchapin321321 (talk · contribs)". Ignoring the fact that Elchapin upload it with a cc-by-sa-4.0 license and not a cc-zero license, Elchapin screenshotted and cropped it from this file. Both files are nothing alike, so I restarted to get suspicious on the origin of these files. Then I found File:Torre HSBC en 2020.jpg, which was uploaded on 22 January 2022. The original file was uploaded on Facebook on 6 July 2020 and the author is Eric Esparza. Because of this, and the constant lack of competence on copyrights by Contreras, I am uploading all of the assumed-to-be-his files on buildings.
- File:Torre 6 Santa Marina.jpg
- File:Hyatt Regency Andares.jpg
- File:Torre Miyana.jpg
- File:Torre Aura Altitude.jpg
- File:Corporativo Bansi.jpg
- File:Torre Sofía.jpg
- File:Andares Corporativo Paseo.jpg
- File:The Landmark Guadalajara.jpg
- File:Bosque Real Towers.jpg
- File:Saqqara Residences.jpg
- File:Altreca Corporativo.jpg
- File:Torre Lovft.jpg
- File:Torre Comercial América.jpg
- File:Torre Alberi.jpg
- File:Levana Sky Homes.jpg
- File:Oficinas en el Parque Torre II.jpg
- File:Torres Las Fridas.jpg
- File:Equus 333.jpg
- File:Semillero Purísima.jpg
- File:Centro Medico AVE.jpg
- File:Edifico El Capitolio.jpg
- File:Alterna Business & Health Center.jpg
- File:Torres Trébol.jpg
- File:Magma Towers.jpg
- File:Torre Kimā.jpg
- File:Residence Bosque Real.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Center (SPGG).jpg
- File:Oficinas de TV Azteca en Grupo Salinas.jpg
- File:Corporativo Mabe en Lomas de Chapultepec.jpg
- File:Torres Obispado en 2021.jpg
- File:Torre KOI 2020.jpg
- File:Corporativo Cemex.jpg
- File:Planta de DINA.jpg
- File:Torre Anseli.jpg
- File:Edificio de KOF.jpg
- File:Edificio de Gentera.jpg
- File:Edificio de Lomas Altas.jpg
- File:Escaleras del Bancomext.jpg
- File:Oficinas de Nacional Financiera.jpg
- File:Oficinas de Financiera Rural.jpg
- File:Oficinas del Fonacot.jpg
- File:Oficinas de Pronósticos.jpg
- File:Oficinas de Inbursa.jpg
- File:Oficinas centrales del Banamex.jpg
- File:Corporativo de SuKarne.jpg
- File:Oficinas del Grupo Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma.jpg
- File:Planta cementera de Cruz Azul en Hidalgo.jpg
- File:Oficinas de GNP Seguros.jpg
- File:Edificio Anexo Torre Sur.jpg
- File:Oficinas de Lanix.jpg
- File:Plaza Samara, Santa Fe.jpg
- File:Torre Obispado II.jpg
- File:Torre Malva.jpg
- File:Logo de Banorte en la Torre KOI.jpg
- File:Torre KOI en SPGG.jpg
- File:Hotel Safi Metropolitan.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Center Torre II.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Center Torre I.jpg
- File:Torre BBVA México en el día de la independencia.jpg
- File:Torre HSBC en 2020.jpg
- File:Torre Scotiabank (México).jpg
- File:Torre Ejecutiva PEMEX.jpg
- File:Torre Afirme.jpg
- File:Entrada de la Fábrica La Rojeña.jpg
- File:Legaria 549.jpg
- File:Corporativo Liverpool I.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbhotch (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --Strakhov (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Character from copyrighted video game. No permission, source, or license stated, COM:GCSD (F1) (F5). Sparkl (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work or derivative work of copyrighted content, COM:VRT needed. --Strakhov (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
most probably grabbed from Facebook (see meta data). already published in April 2021 on other websites [1] and widely used on the web on many other websites long before uploaded here (see [2]) Albinfo (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot and is a screenshot. Definitely grabbed from the web. published in August 2020 in higher resolution here: [3] – no evidence for own work for this project sketch für a new bridge still under construction. This source [4] says it is a image published by Prime Minister Edi Rama on Facebook Albinfo (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work. --Strakhov (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
not own work. published on the stadium's website in 2019, see image at [5] Albinfo (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work, already published in a forum before being uploaded here, COM:PRP. --Strakhov (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
another image uploaded by this user that is grabbed from the web. Pic already published in November 2021 on a news website: https://newsport.al/video-jo-vetem-stadiumi-te-ri-te-kukesi-bejne-gati-edhe-kompleksin-stervitor-do-te-mbaje-emrin-e-ish-lojtarit-17-vjecar/ Albinfo (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [6] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works. --193.146.182.133 11:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hereford_Cathedral_Nave,_Herefordshire,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, this is a faithful photographic reproduction of a PD-work of art according to the {{PD-art}} tag.
79.145.148.64 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Art}} applies only to bidimensional works, and this depicts (apparently) a sculpture (a tridimensional work). Said that, I'm inclined towards keeping these files (there are several deletion requests below with the same rationale, directed to the same user), since "NikonZII" (nickname probably related to en:Nikon", specifically to this camera?) may be pretty well "Paris Orlando", unless there's evidence otherwise. Strakhov (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I'm with Strakhov but, although this is in fact a tridimensional work, it is also in the public domain because its author, Antonio Canova, died more than 150 years ago, so this photograph could be considered valid for Commons because the depicted work in this photograph is a PD-work due to its age and more than 100 years passed since its creator passed away. Also, I'm sure that, unless there's evidence otherwise, this user may be perfectly the photographer "Paris Orlando" —I saw that there was an user account, so is probably that the credit line may be ok too— so, unless there's evidence otherwise, the cc-claim is ok and a VRTS verification doesn't appear to be needed at the moment. {{Art photo}} can be used to add separately the original information of the depicted object (if we have it in Commons) to complement this photograph's features.
- Therefore, I again support to keep this file.
- Comment No, this photograph is not in the public domain, because photographs of tridimensional works are not in the public domain unless the photographer has dedicated them to the public domain, or they have entered the public domain because of age (unlikely this is happening soon, since this one was apparently created in 2022). If NikonZ7II is indeed Paris Orlando, the photographs would be OK, but the NikonZ7II account should be blocked, since the Paris Orlando account is a sockpuppet of a indefinitely blocked user (Livioandronico2013). Strakhov (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment giving this a deeper look, the sockpuppet circunstance is a very likely outcome, since the formatting style of NikonZ7II and Livioandronico2013's signatures is basically the same ("text-shadow:red 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml). Strakhov (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, with this new evidences, I support to contact admin or admins who blocked both accounts to check if NikonZ7II is related with them or not, and with this, also verify the authory of the photographer. This is, if the result is that NikonZ7II is in fact related to Paris Orlando and Livioandronico2013, the license of this photograph may be ok, but unfortunately this person must be blocked inmediately. If the result is NikonZ7II is not related, this person would can contribute in the future but, also unfortunately, this photographs would have be deleted because we don't have permission from the photographer, unless Livioandronico2013 can contact us and confirm he/she accepts maintain them with the license added by NikonZ7II or with another free license (in this case, VRTS confirmation may be needed).
- Therefore, I again support to
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
_-_Laterale.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Laterale.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC) It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [7] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
_-_Laterale.jpg){kind=link}
It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works. --193.146.182.133 11:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
_-_Laterale.jpg){kind=link}
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have just say that you are the same person as the photographer, so it's your responsability to prove that they are your files, a VRTS mail is a recommended option.--193.146.182.133 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- YOU HAVE JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON AS THE PHOTOGRAPHER (your words: "Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it?"). I believe you, but for prevent others could re-nominate it, it is recommended to confirm that you are the copyright holder via VRTS. You can explain, with this, an evidence that you are the legitimal creator. Because you also don't have any evidence too, unless your own words. --193.146.182.133 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. For me finish here.Greetings. NikonZ7II (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have just say that you are the same person as the photographer, so it's your responsability to prove that they are your files, a VRTS mail is a recommended option.--193.146.182.133 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator or anything, but I'm pretty sure it's not normal practice to go around accusing users of plagiarism. Normally we assume good faith until evidence is shown to the contrary. We should not require NikonZ7II to upload his ID or anything in my opinion. SpartaN (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
_-_Laterale.jpg){kind=link}
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [8] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works (my connection changed). --193.146.182.133 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. For me finish here.Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC) It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [9] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works. --193.146.182.133 11:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat it. Please read it. --193.146.182.133 11:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. For me finish here.Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete all: This user is a possible sockpuppet of Paris Orlando. @Elcobbola: Please confirm it! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.80.75.51 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg){kind=link}
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [10] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg){kind=link}
It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works. --193.146.182.133 11:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg){kind=link}
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have just say that you are the same person as the photographer, so it's your responsability to prove that they are your files, a VRTS mail is a recommended option.--193.146.182.133 11:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't going to repeat it because I've just explained you before.--193.146.182.133 11:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- YOU HAVE JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON AS THE PHOTOGRAPHER (your words: "Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it?"). I believe you, but for prevent others could re-nominate it, it is recommended to confirm that you are the copyright holder via VRTS. You can explain, with this, an evidence that you are the legitimal creator. Because you also don't have any evidence too, unless your own words. --193.146.182.133 12:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. For me finish here.Greetings.-- NikonZ7II (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't going to repeat it because I've just explained you before.--193.146.182.133 11:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
_-_South_side,_from_Via_triumphalis.jpg){kind=link}
File:Portrait paintings of Cosimo I de' Medici in half length in armour by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg
[edit]
Not own work the original photographer can be seen in metadata: "Paris Orlando" 193.146.182.128 11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) It is not forbidden, you should read the rules this is an example [11] . Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not forbidden only if you and the original photographer are the same person yes, but if not, you need permission from the photographer, which is the copyright holder of those works. --193.146.182.133 11:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it? I don't understand you. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have just say that you are the same person as the photographer, so it's your responsability to prove that they are your files, a VRTS mail is a recommended option.--193.146.182.133 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said you before. --193.146.182.133 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- YOU HAVE JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON AS THE PHOTOGRAPHER (your words: "Of course it's me, why should I put someone else's name on it?"). I believe you, but for prevent others could re-nominate it, it is recommended to confirm that you are the copyright holder via VRTS. You can explain, with this, an evidence that you are the legitimal creator. Because you also don't have any evidence too, unless your own words. --193.146.182.133 12:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing without evidence is not helpful. We'll see what they say. For me finish here.Greetings. NikonZ7II (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said you before. --193.146.182.133 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why should it? It has to be proven that they are not my pictures. Greetings.--NikonZ7II (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary you reply with that forms. It's normal that a user thinks that it's probably a copyvio, but if you are the photographer, you can send a mail to VRTS to give a confirmation.--193.146.182.133 11:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the image is a faithful photographic reproduction of a PD-work of art according to the template tag.
79.145.148.64 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No matter who took it, it is not copyrightable as a derivative work based on USA case law. --RAN (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: apparently this is own work. --Strakhov (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ChristineBrett (talk · contribs)
[edit]Credited to ashley walters, needs OTRS
- File:RunningMalawi.jpg
- File:Dark Figure.jpg
- File:AssemblyDarkCity.jpg
- File:PoolUitsig.jpg
- File:Shiba & Shane.jpg
- File:BarkbyAshleyWalters.jpg
- File:Night Watch.jpg
- File:Playground DarkCity 2011 Photo by AshleyWalters.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:VRT needed from photographer. --Strakhov (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - original image can be found here (yes, a furry website) posted in 2011. Original photographer uses English, and I doubt the uploader is actually them. Juxlos (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - original image can be found here, posted in 2009. Actual author is an English speaker and is unlikely to be the uploader. Juxlos (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Harflexon345 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Speedy deletion criterion F10. I don't think these files are in scope.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criterion F10. I don't think these are in scope.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JacekStaszek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright book covers, 2 are text only so may be OK but not sure about scope
- File:Teoretyczne Problemy Propagandy i Opinii Publicznej.jpg
- File:Świadomość Społeczna, Opinia Publiczna, Propaganda.jpg
- File:Marketing Turystryczny Regionu.jpg
- File:Marketing podstawowe zagadnienia.jpg
- File:Marketing Podstawowe Pojęcia i Procedury.jpg
- File:Reklama jest Sztuką.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Paparazzi photographs in Category:Raquel del Rosario
[edit]Paparazzi photographs with no educational value. They were uploaded via indiscriminate mass transfer from Flickr, but unused by any Wikimedia Project.
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 01.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 02.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 03.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 04.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 05.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 06.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 07.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 08.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 09.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 10.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 11.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 12.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 13.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 14.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 15.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 16.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 17.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 18.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 19.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 21.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 22.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 23.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 24.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 25.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 26.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 27.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 28.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 29.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 30.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 31.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 32.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 33.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 34.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 35.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 36.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 37.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 38.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 39.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 40.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 41.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 42.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 43.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 44.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 45.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 46.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 47.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 48.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 49.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 50.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 51.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 52.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 53.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 54.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 55.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso & Raquel 56.jpg
- File:2009 Spanish Grand Prix - Alonso 03.jpg
Senator2029 13:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect chemical structures.The bridging double bond should be cis, not trans. File:Etorphine.svg and some others in Category:Etorphine are correct and can be used instead. Marbletan (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Theobanskid (talk · contribs)
[edit]Speedy deletion criterion F10. I don't think these are in scope.
- File:Gift Theodore.jpg
- File:Divinw.jpg
- File:Banskid.jpg
- File:Theodore Ogala.jpg
- File:Ogala Theodore.jpg
- File:Theodore.jpg
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment with regard to "scope-issue" File:Divinw.jpg may be OK for Category:Polo shirts. Strakhov (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: Sure; I don't mind. I came here from enwiki, where the user was spamming self-promo. If a file's actually useful, though, it should be kept. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Tol: Sure. Don't worry, it's OK nominating files for deletion. I just tried to find some usefulness in the files, and since the content of Category:Polo shirts is not great, and the ethnicity of the people wearing polo shirts in that category is predominantly the same, I thought it might be OK keeping the image I mentioned. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: Sure; I don't mind. I came here from enwiki, where the user was spamming self-promo. If a file's actually useful, though, it should be kept. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: kept one per Strakhov. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Probably taken from https://laapoa.com/corporate-profile/board-of-directors/marshall-mcclain/, not own work thats for sure Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Blitz is a South Korean board game created by Andrew Innes. He is still alive so I doubt the designs for the games cards are in the public domain Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Blitz is a South Korean board game created by Andrew Innes. He is still alive so I doubt the designs for the games cards are in the public domain Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Blitz is a South Korean board game created by Andrew Innes. He is still alive so I doubt the designs for the games cards are in the public domain Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Blitz is a South Korean board game created by Andrew Innes. He is still alive so I doubt the designs for the games cards are in the public domain Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
OOS files used for spam.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright holder joa van overstraaten 186.175.64.55 22:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
person died in 1998, cannot be own work of 2022. Original author, date, copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 06:58, 4 May 2022 UTC: No permission since 26 April 2022 --Krdbot 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Promotional use, user name is the same as the realtor. MexTDT (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Not own work, appears taken from https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/SML. While the Fandom Wiki is CC-licensed I doubt this image is. MKFI (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WezzyBeatz81 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Watermarked studio photographs; VRT permission needed to confirm copyright.
MKFI (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Heavily cropped image with no meaninngful exif, unlikely to be own work. His linkedin profile has the same photo but with his whole chin - https://ch.linkedin.com/in/markus-gsell-065ba4b3?trk=public_profile_samename-profile Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- So what. You can write to mgs@update-fitness.ch to clarify that everything is alright with this picture. I contacted Markus Gsell already. Valanagut (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Indentical to his faculty photo, with no exif - see https://ctmet.theology.ox.ac.uk/people/professor-mark-wynn - unlikely to be own work. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Melissaroubinek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Worksheets which seem to be using a mix of possibly-unfree clipart (https://www.clipartmax.com/middle/m2H7H7b1A0Z5Z5i8_scary-dragon-clipart/) and definitely-unfree images taken from the internet ("Skull Rock Island" on Map to Castle and the bottom-left character in green on Map to Sword are both hatched and watermarked as being taken from canva.com). Uploads have to use 100% free content to be hosted on Commons.
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
File:Tradeoff-plot-for-both-fixed-and-the-proposed-articulated-head-restraint-The-50th-and.png
[edit]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by "lelle" YngVe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Ingen ska vara fattig i världen.png
- File:Vård och omsorg är en rättighet för alla kosmopoliter (världsmedborgare).png
- File:Om vi alla tar i och drar åt samma håll ( positivt) kommer vi att lyckas.png
- File:Sluta ät fisk.png
- File:Återanvänd och dela materiella ting med varandra.png
- File:Om vi blir färre människor på jorden får alla plats både djur, växter och människan.png
- File:Lyd Hans Roslings råd om barnafödande.png
- File:Spara på jordens resurser.png
- File:När AI tagit över blir vi friare att göra vad vi i egentligen vill göra med våra liv.png
- File:Fusionsenergi är lösningen.png
- File:Alla människor bör ha tillgång till rent vatten.png
- File:Det räcker med sju år för att lära sig läsa, skriva och räkna.png
- File:Oavsett sett kön är alla lika mycket värda.png
- File:Ingen skall behöva gå hungrig i världen.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_kommer_vi_att_lyckas.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial flags of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hardy Historian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused Personal Photos
- File:Marica Linn, Changes Single Image, 2018.jpg
- File:Marica Linn, Rocawear Jeans Selfish Photo Shoot, Cleveland Ohio, 2007.jpg
- File:Marica Linn, Cleveland-Hopkins Airfield, Cleveland Ohio, 2007.jpg
- File:Marica Linn, South Pointe Pier, June 2018.jpg
- File:Marica Linn South Pointe Pier.jpg
Afifa Afrin (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment These are not "personal photos" (selfies, holiday shots, party pictures, personal artwork and so on). These are portraits of a model. There are probably copyright issues though: The probability of these files not being a work by "Hardy_Historian" is not negligible. Strakhov (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No FOP-US for 3D art DMacks (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
No FOP-US for 3D art Mvega00 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not the copyright owner, and it needs to be deleted Mvega00 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why did you re-nominated the same file for 4 more times? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also found online. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope CzarJobKhaya (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Ruthven at 07:19, 11 May 2022 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 13:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
https://sergiofajardo.co/ Lord Maximoff (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:37, 11 May 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: promo/press photo --Krdbot 19:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
{{No permission since}}|month=November|day=12|year=2014 Bazj (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS needed Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyrighted work SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Tv screenshot SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Author is Renol Simanjuntak, not uploader. See EXIF shizhao (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The photo is not own work. VRT-permission from photographer Ülar Linnuste is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thats me in my business dress 186.175.64.55 22:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope?. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
No es trabajo propio 186.175.64.55 22:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP, dubious claim of own work. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Unclear source, no confirmation of free license Kamolan (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Unclear source, no confirmation of free license Kamolan (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Unclear source, no confirmation of free license Kamolan (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden at 10:32, 13 May 2022 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Холодное оружие Муцуо тои.png --Krdbot 13:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot from 1954 movie. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot of 1953 movie. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
hatred image Reiro (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
If it's the original plan, then the person who drew it has the copyright, this is not your own work. It can uploaded here only 75 years after the author's death. Cardofk (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Low quality map, unreadable and unused. Enyavar (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Possible copyright violation. A Tineye search shows this exact map has been around on the internet since at least 2010. It was uploaded here as own work in 2019. I am not familiar with copyright for US maps, so it may be that this is not original enough to acquire copyright, but the author details recorded here are certainly misleading. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Per ...on a deletion I requested and which you carried out. Back then the file page said that it was "courtesy of Ian Wright" but at some point a Public domain dedication was added to the website, akin to Template:Cc-zero . Now I am not sure if this is the website copyright tag sloppiness often seen, or if it may indicate that somewhere between 2020 and 2022 they got a copyright licence agreement with Ian Wright and the New Zealand organizations to release the files as CC-0. Where would the ideal place be for such a discussion? There is also a similar image here that might have the same problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) :The license now shown is not CC-0, but simply the Public Domain Mark, which is essentially meaningless and not acceptable on Commons. All it says is that someone has decided that the image is PD, but that person explicitly does not warrant the correctness of the information. A PDM can be revoked or changed at any time. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC) ::So, should this item be sent to a deletion request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC) :::Yes, although there may be some pushback. We don;t have a problem with the PDM if the author applies it, but that's not clear. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC) from User talk:Jameslwoodward Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you believe the Smithsonian is wrong about the copyright of images they claim and use, I'm sure they'd appreciate a notification. Perhaps they can also clarify why they believe the image to be public domain (for example, because they know whether the creator was employed by the US government). Kusma (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just sent a query. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Got "That came from NOAA, a US Government agency." back which I've forwarded to the permissions queue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just sent a query. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I can confirm that ticket:2022042610010749 does have forwarded email with "That came from NOAA, a US Government agency." That said we at VRTS as a rule do not trust forwarded permissions as they can be easily created or altered. However in case of this email I have no reason to believe that any tampering happen. I do not thing statement like "courtesy of Ian Wright" is incompatible with PD designation. It just means that that person was the source. We co have Template:PD-USGov-NOAA template. which I think would be appropriate for this file. --Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per jarekt. --Sanandros (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Now uploaded to the original file page after it was no longer cascade protected —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
You have not the right to publish this image under a free licence, see COM:PACKAGING. Ras67 (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) abbedabbtalk 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The file page was vandalized on 9 August 2020 by Cauan3573 who - for some strange reason - changed the copyright information to some kind of username, and also added Portugese text about judo in the file description. -abbedabbtalk 21:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per abbedabb. --Sanandros (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
CGS Collage 186.175.228.231 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see why we need to delete this file. --Sanandros (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
A photograph of the 2017 - 2018 senior prefect team. 186.174.72.103 22:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see why we need to delete that. --Sanandros (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia commons is not the place for image collections in the form of articles; these images should only be put in categories. (And they are already categorised.) Erik Wannee (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Erik Wannee: This is apparently a gallery. And yes, Wikimedia Commons is indeed a place for "image collections" (for example, in es.wikipedia these galleries are discouraged in encyclopedic articles, and it's recommended to create them in Commons instead). Strakhov (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Putting images that are already grouped in a category, also in an article, seems pretty useless to me. Erik Wannee (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sanandros (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to add, we have more galleries which are all usefull. There is no general rule not to use galleries.--Sanandros (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO Hong Kong --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 21:13, 10 June 2022 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 56mlj --Krdbot 01:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Low quality jpg logo, superseded by File:The Hockey News Logo.svg Yeeno (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Lack of usage rights QuaintCable (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Lack of usage rights QuaintCable (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Please delete, because there never ever has been a coat of arms of Orenhofen with a transparent field in its history. A correct png file is this: File:Wappen orenhofen.png – Doc Taxon 
Disk. • 03:50, 25. Apr 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect file extension. Available as File:Univision Now.png. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
File EXIF shows "Author Tameka Scott & Asia Caraballo Copyright holder Contact Author at Mziz.Scott@yahoo.com Or call 786-838-3180". VRT permission from Tameka Scott needed. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Not own work: as admitted in description, image taken from a DVD cover Bradipo Lento (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishwasthakkar (talk · contribs)
[edit]These complex logo can only fall under fair use and are copyright violations. Even if they are not deemed complex enough, they are unlikely to be licensed under CC-BY-SA.
Kanwenjian (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - all 3. Unlikely "own work" or allowed under copyright without any evidence. The uploader should use enwiki's upload process rather than commons as they are using them for their enwiki articles. ASUKITE 03:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of another very similar (uncropped) photo. RagingR2 (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why we cannot keep boath? This file seems for me in a good quality.--Sanandros (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the higher quality uncropped version (file:Garnizoenskerk Ravenstein informatiebord.jpg is redundant). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of another very similar (uncropped) photo. RagingR2 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the higher quality and original upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of another very similar (uncropped) photo. RagingR2 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the higher quality and original upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of another very similar (uncropped) photo. RagingR2 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the higher quality and original upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of another very similar (uncropped) photo. RagingR2 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the higher quality and original upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Appears to be the artwork associated the band Band Ghost demo recording. No acknowledgement of source or permissions given. Headlock0225 (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I found this on bandcamp. But no album cover or band logo.--Sanandros (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unreliable uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted per Commons:Image casebook#Board games Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This logo is copyrighted. "Союза славянских сил Руси" is not a political party, only a social movement like a "Sovereign citizen movement". This logo violates copyright as it is not simple logo, not a goverment work. Must be deleted. Drakosh (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This image is likely not in the public domain due to Commons:Image casebook#Board games because the photograph is intended to illustrate the game board and box. Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This image isn't in the public domain due to Commons:Image casebook#Board games, which says that images of box designs are not acceptable. Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"tùy ý sử dụng" ("to use arbitrarily") doesn't imply allowing creation of derivatives and commercial uses. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Google finds this on soundcloud 8 yrs ago - https://soundcloud.com/marta-shpak/leleka-marta-shpak - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nthchuong2008 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems to be screenshots of copyrighted webpages/software.
- File:Windows Longhorn build 4093 khi đang cài đặt.png
- File:Câu trả lời của nhân viên Microsoft.png
- File:Ảnh chụp màn hình 2020-10-05 173644.png
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and no real educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This image contains a photograph from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FelicityWiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Housmans and Peace News at 5 Caledonian Road, London in 1959.jpg
- File:Opening ceremony at 5 Caledonian Road, London 1959.jpg
- File:Housmans opening.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FelicityWiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from book covers and art.
- File:The Vaults in the basement of Housmans bookshop.jpg
- File:Sale of Dawn Foster's private library at Housmans.jpg
- File:Housmans window display circa 1990.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment in the first one, book covers (and copyrighted art) are clearly de minimis IMO. In the others probably too. Strakhov (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: agree with User:Strakhov, DM for individual book covers. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The image is of the icon of the final level of LittleBigPlanet 2. The game is very likely copyrighted. OrnateAccount (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The person in this image was misidentified as Professor Sonya Legg. Henrifdrake (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
:Thats odd, the Flickr photographer thought it was that Professor. However this is a photo of a Sonya Legg at Chicheley Hall so it doesnt need deleting merely identifying as not Prof Legg the oceanographer (who did the modelling on the South China Sea).
Delete it was mislabelled. No one knows who this is in the photo. Thanks to Henrifdrake. Victuallers (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Since the original version is now the same color as the colorblind one, the latter has now become redundant and should be deleted as a result. 72.229.242.36 20:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
After the color dispute has been settlied, this file is a duplicate. RobiH (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Viewsridge (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close: already redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused logo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused logo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused logo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no taxon named Alsodinae, it's a misspelling - a new category has been created Category:Alsodidae and all the relevant subcategories have been moved to it, the linked Wikidata items have been updated as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReneeWrites (talk • contribs) 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, let's just keep it as a redirect. There's no actual need for deletion. Alsodinae is not a misspelling but an alternate (currently unused) taxonomy where Alsodes and relatives are placed inside Cycloramphidae. --Paranaja (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Paranaja. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
unused, apparently a first attempt to create File:Transcontinental nations 1 (1).svg. Either merge the files, or delete this one. Enyavar (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
duplicated to file:Seal of Nan province.svg Xiengyod~commonswiki (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
duplicated to file:Seal of Nan province.svg Xiengyod~commonswiki (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
duplicated to File:Flag of Nonthaburi province.jpg Xiengyod~commonswiki (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
duplicated to File:Flag of Nonthaburi province.jpg Xiengyod~commonswiki (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
duplicated to File:Flag Uttaradit Province.png Xiengyod~commonswiki (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I mistakenly uploaded this image or file as I have sold it or licensed it. Ray Redstone (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Škrip na Braču 2017.jpg Argo Navis (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
fake map. Political propaganda of Russian Federation 76.167.98.195 22:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Unclear source, no confirmation of free license Kamolan (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Unclear source, no confirmation of free license Kamolan (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. See comments on userpage of Iconoclast about similar requests and who has been blocked for vandalism. Wouter (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Pending research outcome ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is a 1990 sculpture in Greece, where there is no Freedom of Panorama for works of art displayed in public. ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- What about all the other images in Category:Monument of the hand? Wouter (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those depicting the sculpture shot from different angles have to be deleted as well for the same reason (not the images of the memorial plaques that are plain text, not a copyrighted work of art). ̴̴ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:FOP Greece. Artwork is by Antonia Papatzanaki, born in 1960 and still alive. The file can be restored 70 years pma of the artist. --Rosenzweig τ 09:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Dateiname falsch eingesetzt, kann leider nicht unbenannt werden, daher Datei bitte löschen oder auch umbenennen in: Iglesia Nuestra Señora de los Remedios – Yaiza – 02.jpg Maesi64 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: will rename the file as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 21:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is in public domain per Commons:Image casebook#Board games since the purpose of the image is to intended to illustrate the game. Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is in public domain per Commons:Image casebook#Board games since the purpose of the image is to intended to illustrate the game. Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is in public domain per Commons:Image casebook#Board games since the purpose of the image is to intended to illustrate the game. Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is from a publication of some sort and is clearly not the "own work" of RudolfPolt. Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. I nominated this image for deletion by mistake. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this is the uploader's own work from 1935 as claimed. To be able to (perhaps) keep this, we'd need a clear description of the source and the author and also some evidence that the date isn't just made up. If we don't get that, the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Полянская, Ольга Анатольевна (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright violation. Works of the Anatoly Polyansky (died in 1993).
Maxinvestigator (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Same file: New building of Secretariat of Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States inaugurated in Istanbul (8).jpg Jelican9 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Cybermobbing; nicht nützlich für Bildungszwecke. Bild wurde im Zusammenhang mit einem bereits gelöschten Artikel in der deutschen Wikipedia hochgeladen, welcher eine Person (vermutlich privat bekannt mit dem Nutzer der dieses Bild hochlud) herabwürdigte. Ruhrgur (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
DSS data and images are copyright: https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use Lithopsian (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Newspaper photo CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep TOO for the Text, and the comercials are de minimis.--Sanandros (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Sanandros. --Gbawden (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The file looks like a screenshot from a television show. So it's probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: There is a statement on the file description page stating that Volunteer Response Team has confirmed that the copyright holder has released this file under the licence stated.-- Dr Greg talk 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The file has been provided by the creator and a VRT ticket has been attached. There are no grounds for deletion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment To me the issue is that the person who gave permission for this to be used "contributed" to the design and production of this work. They aren't the main or only creator of it though and I doubt a "contributor" would be a/or the only rights holder. Nor would they have the legal ability to license images of the logo when it is being used in another work like a television show, which I assume is copyrighted by the shows production company or the television broadcaster since it's an original work separate from the logo. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is a VRT ticket, meaning that a trusted editor has received evidence that the image has been correctly licensed and that evidence has been placed on file. Unless you have access to VRT, it is not appropriate for you to second guess what the contents are or try to delete an image on a hunch. Instead, the starting point would be to contact a VRT member and ask them to confirm the evidence we hold is suitable. Only if the evidence is invalid, should a deletion request have started. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where exactly am I trying to delete an image on a hunch? I just said why I think it should be deleted. What I said is literally based on how copyright law works. Obviously other people can disagree. I don't really care either way. The person who opens the deletion request doesn't have the ultimate say anyway. So I'd appreciate it if you skipped the bad faithed, personal comments. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have made no bad faith or personal comments. I have stated the process that must be followed. We have verified evidence of a suitable copyright licence provided through the VRT system and checked by a trusted editor. Without sight of that VRT evidence you have assumed that the evidence is invalid (a hunch) and raised a deletion request. As I said, the correct process is to ask for someone else to verify the evidence in the VRT system before requesting deletion (the VRT ticket on the file page gives instructions on how to check the evidence). It is possible that the original volunteer who processed the evidence made a mistake (we are human after all) but we should never assume that they have done a bad job without using the normal process for checking. This is not an accusation of bad faith, just an explanation of the correct process to follow. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but you saying that am trying to delete an image on a hunch sounds personal. A hunch is literally a feeling someone has about something. Your comment that I assumed that the volunteer had done a bad job is also personal. Nowhere have I said I assumed anything, "bad" or otherwise, about anyone. In no way is your insinuation that I have "just an explanation of the correct process to follow" either. I really wonder why you'd have to resort to such tactics if this was such a slam dunk keep like you say it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let us end the discussion there. You appear to be assuming that everything I say is in bad faith and that I am resorting to "tactics" to keep the file. As anything more I say may also be misinterpreted, I will choose to remain silent. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but you saying that am trying to delete an image on a hunch sounds personal. A hunch is literally a feeling someone has about something. Your comment that I assumed that the volunteer had done a bad job is also personal. Nowhere have I said I assumed anything, "bad" or otherwise, about anyone. In no way is your insinuation that I have "just an explanation of the correct process to follow" either. I really wonder why you'd have to resort to such tactics if this was such a slam dunk keep like you say it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have made no bad faith or personal comments. I have stated the process that must be followed. We have verified evidence of a suitable copyright licence provided through the VRT system and checked by a trusted editor. Without sight of that VRT evidence you have assumed that the evidence is invalid (a hunch) and raised a deletion request. As I said, the correct process is to ask for someone else to verify the evidence in the VRT system before requesting deletion (the VRT ticket on the file page gives instructions on how to check the evidence). It is possible that the original volunteer who processed the evidence made a mistake (we are human after all) but we should never assume that they have done a bad job without using the normal process for checking. This is not an accusation of bad faith, just an explanation of the correct process to follow. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where exactly am I trying to delete an image on a hunch? I just said why I think it should be deleted. What I said is literally based on how copyright law works. Obviously other people can disagree. I don't really care either way. The person who opens the deletion request doesn't have the ultimate say anyway. So I'd appreciate it if you skipped the bad faithed, personal comments. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Has OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
we will uplioad a better version Tushar Kailas Bari (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pls provide first a link to the new file, then we can delete it. Or you can also override the existing file.--Sanandros (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Файл не используется, вместо него используется другой файл Dizzy128 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploder shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
In the early 2010s, the exhibition at the Friedrichswerdersche Kirche was named "Schinkel-Museum", this is long ago, all content in this category is also and better be collected in the existing Category:Friedrichswerdersche Kirche. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category. --Rosenzweig τ 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The SVG file worked fine before uploading. Now it seems to be corrupt. Please remove this file. Kigsz (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The issue was that the SVG contains nothing but an embedded PNG image and the image data was in an "href" attribute, but the SVG renderer requires it to be in an "xlink:href" attribute instead. It's an extremely common problem here in the Wikimedia Commons. TilmannR (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo was taken in Germany by an anonymous photographer in 1945. The uploader obtained this copy from a book published in 2004. We don't know if this was the first time the photo was published. It doesn't appear to meet the three requirements listed on Template:PD-1996 so I don't think we can keep it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can't prove an earlier publication date than 2004 at this moment. Deletion makes sense until a PD-friendly source can be found. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Non publication it hard to proof and the proof must be done by the publisher. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Probleme_mit_nachgelassenen_Werken.--Sanandros (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per [12], the photographer is not anonymous as claimed, but the well-known de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), who died in 1957. So the file can be restored in 2028. --Rosenzweig τ 22:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR Paraguay Ox1997cow (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." is clearly untrue. If reason for open licensing is found it can be kept, delete otherwise Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, dicussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Possibly above COM:TOO UK --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 00:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The permission on this isn't valid because stamps aren't legally known as a means of payment. Therefore the image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The assertion above is baseless. See, for example, the laws of Moldova (which is a kind of twin sister country for Romania): "... Postage stamp shall mean a sign of payment for postal services ..". Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call stamps not being a means of payment a baseless assertion. There's multiple discussions on here that determined as much and images of stamps have been deleted in the past because the "means of payment" thing wasn't valid. Obviously there's a few outliers like Moldova, but their only an outlier because they specifically put it in the law. As far as I'm aware Romania doesn't have the same prevision. Otherwise, you'd have to show some evidence that they do. You can't use the law in one outlier country as a general blanket keep rational either. It should go without saying images aren't kept just because of laws in other countries. "Kind of twin sister countries", whatever that means, or not. BTW, what the Moldavian law says is that stamps are "signs of payment for postal services." There's a huge difference between a "means" of payment and a "sign" of one and obviously PD-RO-exempt has to do with "means", not "signs." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Romania#Stamps, stamps from Romania can be considered in PD. --Ellywa (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Backrooms
[edit]Game screenshots.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:Photo Backrooms.jpg, as the website it comes from has a disclaimer reading "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License". Delete the rest due to unclear licensing status. 46.132.188.177 04:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That one also seems to be a derivative. I can't actually find out the file description page though. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not delete the file, in general on wikidots website in creative commons, the pictures are also in CC BY SA, like on the SCP Wiki. Léo (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- That one also seems to be a derivative. I can't actually find out the file description page though. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, including File:Photo Backrooms.jpg. Even if the image is on Wikidot, it's highly likely that the image is not freely-licensed in the first place unless we can confirm that whoever took the image (as the original was believed to be an real photo) did actually upload it under a free license. As for the other two, they're essentially derivatives of the original backrooms photo, and we also don't have proof that whoever made those recreations released the images under a free license. Chlod (say hi!) 09:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I might add here that perhaps the Backrooms Wiki on Wikidot itself should follow suit and remove the image unless they can either (a) prove that it was uploaded under a free license or (b) be given permission by the creator of the image, much like how the SCP wiki gained the permission to use Izumi Kato's Untitled 2004 for SCP-173. Should they be able to prove the former, then perhaps this DR can take a different turn. Chlod (say hi!) 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:The backrooms recreation digital.png and File:The backrooms.jpg. Because they were rendered with a 3d software otherwise state the game where they are from.--Sanandros (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all. File:Photo Backrooms.jpg has both the photo and the text that come from the original thread on 4chan, meaining that its a derivative of the original photo that has unclear status (pretty sure its copyrighted though). File:The backrooms.jpg and File:The backrooms recreation digital.png are also unclear if the original artists allow the images to be uploaded here. reppoptalk 05:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- To add, I also agree with Chlod's reasoning that even if its on Wikidot, the image is highely likely to not be free. Also, if the images were rendered with 3d software, the copyright is still with the people who created the 3d renders and games. reppoptalk 05:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, per discussion and per COM:PRP . Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of this image. Therefore – due to lack of information like source, author, publication status and creation date – this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Electoral photograph of president Macron has no permission and is no de minimis in these photos. VRTS permission needed.
- File:2022-03-31 19-26-13 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 20-19-01 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 20-47-48 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 20-50-53 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 20-51-03 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 20-51-15 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 21-06-39 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 21-07-53 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
- File:2022-03-31 21-08-04 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg
Ruthven (msg) 09:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not make such removal requests WITHOUT REAL REASON!!! --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ComputerHotline Just read the line above for a real reason. ;) Ruthven (msg) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a real reason. I know my photos don't appeal to everyone, but that's no reason to ask for them to be deleted. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ComputerHotline Take this file: 2022-03-31 19-26-13 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg. Your photo is a Derivative work (read COM:DW to understand what it is): you cannot publish that photo without the permission of the photograph of the original Macron's photo from his campaign. It is against both French and US law. The same for all the other photos. Ruthven (msg) 12:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a real reason. I know my photos don't appeal to everyone, but that's no reason to ask for them to be deleted. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ComputerHotline Just read the line above for a real reason. ;) Ruthven (msg) 13:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
File:2022-03-31 19-26-13 meeting-LREM-Voujeaucourt.jpg i'd delete it. the others Macron is for me not sharp enough.--Sanandros (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted the two first. Cropped the other images to remove the poster of Macron, and deleted the initial versions, the cropped versions can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Stamps this 1969 stamp should be free but the designer Arnold Machin only died in 1999 and this profile remains under copyright IMO. See en:File:Arnold Machin Elizabeth II coinage portrait.jpg which is non free Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- British stamps are Crown Copyright which has expired for this one. The terms are given in the licence on the page. The image you have linked is a completely different work. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I still believe that the underlying sculpture - the Machin Head - is non free Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Crown Copyright overrules any artists rights, when the stamp is designed, rights are transferred to the government, as is the rule in many jurisdictions. Coins are 3d objects and the rights belong to the person taking the image because of creativity in lighting and the angle of the camera. --RAN (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: actually the Machin stamp are based on this freely licenced 3D sculptural portrait File:Elizabeth II Machin series stamps sculpture.jpg and not on the coin image as claimed by the nominator. There is a distinct possibility the coin's image may well be based on this sculpture. Ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy as no permission (No permission since). Isn't this below the United States' "COM:TOO"? -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Probably "delete", the logo is more than just the the low threshold suggested by PD-simple; however, use in most of the articles in which it is currently transcluded would undoubtedly be a fair use, so prior to deletion, it would be great to transwiki them back into the various wikipediae where it is used. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per TJRC. This is not a simple logo with shades and subtle coloring. Can be temporarily undeleted if needed in fair use cases. --Ellywa (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Your licensing with {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is also a form of copyfraud. If an image is in PD, you have to licence it correctly as such! This concerns hundreds of you uploads. Please relicense all old newspaper pages, old documents, old images and so on with a proper PD licence. If you don't do this, i will request a deletion request for all such files. Ras67 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Ras67, if have always mentioned, as Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0 requires, the licenser--generally digital.tessmann.it--as first generator who posted the files under the Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0 rule for free re-use (without any copyfraud, by the way). So I don't really understand your a bit menacing and certainly very unfriendly objection. Best Bartleby08 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- But in order to fix any misunderstandings here, which license should I use instead? Best Bartleby08 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for that impression, but i'm a litte bit frustrated regarding the masses of wrong licenced files in your uploads. And you do this further like here. If the author is unknown, you can't licence it as "cc-by-sa-4.0". First you have not the right for that, second the "name attribution" for the "unknown author" is ridiculous. Before you upload an "alien work", you have to find out the proper author and it's death date for a pursuable {{PD-old}} licensing. If impossible, you have to prove {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as a pseudo anonymous work like the aforementioned postcard above. Furthermore we need the concrete source of your files like "{{Own scan}} from my collection" or an internet URL with the file. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ras67, give me only a bit of time and I'll try to fix that as best I can! Best regards --Bartleby08 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Now I changed the information for the file under review, would you please check if did it correctly. Then I could go on with the others. Thanx a bunch --Bartleby08 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your cooperation! The two files above are now OK, so Keep. For the other ones you have enough time. But do only one licence below the "=={{int:license-header}}==" and not additionally in the "{{Information |permission=}} field. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for all your help, dear Ras67! All best, Bartleby08 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your cooperation! The two files above are now OK, so
- Now I changed the information for the file under review, would you please check if did it correctly. Then I could go on with the others. Thanx a bunch --Bartleby08 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ras67, give me only a bit of time and I'll try to fix that as best I can! Best regards --Bartleby08 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for that impression, but i'm a litte bit frustrated regarding the masses of wrong licenced files in your uploads. And you do this further like here. If the author is unknown, you can't licence it as "cc-by-sa-4.0". First you have not the right for that, second the "name attribution" for the "unknown author" is ridiculous. Before you upload an "alien work", you have to find out the proper author and it's death date for a pursuable {{PD-old}} licensing. If impossible, you have to prove {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as a pseudo anonymous work like the aforementioned postcard above. Furthermore we need the concrete source of your files like "{{Own scan}} from my collection" or an internet URL with the file. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- But in order to fix any misunderstandings here, which license should I use instead? Best Bartleby08 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, image is in PD. Wrong copyright tag is not a reason for deletion, that can be corrected. --Ellywa (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence for CC-0 license Drakosh (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1910 - in 2031 .. --Ellywa (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Historical postcard (uses old russian orfografy rules) - no date, unknown original author. Is not own original work. Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- В источниеке указана дата, начало 20 века. Фотография - общественное достояние Stronghold Sochi (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, photo from 1916, published, but perhaps not anonymously. Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1916 - in 2037 .. --Ellywa (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of CC-0 license Drakosh (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1916 - in 2037 .. --Ellywa (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of CC-0 license Drakosh (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1917 - in 2038.. --Ellywa (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of CC-0 license Drakosh (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1917 - in 2038.. --Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of CC-0 license Drakosh (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and Template:PD-old-assumed a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1917 - in 2038.. --Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- This appears to be a "duplicate" of the much smaller File:EPD Logo.png. Keep as long as my assumption at File talk:EPD Logo.png is correct. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The other version also has been deleted. Per nomination. COM:TOO Belgium does not specify a level of originality. To determine whether a design is below TOO is always a bit subjective. Imho this image shows a creativity of the designer and it is therefore copyrighted. The image has to be deleted as a consequence. --Ellywa (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
