Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/07/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
![68 File:" visiting Haridwar.jpg".jpg](#File:"_visiting_Haridwar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_ZMB_-_UNOCHA.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Own work? 186.172.147.110 00:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this your so-called reason for deletion? Of course it's a photo I took. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No own work 186.172.147.110 02:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Margarita Guerrero, mi amiga 186.172.147.110 02:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Seems to me to be good enough to categorize as a portrait and keep. Not devoid of interest, either: She's holding up the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador, published by the National Assembly, and her hand is on some traditional Andean cloth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
No se ve en la foto pero su ropa interior es de Victoria's Secret, promoción comercial. Deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.173.207.199 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
J’ai téléversé ce fichier par erreur MurphyLaProd (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Загружено по ошибке Euetoraeomu (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Why this exactly should be free? I can't see something about a free license. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 17:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
(c) Dainik Savera Times Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Bastiansiio (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
wrong filename
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192752 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D X - 0446 - DV3P0971 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192749 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D X - 0442 - DV3P0967 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192747 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0351 - 1D3 1800 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192734 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0333 - 1D3 1782 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192647 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0313 - 1D3 1762 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192645 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0310 - 1D3 1759 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192635 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0304 - 1D3 1753 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192634 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0301 - 1D3 1750 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192627 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0296 - 1D3 1745 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192627 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0295 - 1D3 1744 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192625 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0285 - 1D3 1734 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192625 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0284 - 1D3 1733 mod.jpg
- File:Rod Zombie - Wacken Open Air 2015 - 2015211192622 2015-07-30 Wacken - Sven - 1D MK III - 0278 - 1D3 1727 mod.jpg
Svema (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: If the filename is wrong, please request its renaming instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Please request a rename the next time. For now the new files have been uploaded and those files are merely duplicates. Natuur12 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
typo in name of person. already uploaded again
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191239 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0523 - AK8I9692.jpg
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191237 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0518 - AK8I9687.jpg
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191236 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0514 - AK8I9683.jpg
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191234 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0509 - AK8I9678.jpg
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191233 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0507 - AK8I9676.jpg
- File:Thomas Herrmanns - 2019102191233 2019-04-12 Radio Regenbogen Award 2019 - Sven - 1D X MK II - 0505 - AK8I9674.jpg
Svema (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded photos. please delete immediately
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180943 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1303 - AK8I9762.jpg
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180931 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1290 - AK8I9749.jpg
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180931 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1288 - AK8I9747.jpg
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180925 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1285 - AK8I9744.jpg
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180925 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1283 - AK8I9742.jpg
- File:Enter Shikari - 2022175180924 2022-06-24 Download Germany - Sven - 1D X MK II - 1280 - AK8I9739.jpg
Svema (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Raymond 18:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently uploaded image; asking for courtesy deletion as original uploader. Just uploaded SVG version of the same. MxYamato (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
No fair use on Commons.
- File:হারকিপ্টে.jpg
- File:সার্ভিস হোল্ডার.jpg
- File:শীল বাড়ি (টেলিভিশন নাটক).jpg
- File:বিন্দুর ছেলে ২০০৬.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Achim55 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- অনুগ্রহ পূর্বক আমাকে শিখাবেন fair use কেমনে করবো ? BadhonCR (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This file has no metadata, nor a proper source but only “Own work” and the angle the photograph was taken its very close to Morgan, the only way it could have been taken like this is if the photographer was either outside the ring or inside of it, so this was way probably just uploaded from internet. If not, proper ticket and source information shall be added by uploader. DeMéxicoConAmor (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Between the low resolution and the fact that there's clearly ropes on a different plane in the foreground, it seems pretty plausible to me that this was a fan in the front row of a house show (untelevised live event, hence the file name) that was taken by that fan using the zoom feature on their phone's camera. Unless some compelling evidence of improper copyvio is shown, then it shouldn't be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - The uploader has a history of copyright violations. This article is from Jan 2020 which predates the upload to Commons (Jul 2020), and has a crop of the head. Claim of own work by the uploader is dubious at best. -- Whpq (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Uploader claims the file is licensed under CC 4.0, but has provided no evidence (including source link) that it is licensed under stated license. Asianet's website clearly states 'All rights reserved' on the bottom of the site. 110.225.144.60 14:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:13, 4 July 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: Uploader claims the file is licensed under CC 4.0, but has provided no evidence (including source link) that it is licensed under stated license. Asianet's website clearly states 'All rights reserved' on the bottom of the site. --Krdbot 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - Article from Frankfurter Rundschau (german newspaper) Karsten11 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - Article from Frankfurter Rundschau (german newspaper) Karsten11 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File:Flag-map_of_Illinois_(alternative_version).svg John emil hernandez (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Stock photo with required payment for download. Copyright appears to be to a Manju Mandavya, not to this uploader who therefore has no rights to call this his own work. https://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-370648639/stock-photo-mysore%2C-karnataka-india-oct-31-2019%3A-beautiful-view-of-wrestling-courtyard-inside-the-royal-palace%2C?utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term= Acabashi (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Low quality unused photo of a business premises in an unknown location, no educational value, out of scope COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused diagram with no explanatory description, used only on the user page. The draft article has not been edited since May 3, 2016. No other user contributions to any Wikipedia's sister projects: https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Tt37129 No educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused diagram with no explanatory description, used only on the user page. The draft article has not been edited since May 3, 2016. No other user contributions to any Wikipedia's sister projects: https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Tt37129 No educational value, out of scope Feyth (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect created by file rename due to misatribution. This name was never an authentic description of the image. Uploader or their source just took a picture of a generic man in a turban and arbitrarily assigned it to a specific historical figure it was never meant to represent. See: Commons:Help_desk#Misattributed_image_-_not_sure_where_to_start_cleanup Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Engrmdjahangiralam19 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 7.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 8.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 6.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 5.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 4.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 1.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 2.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 3.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Engrmdjahangiralam19 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Series of personal images that are outside the scope of this project. Commons is not a web hosting service
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 7.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 8.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 6.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 5.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 4.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 1.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 2.jpg
- File:Engr Md Jahangir Alam 3.jpg
Herby talk thyme 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hatzelmann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal file collection, all unused, out of scope.
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 25.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 22.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 24.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 23.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 21.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 20.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 19.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 18.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 17.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 16.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 15.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 14.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 13.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 11.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 12.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 10.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 07.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 09.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 08.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 06.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 04.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 05.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 03.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 02.jpg
- File:Trainingslager Solferino 2014 01.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 10:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope joke flag. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope inferior version of the flag of Japan with a distracting face in the middle. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no potential educational purpose/out of scope. -M.nelson (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Japan.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep .png cannot be a duplicate of .svg A09 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete PNG is newer and colours are incorrect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope joke file. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
advertising, see title and text Kusma (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Autopromoción Aitorembe (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Outside of project scope: unused photo of unknown person uploaded by someone with no other contributions B (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Random personal photo; out of scope. -M.nelson (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Logo of declined draft en:Draft:Ufootball. No reasonable educational use (COM:SCOPE). -M.nelson (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Esgamingyt1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos from declined draft Draft:ESGamingYT. No reasonable educational purpose (COM:SCOPE).
-M.nelson (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
irrelevant and no encyclopedic usefulness Darrelljon (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Vehbikerem2010
[edit]- File:ReanultKangooSportway.jpg
- File:ReanultKangooSportway(2).jpg
- File:RamPromasterCityFront.jpg (source found, confirmed to be a copyright violation of [1])
- File:RamPromasterCityRear.jpg (source found, confirmed to be a copyright violation of [2])
- File:BMCMegastarTipper1.jpg
- File:BMCMegastarTipper2.jpg
- File:BMCMegastarCombi1.jpg
- File:BMCMegastarCombi2.jpg
- File:Kahramanmaraş Yamaçtepe.jpg
- File:Kahramanmaraş Yamaçtepe2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b12fc3d697a9831099abaca/1654095322936-NHOD6H0K5JOSX7PSY07M/02pmc_exterior_front_driver.jpeg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b12fc3d697a9831099abaca/1654095327684-XGMQX2A62K3EMRZEYVM2/07pmc_exterior_passenger_rear.jpeg){kind=link}
Added 08 July 2022:
Near-certain copyright violations. The Renault Kangoo has Argentina registration plates, the Promaster from Colorado in the United States, while the BMC Megastars both are in Turkey. It cannot be reasonably believed that the uploader took all these pictures and has the right to license them. None of them are of a size or resolution that would indicate that they are original images.
The remaining two images are both of a size that indicate that they could be original images; however, neither appear to be usable for any encyclopedic purpose; the second, in particular, does not appear to illustrate anything and is too grainy to be helpful in any way. --Sable232 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I found the original sources for the two Ram ProMaster City images above, confirming that they are indeed copyright violations, and tagged them as such. --Sable232 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found the Megastar Tipper as well: for sale at FB, two years ago at least. Until now, I was willing to believe that this user had actually taken photos in Turkey. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 04:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two more near-certain copyright violations were uploaded yesterday, and I have added them to the list above. The depicted vehicle is in yet another country - the U.K. - and sparse metadata suggests that the images were not taken by the uploader. --Sable232 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sable232 Those two images appear to be from flickr, where they are under an all rights reserved licence https://www.flickr.com/photos/charliecars/36312129021 192.76.8.85 03:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two more near-certain copyright violations were uploaded yesterday, and I have added them to the list above. The depicted vehicle is in yet another country - the U.K. - and sparse metadata suggests that the images were not taken by the uploader. --Sable232 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvios, given the uploader's history of problematic uploads, the wide range of countries, qualities and metadata, the fact that some of these are obvious professional publicity photos, and the fact that some have already been positively identified as copyvios. 192.76.8.85 14:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyvios confirmed & deleted, 2 WLE contribs kept. --Achim55 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lord Belbury as no permission (No permission since) Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Question This photo was uploaded by User:Yao Lu (Sarah) as "Own work". The speedy deletion tag didn't explain why she is not believed by the tagger to be the photographer or why she has to confirm authorship by email whereas most other photographers don't have to do so (correct me if I'm wrong). If you know this is someone else's photo, including a link to the page where you saw it would save everyone time, because in that case, I would not have challenged the speedy deletion tags for the purpose of a discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, I just noticed "Darren Sharp Shareable, CC BY". We don't know what type of CC license there is on this, and I suppose the uploader is not Darren Sharp. Sorry about this challenge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: I Delete under these circumstances. If nothing else, this has a watermark, which is not admissible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: I
- I was going by "(Sharp, 2016)" in the filename description. I didn't find the image elsewhere, I just noticed that the uploader had added a lot of images from different sources for some kind of research project wikibook page, crediting them in the file descriptions, so I put a seven-day request for permission on them (this wasn't speedy deletion).
- Looking at the wikibooks page again the uploader actually credits the sources there. This image is taken from https://www.shareable.net/sharing-cities-why-ownership-governance-and-the-commons-matter-more-than-ever/, with no suggestion of CC licencing (nor even that the Shareable writer Darren Sharp also took the photo). The "Darren Sharp Shareable, CC BY" watermark seems to have been added by the Commons user. So in the absence of a clear CC licence at source: Delete --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely a COM:FLICKRWASH since this image is clearly a part of this non-free image, posted to Billboard Japan in 2015. Link20XX (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of File:Robert Hope-Jones.jpg, which was deleted due to no source. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused and redundant with File:GCCC new Logo 9.27.16.png. Though higher resolution, it's lower quality than the png, and there's no reason to keep the jpg.. -M.nelson (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Wrong logo Jvpriori14 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Destroyed Russian tank T-72B used in Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Castle Square, Warsaw 3.jpg
[edit]
Deriviative work of an information board. As long as exhibited tanks are OK per COM:VEHICLE, that board is a copyrighted object and is not covered by FOP as it is not permanently displayed. ~Cybularny Speak? 23:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you claim that board is a "copyrighted object" so what is your solution to keep these important information for all Wiki community? This board is in a public space, so I find there is no reason to treat it as a "copyrighted object" as well as boards on monuments or streets.
- I found no one before me (why?) took a photo in Category:Invincable_army_exhibition_(Warsaw) with this key information. Kracho (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kracho: Yes, the noticeboard is in public space but according to COM:FOP Poland it also has to be permanently displayed (for an indefinite period of time). The exhibition is scheduled until the end of holidays as far as I know and the board is unlikely to be kept there after tanks are taken away. Therefore it does not comply Polish FOP rules. That's the reason why no one before you had uploaded such photo. For example I had seen that boards and I technically had no problem to take photos of them but I didn't do it being aware of copyright issues. ~Cybularny Speak? 06:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was uploaded as a trial for the article I am creating. I would like to use another photo for the final draft. Nrt0806 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete requested by uploader shortly after upload, and a risk of copyright violation.[3] Verbcatcher (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded as own work, but the image appears on the subject's Facebook profile DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have clicked this picture and sent it to her.She might have uploaded it on her facebook profile. LudhianaUser (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good argument. Unless any evidence can be brought to bear to disprove this statement, the photo should be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, image taken from facebook (EXIF header) -> need permission via COM:VRTS. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
dubious claim of Commons compatible licensing, I don’t see it at Instagram source 50.46.115.80 15:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Image is centered on a copyrighted image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/The Making of Burj Khalifa
[edit]Photos of text in a museum which is considered copyrighted (COM:UAE)
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 01.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 03.jpg
- File:The making of Burj Khalifa, Dubai (Ank Kumar) 02.jpg
- File:The Making of Burj Khalifa, Models (Ank Kumar, Infosys) 07.jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-M.nelson (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Photograph of a photograph that is not a work of Fars News HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Arsa Derinoglu
[edit]Images out of COM:SCOPE. This lady has been an athlete for a certain time. The article about her has been deleted on NL Wikipedia in 2019 because it was considered irrelevant a.o. The article has never been recreated. That article was written by the same user who uploaded the photo's. The user is since then inactive.
- File:Arsa Derinoglu (1) Decathlon heptathlon.png
- File:Arsa Derinoglu heptathlon.jpg
- File:Arsa Derinoglu javelin throw.png
- File:Arsa Derinoglu javelin.png
- File:Arsa Derinoglu.jpeg
_Decathlon_heptathlon.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellywa (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
wrong date, no useful description or categorization, vandalism in en and pt - out of scope. Xocolatl (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
no sign of CC-BY 3.0 on the page, doesn't look like it had it, as on the archived page it's also not there — Dudek1337 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gustavo Petro
[edit]According to the Flickr source, a different Flickr user called "Carola Montoya" claims to be the photographer; the Flickr uploader "Arturo de La Barrera" did not reply. While we cannot verify their claims, there is sufficient doubt that the images were not actually released under the stated CC license by the copyright holder, unless either of those two come forward to clarify the situation.
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (cropped 2).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (cropped 3).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (cropped).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (cropped2) (cropped).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (cropped2).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota (rectangle).jpg
- File:Gustavo Petro Mayor of Bogota.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:PENE 181.203.27.145 22:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 01:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:PORNO 181.203.27.145 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. The footbaal club itself is old, but the logos look like they are young. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —RP88 (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Guess the flags. I don't see any educational value in this collection. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. Kadı Message 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The educational flags can be found on youtube:
- Source list :
- Easy - [4]
- Meduim - [5]
- Hard - [6]
- Extreme - [7] 92.65.202.17 08:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Supporting Youtube's videos is out of Commons' project scope. --Achim55 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abdur9470
- File:Abdur Rahman 2020.jpg
- File:Abdur Rahman 2021.jpg
- File:Abdur Rahman2022.jpg
- File:Abdur Rahman 2022.jpg
- File:Abdur Rahman.jpg
- File:AbdurRahman.jpg
QTHCCAN (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 05:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose. Image is clearly a personal picture edited to include text in the background. Potential usage of Commons as webhost. Previously used to create an article draft on en WP which was declined regarding the subject of the image, who is not notable enough to warrant an article. No usage elsewhere. MxYamato (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![08:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/03#c-MxYamato-2022-07-03T08:30:00.000Z-File:"_visiting_Haridwar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
![11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/03#c-Rosenzweig-20220901112600-File:"_visiting_Haridwar.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
Saya mengunggahnya secara tidak sengaja Irvan Cahyo N (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Saya mengunggahnya secara tidak sengaja Irvan Cahyo N (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
{{Money-NK}} was deleted. So this page is unnecessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded this to Commons before I realised that I should have uploaded it directly to Wikipedia under Fair Use. This is a music album that is not my own so I think I should not have uploaded it to Commons. BrendaJaneF (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
User request - as this is a photograph of possible copyrighted work, I do not know if I have the legal rights to upload this. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP; likely copyrighted. --Rosenzweig τ 16:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hata yaptım Mr.Larkowis (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion of a user talk page. -M.nelson (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per M.nelson. --Rosenzweig τ 16:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per sostituirlo con la stessa foto che è più diritta. Giuseppe Guida (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Vladimir Cauchemar Atrium Reims.jpg
- File:Philippe bailly.jpg
- File:Saint-Dizier-Remparts.jpg
- File:Theatre saint dizier.png
- File:Statue siege st dizier.jpg
- File:Meeting-international-natation-2014-saint-dizier.jpg
- File:Concert skip the use saint dizier.jpg
- File:Base113.jpg
- File:QuentinBrière.png
- File:Peugeot 307 phase II.png
- File:Lesfuseauxstdizier.jpg
- File:Dscfsg.png
- File:Laa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Wrong copyright Mollseifer (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Ruthven at 13:06, 7 September 2022 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 18:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Non si tratta di una foto degli anni '40, come pensava chi ha caricato l'immagine, ma di una foto di scena del film "La Pelle" di Liliana Cavani, del 1981 (quindi posteriore al 1976, e non caricabile su Wikimedia Commons) Pancr45s (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Qui uno screenshot dal film, per confrontare. Osservare la donna bionda in fondo https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OEn7qxQEXJg/maxresdefault.jpg Pancr45s (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- La donna bionda mi sembra la stessa. Le altre no. Forse la Cavani ha fatto figurare questa prostituta vera nel suo film. Cio non significa che la foto in b/n sia tratta dal film. Vorrei uno screenshot più convincente. --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Scusa, ma ti pare che nel 1981 la stessa donna avrebbe potuto avere lo stesso aspetto che avrebbe avuto nel 1944 o giù di lì? Anche la donna bruna affianco alla bionda "in carne" è la stessa, vestita allo stesso modo (guarda il vestito a fiori bianchi e la collana). Il muro dietro è il medesimo, e anche le sedie su cui poggiano i piedi le due donne. Le altre ragazze nello screenshot non compaiono nella foto solo perché sono sedute più a destra. L'immagine è sulla copertina di varie edizioni francesi de "La Pelle" di Malaparte (da ciò il watermark Denoël & d'ailleurs), immagino che lì i crediti ci saranno https://charybde2.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/la-peau.jpg . Comunque si può cercare il punto esatto nel film e controllare (anche se non è detto che la scena debba apparire precisamente dalla stessa angolazione, anche perché in ogni film il più del girato viene tagliato). Al momento non ho a disposizione una copia del film. Pancr45s (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mi sono procurato una copia de "La pelle" (in precedenza, avendo trovato la foto postata in rete come "foto di scena del film" avevo semplicemente cercato su Google "la Pelle di Liliana Cavani - prostitute" e mi era uscito quel fotogramma).
- Confermo che si tratta al 100% di una foto di scena del film.
- La donna bruna davanti alla bionda è la stessa vestita allo stesso modo (osservare la collana e il vestito)
- https://ibb.co/Zd6sktL
- Riprese frontalmente la bruna e la bionda, sono identici i vestiti, i ciondoli le gambe ecc.
- https://ibb.co/6tDqzfx
- La cinepresa si muove verso sinistra, ed ecco apparire, piegata in avanti, la donna alla destra della bionda, è proprio lei e vestita allo stesso modo, con la giacca chiara
- https://ibb.co/3R6j3Xg
- La cinepresa continua a muoversi verso sinistra, ed ecco che s'intravede parte del vestito rosa a fiori della donna di cui nella foto si scorge solo mezza faccia (coperta dalla testa del "militare")
- https://ibb.co/BZ06kc1
- En passant, guardando attentamente la foto, vediamo che non solo la sedia è identica ma nel fotogramma s'intravede pure il manico della borsetta appesa
- https://charybde2.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/la-peau.jpg
- E mentre Mastroianni si allontana, ecco finalmente il "militare" con la divisa chiara che s'avanza, adescato dalle "prostitute"
- https://ibb.co/x6BYK30
- In generale l'immagine mi è sempre sembrata fin troppo "dinamica" per essere una foto vera. "Se qualcosa sembra troppo bello per essere vero, di solito è così."
- Fatto sta che oltre a essere finzione, è posteriore al 1976, essendo il film del 1981. Quindi non può stare su Wikimedia Commons. Pancr45s (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- La donna bionda mi sembra la stessa. Le altre no. Forse la Cavani ha fatto figurare questa prostituta vera nel suo film. Cio non significa che la foto in b/n sia tratta dal film. Vorrei uno screenshot più convincente. --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Ukraine. This photograph is a derivative work of the sculptor's copyright en:Alexey Dushkin and must be deleted. 178.93.1.241 19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Ukraine. This photograph is a derivative work of the sculptor's copyright and must be deleted. 195.110.6.202 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No law changes since previous nomination, no new arguments. No reason for deletion.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- what is DM?--Rumlin (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- See COM:DM - Jcb (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As an author of the photo I request to delete it because it violates Ukrainian law. This is photo of Crimean railway station. There is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Ukraine. Andrey Legayev (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Simferopol Railway Station, merge DRs? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no changes since last DR. Pretty utilitarian with possible copyrighted elements covered by DM. --rubin16 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine TentingZones1 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question Did you read any of the previous discussion about this photo at File talk:Simferopol - train station - Feb 2011.jpg? Why should it be deleted now when it wasn't then? Please address the keep rationale by User:rubin16: "no changes since last DR. Pretty utilitarian with possible copyrighted elements covered by DM." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- and this argument would have been better declared by a non-Russian user, but COM:FOP Crimea applies here, too rubin16 (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TentingZones1: Irrespective of originality status, the present consensus at WikiCommons is that Crimea is now using Russian laws. This means, Russian copyright law and the more liberal (yes, more liberal) Russian freedom of panorama that grants commercial uses to architecture only, unlike the Ukrainian copyright law that does not grant freedom of panorama for anything other than free use of public works and art by mainstream media only (reporting purposes). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination TentingZones1 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
his photograph was taken by an employee of Crown Studio Ltd, whom I assume would either be Francis Thompson or Frank Thompson. Since they were the owners at the time the photograph was taken. According to Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand works of joint authorship expire 50 after the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known, which would likely be Frank Thompson since he was the last person of the two to die, in 2001. Therefore this image isn't in the public domain until at least 2052. Even if Francis Thompson was the author it still wouldn't be PD until at least 2028. Although I assume the copyright goes to Frank Thompson as he's the last known person to be alive and part of the business when the photograph was taken. Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This photograph was taken by an employee of Crown Studio Ltd, whom I assume would either be Francis Thompson or Frank Thompson. Since they were the owners at the time the photograph was taken. According to Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand works of joint authorship expire 50 after the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known, which would likely be Frank Thompson since he was the last person of the two to die, in 2001. Therefore this image isn't in the public domain until at least 2052. Even if Francis Thompson was the author it still wouldn't be PD until at least 2028. Although I assume the copyright goes to Frank Thompson as he's the last known person to be alive and part of the business when the photograph was taken. Adamant1 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, most likely a video screenshot Tbhotch™ 01:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Megamanfan3 as Copyvio, and the most recent rationale was:
Google Chrome is proprietary software released under Google's terms of service and cannot be uploaded under arbitrary free licenses, including CC or BSD licenses.|source= https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/terms/
Relative to the open-source Chromium for Android, are there any distinguishing features visible here that surpass COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: the only thing is the logo, but it's below the ToO (see e.g. Google Chrome icon (February 2022).svg). Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 린눈라단 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It is unclear if it was uploaded with EBS's permission. The Youtube source contains a valid CC license. Those more familiar with the subject should discuss whether the channel can be assumed to be authorized to issue the license. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- My reading of en:Pengsoo suggests that this character was created by EBS. Since the video was uploaded on the broadcaster's official YouTube channel, it would seem that the company is able to license depictions of Pengsoo with a Creative Commons license as well. ✗plicit 06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't know it was distributed through CCL at the time of application. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but can the character 'Pengsoo' be distributed in CCL? Except for the source of the file, the video in which they(note: singular They) appear is not distributed in CCL. --린눈라단 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It depends on whether the owner of the Youtube channel is also the owner of the Pengsoo character. If that is the case, then the license would be considered valid for this appearance of the character. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The character and the youtube channel is owned by the same entity,EBS. So the license would be valid for both.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in that case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
So do you close this request?Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I changed my mind, too. I'm sorry I couldn't think of CCL. --린눈라단 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Image not found at source given. I've checked both Internet Archive as well as all entries at the Hathitrust Digital Library. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
deleted: the photo cannot be found in the source. In the 1914 there is a photograph of J. N. B. Hewitt, but it's different.Ruthven (msg) 14:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The Fairmont Dubai was completed in 2002 and designed by Khatib & Alami Dubai.[8] Unfortunately, UAE does not have freedom of panorama for free uses and publications of images of copyrighted architecture and public art without the need of architects' or artists' licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bedivere as no permission (No permission since). What country is this from? 1978 photo, could be PD in a few countries that have shorter terms for "simple photos". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: given that it's an Italian priest, and it's a "selfie", it falls under PD (but no URAA). Ruthven (msg) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The author is claimed to be fair use, but fair use is prohibited in Commons. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Uploader is indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Own work? the metadata gives "Auteursrechtenhouder TED7.COM PHOTOGRAPHY". It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; VRT permission needed. Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HarvieTheMouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PACKAGING, complex label artwork
- File:Harviestoun Bitter & Twisted golden ale 500ml bottle.jpg
- File:Harviestoun Schiehallion lager 500ml bottle.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Copie de https://images.cnrs.fr/photo/20160044_0013 où elle est taguée CNRS et où la photographe Frédérique Plas est mentionnée comme auteure H2O(talk) 11:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader has any rights to this unused image... no EXIF... so default position is copyvio. Acabashi (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader has rights to this unused image... also no EXIF... default that it is more than likely copvio. Acabashi (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious "own work". E4024 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete published elsewhere before upload to Commons.[9] Verbcatcher (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just for curiosity: My Google searches do not help me in most cases. What is the problem? Do you use something special other than right clicking on the Commons file and touching "search image in Google" among the options (the last one)? --E4024 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have replied at User talk:E4024. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just for curiosity: My Google searches do not help me in most cases. What is the problem? Do you use something special other than right clicking on the Commons file and touching "search image in Google" among the options (the last one)? --E4024 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Verbcatcher. --E4024 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
6 kb, and look at metadata. probably not "own work". Xocolatl (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete, published in a newspaper report dated before the upload to Commons.[10] Verbcatcher (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader has rights to this unused commercial image... also no EXIF... default that it is more than likely copvio. Acabashi (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
wrong date, wrong source, wrong author, probably copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kiwikiwi2016 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Five professional photos made by five different cameras. Very unlikely own works, permissions needed.
Xunks (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3d art in the USA. Statue installed in 2000. Artist David Moore. Headlock0225 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Uploader states to be the person on the image - so he's not the photographer. So permission is missing. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Author Steven Dolinsky Eu fiz o carregamento por engano. Tim — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.126.174.153 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. NEed VRT permission from author (at https://www.dolinskyphotography.com/home). Ruthven (msg) 14:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Not own work. Real source, real author and real license are needed. Taivo (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not Amblyteles armatorius, which has a yellow tip to the abdomen, yellow bases to the femurs, and a black band bisecting the yellow band on the abdomen. It's one of a number of other extremely similar species, and so I don't think this image can be usefully renamed. Fellow Creature (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @Fellow Creature: Please ask for renaming (even unknown species of genus yyyy.jpg). Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not Amblyteles armatorius, which has a yellow tip to the abdomen, yellow bases to the femurs, and a black band bisecting the yellow band on the abdomen. It's one of a number of other extremely similar species, and so I don't think this image can be usefully renamed. Fellow Creature (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
- Is there a reason it can't just be renamed to something generic like "wasp on log" or something? I don't see why that wouldn't be an option. Otherwise your deleting a perfectly fine image for literally no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Rename it!. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not Amblyteles armatorius, which has a yellow tip to the abdomen, yellow bases to the femurs, and a black band bisecting the yellow band on the abdomen. It's one of a number of other extremely similar species, and so I don't think this image can be usefully renamed. Fellow Creature (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no sign of CC-BY 3.0 on the page, doesn't look like it had it, as on the archived page it's also not there — Dudek1337 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:SVG city seals of Taiwan
[edit]According to email 1081031 from Taiwan's Intellectual Property Bureau, logos of government entities, like any other works, are subject to copyright protection if the originality threshold is met. For such logos, only "fair use" is permitted. There is no copyright exemption for logos of government entities.
- File:City seal of Tainan.svg
- File:Daliao seal.svg
- File:Dashe Township seal.svg
- File:Dashu Township seal.svg
- File:Emblem of Chiayi City.svg
- File:Emblem of Hsinchu City.svg
- File:Emblem of Kaohsiung City (1974-2009).svg
- File:Emblem of Kaohsiung City.svg
- File:Emblem of Nantou City.svg
- File:Emblem of Taipei City (1920-1981).svg
- File:Emblem of Taipei City (1981-2010).svg
- File:Emblem of Taipei City.svg
- File:Emblem of Taoyuan City.svg
- File:Magong City Seal.svg
- File:Miaoli City emblem.svg
- File:New Taipei City Government Logo.svg
- File:New Taipei City seal.svg
- File:Seal of Chiayi City in Japanese Rule.svg
- File:Seal of Keelung (Japanese rule).svg
- File:Seal of Keelung.svg
- File:Seal of Taichung.svg
- File:Seal of Tainan City (1978-2014).svg
- File:Seal of Taipei (1981-2010).svg
- File:Seal of Xizhi.svg
- File:Taichung City Government Education Bureau symbol.svg
- File:Taichung City Government symbol 2010.svg
- File:Tainan City Government Logo.svg
- File:Yuanlin seal.svg
- File:屏東市市徽.svg
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Wcam (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, I'd say tag them for undeletion based on when the copyright expires of the last file in this list. Or perhaps just 70 (seventy) years from now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Some of governments' logos are also used as city symbols. While the bureau has indicated that symbol of city and county can be regarded as official document, which means they are applicable for PD-ROC-exempt. As for symbol of lower-level administrative divisions, the bureau didn't mention that. Reference:E-mail 1060120
- Comment: See also 1110516 and 1091104. At least emblems of Kaohsiung City and Taipei City are {{PD-ROC-exempt}}--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- For other seals, maybe someone who lives in Taiwan can ask the respective authorities about whether they were made by "official documents".--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a rather serious accusation. I doubt the basis on those seals is sufficient, especially those under Japanese rule as they have already passed 70yrs from now. Also, I need to stress that the items being mentioned above should be categorised as an official "emblem" or "seal", not a "logo" although lots of Taiwanese mix up these terms. Suffice to say that {{PD-ROC-exempt}} should be able to cover the remaining emblems or seals does not meet the threshold of "originality" or "creativity". -- @assanges (talk | cont | uploads) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, :According to email 1091104All city seals of Taiwan shall not be the subject matter of copyright.Yu tptw (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per the above. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per the above. Also, makes no sense to delete the seal but keep the flag with the seal. --Andrei (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. If there are isolated cases, please open a DR with a limited number of disputed files. Ruthven (msg) 14:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The filename in portugues: ROTATORIA ENTRADA DA CIDADE = ROUNDABOUT ENTRANCE OF THE CITY (from Santo Antônio do Aracanguá, Sao Paulo state). The image is totally blurred. Probably a detail from the photo https://web.archive.org/web/20161013210824/http://www.panoramio.com/photo/21284474 of the same Panoramio author "conheça Aracanguá".. Because of the size, this is probably a screenshot. Copyright and license are questionable. Nemracc (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Not official doc in the terms of exempt-section. Alex Spade (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Posible violación de copyrigth Wotancito (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: watermarked, needs a VRT permission. Ruthven (msg) 14:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
COM:Penis 181.203.27.145 23:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
COM:Penis 181.203.27.145 23:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by US-Verified (talk · contribs)
[edit]Flickr-washing (0 followers, account created recently), images w/o exif data are suspect, some images with exif data credit copyright holders (e.g. File:Colin Wayne, Red Carpet event for a Netflix Original documentary self casted "The Perfect Physique".jpg and File:Colin Wayne, Red Carpet event for Netflix documentary release "The Perfect Physique".jpg: "Copyright holder 2015 Steven Lawton"; File:Fitness Model, Colin Wayne in Los Angeles.jpg: "Copyright holder Michael Neveux"), magazine covers are assumed to be copyrighted. Rest of the images should be deleted per PCP as uploader cannot be trusted.
- File:Commendation award ceremony at the capital of Alabama.jpg
- File:Made in America event at the White House in 2019.jpg
- File:Redline Steel warehouse locations.png
- File:Redline Steel circle logo.png
- File:Redline Steel Home Decor Logo.png
- File:Redline Steel logo copper.png
- File:Colin Wayne, CEO of Redline Steel with Inc. 500 award.png
- File:Olympian News Magazine.jpg
- File:Image & Style Magazine featuring Colin Wayne on the cover.jpg
- File:Bodybuilding Rules Magazine.jpg
- File:Men's Physique Magazine.jpg
- File:Muscle & Performance Magazine.jpg
- File:Ironman Italy Magazine Cover.jpg
- File:Muscle & Health Magazine.jpg
- File:Strength, Fitness, and Health Magazine.jpg
- File:Men's Fitness Magazine Australia.jpg
- File:Ironman Magazine Cover.jpg
- File:Natural Muscle Magazine.jpg
- File:Kettlebell Magazine Italy 2014.jpg
- File:Muscle & Fitness Spain.jpg
- File:Ironman Magazine Cover featuring Colin Wayne.jpg
- File:CY Fitness Magazine.jpg
- File:Most Fitness Magazine.jpg
- File:Kettlebell Magazine Italy.jpg
- File:Muscle & Fitness Magazine Cover.jpg
- File:Proactive Health Magazine.jpg
- File:Men's Fitness Magazine.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne with his wife Breanna Erwin.jpg
- File:Marisol Nichols at Redline Steel facility with Colin Wayne.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne black signature 2022.png
- File:Colin Wayne, Red Carpet event for a Netflix Original documentary self casted "The Perfect Physique".jpg
- File:Colin Wayne, Red Carpet event for Netflix documentary release "The Perfect Physique".jpg
- File:Fitness Model, Colin Wayne in Los Angeles.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne at his warehouse gym in Huntsville, Alabama.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne billboard with Huckabee Show on CBN.jpg
- File:Megan Fox and Colin Wayne behind the scenes at The Kelly Clarkson Show.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne at the White House for Made in America Week.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne and his Wife Breanna Erwin.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne at his warehouse in Huntsville, Alabama.jpg
- File:Colin Wayne Podcast by Per Bernal.jpg
Njd-de (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Njd-de
- @Herranderssvensson
- The questioned images that were requested as speedy deletion are purchased licensed image use for Creative Commons through Getty Images Invoice #17194471 through customer #23641651 to verify the license payment rights Getty Images(US), Inc.
- PO Box 953604, St. Louis. MO 63195-3604
- Getty Images Sales & Service Team Phone: 800-IMAGERY (800-462-4379)
- Website - www.gettyimages.com/customer-support
- Phone: 1-866-478-6251
- 1 ENT:488703278 Premiere Of Fitness Documentary "The Perfect Physique" Photographer/Artist: Steven Lawton Start Date: 2022-05-02 Duration: Up to 15 years End Date: 2037-05-02
- 2 ENT:488703280 Premiere Of Fitness Documentary 1 "The Perfect Physique" Photographer/Artist: Steven Lawton Start Date: 2022-05-02 Duration: Up to 15 years End Date: 2037-05-02
- With the assumption that "magazine covers are assumed to be copyrighted" as claimed by @Herranderssvensson is incorrect. Within fair use as cited by Baylor University, the magazine covers that are questioned are referenced to the wikipedia profile fitness cover model, actor and entrepreneur as an intended credible reference image that depicts the subject as a fitness model. Including appropriate reference tags are listed as the source of the publication contingent that the publication has a wikipedia profile. US-Verified (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @US-Verified: Fair use images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons per COM:FAIRUSE. Purchasing image rights from Getty was most likely a waste of money as Getty's licensing agreement is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing. Njd-de (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying both Fair Use and the Wikimedia commons licensing for Getty Images.
- Given your statement of fair use images are not allowed, do you have a suggestion for image use or Non Free Content? I want to ensure that I am compliant within the standards of Wikipedia, but it should indicate that by purchasing the licensed images that was conveyed as a "waste of money" isn't intentionally uploading images that aren't licensed for use. If theres any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, US-Verified (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia does have a Fair Use policy indeed. However, there are some strict requirements, e.g. images are only to be hosted there when they are also used in an article. Also there's a restriction on fair use only being allowed when it's unreasonable that a freely licensed image exists/can be obtained. This means that fair use is almost never accepted for articles of living persons. Njd-de (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @US-Verified: Fair use images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons per COM:FAIRUSE. Purchasing image rights from Getty was most likely a waste of money as Getty's licensing agreement is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing. Njd-de (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all. 1) The magazine covers are not permitted on Commons due to copyright issues. They should be deleted here, but there is the possibility that they can be uploaded to English Wikipedia or other projects under the appropriate fair use conditions. 2) My understanding is the licensing for the purchased Getty Images is incompatible with Commons licensing, so they should be deleted as well. 3) For the remaining images that were taken in different places and at different times and under very different circumstances, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the uploader is the photographer/copyright holder for all of them and that the claim of "own work" for them is simply false. These should therefore be deleted per COM:PCP as noted in the nomination. Marbletan (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Small and grainy drawing. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Television channel is unidentified, a lot of countries have TV5. Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no complete freedom of panorama in UAE for free, commercial exploitations of public works of art and architecture there. The building in question is w:en:Address Downtown, completed in 2008. Copyrighted by its designer, w:en:Atkins (company). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
All modern Dubai buildings, but there is no acceptable freedom of panorama in UAE. Commercial license authorizations from the designers/architects of these buildings are required to retain publication of this image under a commercial license. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bheeshmavardhan Michael (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like both are movie screenshots. If the user is the official photographer of the movie, please send COM:OTRS permission.
- File:Vijayashanthi In 1998 Malayalam Film Kallu Kondoru Pennu.jpg
- File:Vijayashanthi In 1998 Malayalam Flim Kallukondoru Pennu.jpg
Sreejith K (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.129.239 21:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The image focuses on three buildings, with the copyrighted Burj Khalifa (copyrighted by its designer architect Adrian Smith) right at the center. There is no acceptable freedom of panorama in UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted. https://www.beritasatu.com/archive/140433/tni-au-kembali-kedatangan-pesawat-sukhoi Wolcott (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cerabombonjera (talk · contribs)
[edit]These book covers require the copyright holder to send a free license release to COM:VRT.
- File:Laza Kostić, Vita nova, priredila Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Emanuil Janković, Trgovci, priredila Mirjana D Stefanović.jpg
- File:Lukijan Mušicki, Moje strune, priredila Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Autobiografija, Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Biblioteka srpske književnosti , Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Srpski trohej, priredila Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Kratki uvod u ustoriju srpske kulture, Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Srpska građanska poezija, Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
- File:Leksikon srpskog prosvetiteljstva, Mirjana D. Stefanović.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Cerabombonjera: Please reply here below, because nobody is going to see your message if you reply on your own talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Election posters are non-permanent display, cannot be covered by FOP 182.239.121.182 06:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Similar to the many examples in . The shapes and text do not meet the threshold of originality. Public figure. Randam (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; No FOP in Turkey for non permanent installations. --Gbawden (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING DanielPenfield (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
_-_ZMB_-_UNOCHA.svg){kind=link}
_-_ZMB_-_UNOCHA.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mozambique is apparently is a lake 182.2.170.253 11:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_ZMB_-_UNOCHA.svg){kind=link}
- Comment Reverted the file to an earlier version that does not have this issue. --Nutshinou Talk! 10:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Issue was fixed. --Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
_-_ZMB_-_UNOCHA.svg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Wikiparlproject (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of these are in the public domain. See source website's copyright page.
- File:BullJoshuaMichael 106.jpg
- File:BrooksColinWilliam 75.jpg
- File:BrayneChrisJon 1729.jpg
- File:CarrollBenjaminAlan 108.jpg
- File:Natalie Suleyman MLA.jpg
- File:Lizzie Blandthorn, Parliamentary photograph.jpg
Twotwofourtysix (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
portrait officiel Ath wik (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:UAE Presidential Palace
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in UAE. The building was completed in 2017 as per w:en:Qasr Al Watan. The author, Architect Xavier Cartron,[11][12] is alive. So this public building of UAE is off-limits here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Exteriors
- File:Colors of the Union.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 01.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 02.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 11.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 12.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 14.jpg
- Interior architecture, some showing furnitures and fixtures by living artists
- File:P1-GF-C02-MAIN MAJLIS (2).jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 03.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 04.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 05.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 06.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 07.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 08.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 15.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan Palace.jpg
- File:Qasr Al Watan.jpg
- File:Qasr AlWatan, Abu Dhabi.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Gate
- File:Palacio Presidencial de los Emiratos, sede del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional..jpg
- File:UAE Presidential Palace entrance 02.jpg
- Comment Understood, JWilz12345. Just give us a little time to discuss which photo to download and upload locally at Wikivoyage's article about Abu Dhabi. The one we're currently using is not the best of this lot, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I suggest File:Qasr Al Watan in March 2022 02.jpg which really shows much of the façade. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. We're currently discussing this, but one of our users said he already downloaded the file, so we should be good. Thanks. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright watermark... no indication that the unloader has any rights to this picture... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio. Acabashi (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image of a crudely blanked out piece of paper, used to vandalise a Wikipedia article. Out of COM:SCOPE as serving no educational purpose. Lord Belbury (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Not in the public domain; no OTRS. Daehan (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
misspelled German adjective: karg Jeuwre (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If that's the only problem, just rename the file or request renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: renamed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Hardly looks a 52 year old photo... most likely copyvio from a commercial shot... no camera EXIF Acabashi (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Snævar as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Subject is by sculptor Ásmundur Sveinsson (born 1893 - died 1982). No FOP in Iceland, 70 year copyright term. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar watermark (with copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photos... indicates that the unloader has no rights to this picture... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio. Acabashi (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar and various different watermarks (some with copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photo-uploads... indicates that the unloader has no rights to this picture... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio from a commercial source… and 52 years old!. Acabashi (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar and also very different qualities of photos (some with watermarks and copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photo-uploads... indicates that the unloader has no rights to this picture... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio from a commercial source… and 52 years old! Acabashi (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar and also very different qualities of photos (some with watermarks and copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photo-uploads... indicates that the unloader has no rights to this picture... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio from a commercial source… and 52 years old! Acabashi (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar and various different watermarks (some with copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photo-uploads... indicates that the unloader probably has no rights to this or other pictures... no camera EXIF... default view is copyvio from a commercial source… and 52 years old!. Acabashi (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Given similar and also widely different qualities and styles of photos (some with watermarks and copyright restrictions) on this uploader's other photo-uploads... indicates that the unloader probably has no rights to this picture... no camera EXIF or adequate description of the image, location, or processes used... default assessment could be copyvio from a commercial source Acabashi (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Logo with no indication of free license at source (rather, © Copyright 2022, All Rights Reserved). COM:TOO Nigeria is unclear. -M.nelson (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The logo is a property of Dateline Nigeria and it is copyrighted. Muhdlawal (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Muhdlawal: Wikimedia Commons only allows "free content" - please see Commons:Licensing. Copyrighted content which hasn't been released under a free license is not allowed and must be deleted. -M.nelson (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP given pen graphic. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal work of fiction of no value to Commons. Original comment from move request: Ecusson non homologué par la gendarmerie nationale. Non respect des droits d'auteurs (source : https://picclick.fr/HARRY-POTTER-carte-postale-n%C2%B0-PC0410-EDITEE-253574997414.html) TommyG (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Copywriting Purani Raghavan (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Good luck with that one. Fully EXIFed, with detailed description. Please try to understand English... copywriting is to with sentence structure, grammar and syntax for advertising. Perhaps you should look at your own uploads first, which to me seem to be a load of blatant steals, before you try a lame cheap shot back. Have a good day. Acabashi (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Well documented META data showing that the uploader seems to be the owner. However the "Notes" section is very confusing about the copyright and the likely reason user:Purani Raghavan wrongly nominated it. Pierre cb (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Yes, my notes are a bit overegged, deliberately so as I have many instances of stuff being misused and not accredited. I might try to trim it a bit. However I think this is a bit of peke as I've identified multiple problems with his uploads. Acabashi (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LeonaardoG as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: All Rede Globo content is not under free license Copyvio. -- Verbcatcher (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, this is probably public domain in Brazil, which has a relatively high threshold of originality, see COM:TOO Brazil. Relicense as
{{Textlogo}}{{PD-logo}}. – Verbcatcher (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Hi, @Verbcatcher: All Grupo Globo content is copyrighted, see the website that proves it globo.com. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is the Bom Dia Minas - MG and Globo Group, see that all the websites related to Grupo Globo have copyright infringement and logos are different. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @LeonaardoG: copyright does not apply to designs that are simpler than the threshold of originality. If this logo is simpler than the threshold in the applicable jurisdiction (presumably Brazil) then any claim to copyright for it is invalid. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, @Verbcatcher: i leave the decision with you if the file is kept you will have to change the license? -- LeonaardoG (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @LeonaardoG: the decision will be made by the administrator who closes the deletion request. The {{Cc-by-4.0}} declaration should be changed because it appears to be invalid. If this file is assessed as being public domain then we should use {{PD-logo}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, @Verbcatcher: i leave the decision with you if the file is kept you will have to change the license? -- LeonaardoG (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems rather doubtful that the person depicted here is also the photographer. DCB (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wer ausser die abgebildete Person sollte alle Rechte auf sein eigenes Abbild haben!!? Ich stelle meine Canon DC100 auf ein Stativ, drücke den Selbstauslöser. Nach dem 10. Auslösen hat man dann ein Bild. Auch das ist möglich. Mein Bild - meine Rechte!!
- It seems rather doubtful that the person depicted here is also the photographer
- Diese Begründung lässt meine Gallensteine klingeln. Reiner Stolz (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Artwork shown is protected by law. --Martin Sg. (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:VRT. --Krd 15:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
News as itself, as event is uncopyrightable, concrete form of expression for news - text/photo/video/audio report is copyrightable. Alex Spade (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This image was taken by an employee of the Australian government. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia the copyright term for works created by the government is 50 years after the date of publication. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The licensing being claimed is not public domain or being an out-of-copyright government work. As stated on the image page, the photo was published under CC. I've added a link on the image page to an archived version of the original source, from there you can view the website's copyright policy and confirm this. Liguer (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that the copyright page is a general statement about content on their website and it comes with the disclaimer that content supplied by third parties on their website isn't CC. Apparently this image is also on https://www.alexhawke.com.au/ and there's no way to know if that's where it came from or if the version on http://www.minister.border.gov.au is the original. My guess is that the image from his website is the original since the one on http://www.minister.border.gov.au is obviously cropped. If that's the case, this image wouldn't be PD. As the CC license on http://www.minister.border.gov.au obviously doesn't extend to the websites of Australian politicians or photographs obtained from them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The statement on the copyright page also says that all reasonable efforts are made to label material where copyright is owned by a third party - there is no such statement accompanying this photo. For a portrait of a minister on an official government website, I think it's reasonable to rely on the website's copyright policy (and lack of a third-party statement accompanying the photo) - unless an error was clearly made and it's proven that this is a third-party photo. By the way here's another version of the photo, uncropped, published under CC on another government website: https://ministers.dfat.gov.au/minister/alex-hawke-mp Liguer (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Along with saying "it accepts no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained on or accessed through this website and makes no representations about its suitability for any particular purpose." So what's your point? In the meantime "reasonable effort" can mean literally anything and most of the time it's not a guarantee of anything. Nor is it a legally sound argument that something must be PD because a website admin said they made "reasonable efforts" to make sure it wasn't copyrighted--Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC). The dfat.gov.au website has a similar disclaimer to the other one, "DFAT does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website or on any linked site." So they make a boiler plate, blanked statement about the copyright status of material on their website, cool, but even they say there's no guarantee that it's accurate or reliable.
- The statement on the copyright page also says that all reasonable efforts are made to label material where copyright is owned by a third party - there is no such statement accompanying this photo. For a portrait of a minister on an official government website, I think it's reasonable to rely on the website's copyright policy (and lack of a third-party statement accompanying the photo) - unless an error was clearly made and it's proven that this is a third-party photo. By the way here's another version of the photo, uncropped, published under CC on another government website: https://ministers.dfat.gov.au/minister/alex-hawke-mp Liguer (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that the copyright page is a general statement about content on their website and it comes with the disclaimer that content supplied by third parties on their website isn't CC. Apparently this image is also on https://www.alexhawke.com.au/ and there's no way to know if that's where it came from or if the version on http://www.minister.border.gov.au is the original. My guess is that the image from his website is the original since the one on http://www.minister.border.gov.au is obviously cropped. If that's the case, this image wouldn't be PD. As the CC license on http://www.minister.border.gov.au obviously doesn't extend to the websites of Australian politicians or photographs obtained from them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime it's pretty reasonable to think it was a photograph he had made on his own time and then he gave the Australian government a copy to use on their websites. A lot of politicians do that with self portraits. If you want some evidence for that being the case the image on https://ministers.dfat.gov.au is much lower quality then the one on his website. So it's not the original and we already know the cropped version isn't. So like I've said, the one on his website is probably the original and he gave a copy of it to the Australian government to use. Occam's razor. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess we differ as to 1) how likely the copyright of this photo is actually not held by the Australian Government, e.g. if it's a personally supplied photo and 2) in general, how far we can rely on a website's copyright statement like the one in question. Perhaps others can weigh in, or there might be some relevant Wikimedia policies. By the way, for this particular photo, I have found on the DFAT website, if you click "Download the official portrait of the Minister" you get a much higher resolution version of the photo in question, here is the JPEG file: https://ministers.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-09/alex-hawke-high-res.jpg . Liguer (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, it could just be me but it's generally a pretty good rule of thumb to not rely on websites that explicitly state in their terms of service that they can't be relied on. I've seen plenty of other websites that host under CC and none of them that I'm aware of have said they shouldn't be relied on. Otherwise it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a licensing agreement in the first place. I'm not putting their waffling on you or anything. I just don't think using files from a website that goes out of it's way to have unclear copyright terms is in the spirit of Commons' guidelines. I'm fine with letting other people give their opinions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photographs are taken by the Commonwealth/Parliment of Australia after each election (including by-election) and from time to time if there is a change to the ministery. MPs tend to use them on their own site. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- How come the versions of the image on the Commonwealth/Parliment of Australia websites are cropped, extremely infer versions of the one his site then? Like they would take the photograph just to give him the high quality, complete version to use for a banner on his site so they could use vastly inferior images themselves. Sure dude. occam's razor,, the simplest answer is probably the correct one. Most likely they asked his team if he had a preferred photograph for their website and the team gave them a couple of cropped, pixelated images because that's what they had on hand and they aren't professional photographers who know how to use Photoshop. That happens all the time. It doesn't require massive lapses of judgement on one side or any other grand conspiracies to make sense either. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Believe in whatever conspiracy theories you want because that isn’t the case. Bidgee (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theory would be the idea your advocating for that the government took an extremely good quality photograph but was to incompetent or whatever to use it on their own websites. Obviously I don't believe that's why the government is using extremely inferior copies of the image. Good job deflecting from the actual point of my comment though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No it is you that is deflecting. You have no understanding of the inner workings. The Parliament of Australia modifies the original photographs for consistency and also for the house they sit (Representatives [Green] and Senate [Red]). The original photographs are supplied to MPs and departments. Bidgee (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hhhmm, I'd be interested to see a source for that. Or do you work for the Australian MPs PR department? Personally, I never claimed to understand the inner workings of the Australian parliament because that would obviously be a ridiculous claim to make. I do have some knowledge about how campaigns work in America though, and my version of how it probably went down is often how it goes in those cases. That said, Commons:Deletion requests clearly states that "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." So it's not on me to provide evidence to support my claim that this file is a copyright violation, let alone my opinion about how the Australian government obtained the image. That burden is on you and the other people who think this isn't a copyright violation. Obviously that's not being accomplished with your capitulating about irrelevant details that no one here has any way of knowing. So either show some evidence that the Australian government owns the copyright and has released the image under a CC0 whatever license, or take a seat and let other people do it. This back and forth isn't helping either side of the discussion though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No it is you that is deflecting. You have no understanding of the inner workings. The Parliament of Australia modifies the original photographs for consistency and also for the house they sit (Representatives [Green] and Senate [Red]). The original photographs are supplied to MPs and departments. Bidgee (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theory would be the idea your advocating for that the government took an extremely good quality photograph but was to incompetent or whatever to use it on their own websites. Obviously I don't believe that's why the government is using extremely inferior copies of the image. Good job deflecting from the actual point of my comment though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Believe in whatever conspiracy theories you want because that isn’t the case. Bidgee (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- How come the versions of the image on the Commonwealth/Parliment of Australia websites are cropped, extremely infer versions of the one his site then? Like they would take the photograph just to give him the high quality, complete version to use for a banner on his site so they could use vastly inferior images themselves. Sure dude. occam's razor,, the simplest answer is probably the correct one. Most likely they asked his team if he had a preferred photograph for their website and the team gave them a couple of cropped, pixelated images because that's what they had on hand and they aren't professional photographers who know how to use Photoshop. That happens all the time. It doesn't require massive lapses of judgement on one side or any other grand conspiracies to make sense either. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That disclaimer about accuracy relates to the entire website (it isn't specifically about licensing), it seems like a generic "cover your back" sort of disclaimer. At the end of the day it is an Australian government website, this should provide some level of credibility; a generic disclaimer like that doesn't make me infer out of hand that the website should not be relied upon. Now, I have checked the EXIF information on the high resolution JPEG file and found the photographer appears to be David Foote as part of AUSPIC/DPS, the copyright is purportedly with AUSPIC. AUSPIC are the Australian Government Photographic Service, DPH is Department of Parliamentary Services. So it seems to me this photograph falls under crown copyright. Liguer (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photographs are taken by the Commonwealth/Parliment of Australia after each election (including by-election) and from time to time if there is a change to the ministery. MPs tend to use them on their own site. Bidgee (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, it could just be me but it's generally a pretty good rule of thumb to not rely on websites that explicitly state in their terms of service that they can't be relied on. I've seen plenty of other websites that host under CC and none of them that I'm aware of have said they shouldn't be relied on. Otherwise it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a licensing agreement in the first place. I'm not putting their waffling on you or anything. I just don't think using files from a website that goes out of it's way to have unclear copyright terms is in the spirit of Commons' guidelines. I'm fine with letting other people give their opinions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess we differ as to 1) how likely the copyright of this photo is actually not held by the Australian Government, e.g. if it's a personally supplied photo and 2) in general, how far we can rely on a website's copyright statement like the one in question. Perhaps others can weigh in, or there might be some relevant Wikimedia policies. By the way, for this particular photo, I have found on the DFAT website, if you click "Download the official portrait of the Minister" you get a much higher resolution version of the photo in question, here is the JPEG file: https://ministers.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-09/alex-hawke-high-res.jpg . Liguer (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime it's pretty reasonable to think it was a photograph he had made on his own time and then he gave the Australian government a copy to use on their websites. A lot of politicians do that with self portraits. If you want some evidence for that being the case the image on https://ministers.dfat.gov.au is much lower quality then the one on his website. So it's not the original and we already know the cropped version isn't. So like I've said, the one on his website is probably the original and he gave a copy of it to the Australian government to use. Occam's razor. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 09:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:Air Strike Schema.svg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, die neue Datei ist natürlich um einiges besser! Danke für die Aufarbeitung! Gruss, --Graf zu Pappenheim (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since)
.jpg){kind=link}
2015 upload, low-res without EXIF, but no clear evidence of copyvio. Should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not that small and not too bad, but is either man notable? I guess it's just a portrait. I'd keep it on that basis, in spite of the distracting other people in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ske as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:CWactors.png
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as per Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> PNG). -- Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wladek92 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: This is not a button but a menu. There is no Cite menu to day but a popup. In french, the button has already been translated under VE CItoid CIte button FR Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 12:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
هذا الملف في الملكية العامة لكنه يحتوي على مقدمة ليست كذلك Dew (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: revdeled. --Krd 12:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This is not Amblyteles armatorius, which has a yellow tip to the abdomen, yellow bases to the femurs, and a black band bisecting the yellow band on the abdomen. It's one of a number of other extremely similar species, and so I don't think this image can be usefully renamed. Fellow Creature (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, rename, and recategorize. This is a high quality insect image. If added to Category:Unidentified Hymenoptera, I suspect we would be able to get the correct label on this eventually. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by SchlurcherBot as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Matlin (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where is this derrivative work? This file (and others) must be deleted because Bizgu made it... Matlin (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I doubt this is actually the uploader's "own work". First, this is clearly a professional quality image, taken from a great angle, which is wonderful, but from that I'd expect it to belong to a professional photographer and/or someone associated with the conductor or their orchestra, not an anonymous editor. Second, the uploader's history isn't great: User_talk:Lorak988 is covered with red deletion notices. Most important, I did an image search for the image, and besides different Wikipedias, I found it used in two places, https://www.ch-cultura.ch/de/archiv/musik-und-tanz/kai-bumann-chefdirigent-des-schweizer-jugendsinfonieorchesters-ist-gestorben where it says "Foto: © Sandra Krebs, https://sjso.ch/", and https://sjso.ch/ itself, where it says (automatic translation only, I'm afraid, my German is keine) "Since 1998, Mr. Bumann has been chief conductor of the SJSO." That seems to match the "someone associated with his orchestra" hypothesis. I think the uploader needs to explain that he's actually the official photographer of the SJSO or some other official thereof, or I'm highly skeptical he owns the rights to this image. GRuban (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This is incorrect (tails) - No WP pages use this Oedipe23 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep We generally fix and overwrite instead of delete. --RAN (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Fichier inutilisé et non conforme (léopards non conformes) Oedipe23 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Not seeing any new arguments following the previous deletion request. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. @Oedipe23: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Fichier non utilisé et image non conforme (léopards non conformes) Oedipe23 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems related to this previous DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlasonBASSE-NORMANDIE.PNG. I am not seeing any new arguments. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. @Oedipe23: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Тимофей никиш (talk · contribs)
[edit]Previously tagged as copyvio by Xunks with the rationale "Fake own work claims, all these grabbed from https://www.inaturalist.org/".
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-30 в 13.27.30.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-30 в 13.28.10.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-30 в 09.48.16.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-30 в 09.32.38.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-24 в 15.59.18.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-24 в 15.26.20.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-23 в 09.40.52.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-20 в 09.49.45.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-19 в 20.58.50.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-19 в 21.03.07.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-19 в 20.59.52.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-17 в 15.16.57.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-14 в 20.22.14.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 15.28.26.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 15.41.59.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 15.28.41.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 09.55.53.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 09.34.04.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-13 в 09.32.31.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-04-12 в 21.30.18.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-04-12 в 20.13.02.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-04-12 в 20.07.23.png
- File:Снимок экрана 2022-04-12 в 19.42.44.png
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Xunks: There are three issues with your speedy tagging:
- You must provide a specific link to where the image appears, not just the general website, so that the patrolling admin can verify the copyvio.
- A lot of iNaturalist images are available under a free license. If you find that an image is available under a free license, then you can correct the authorship instead of tagging it for deletion. Alternatively, if a large batch of images seem to be from a single iNaturalist user, then you shouldn't tag them for speedy deletion even if they do not have a Commons-compatible license, because there's a significant possibility that the Commons user is in fact the same as the iNaturalist user. In that case, feel free to start a DR like this, and ask the user to provide evidence that they are the same person. If they do not provide evidence in a timely manner, then the images will be deleted at the conclusion of the DR.
- You included two images, File:Снимок экрана 2022-06-17 в 13.37.19.png and File:Снимок экрана 2022-05-17 в 14.15.23.png, which are clearly not from iNaturalist. I have my own doubts as to whether they are really "own work", which is why I just tagged them as "no permission". But the fact that you tagged them with the same rationale "Fake own work claims, all these grabbed from https://www.inaturalist.org/" suggests that you haven't carefully checked that each of the other images is actually from iNaturalist.
- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The first few I checked did not appear in Google image search. So per King of Hearts I decided to keep all files. --Ellywa (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)