Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/07/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![16 File:From his book "The Pre-WORD".jpg](#File:From_his_book_"The_Pre-WORD".jpg){kind=link}
![23 File:The memorial Eternal flame "Asterisk".svg](#File:The_memorial_Eternal_flame_"Asterisk".svg){kind=link}
![59 File:"official logo of Rishi YT.jpg" .jpg](#File:"official_logo_of_Rishi_YT.jpg"_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![109 File:"Funicular railway" (1940-1945) by Alberto Chiancone (Porto Santo Stefano Grosseto 1904-Naples 1988) - Castle Sant'Elmo Museum in Naples (40724560601).jpg](#File:"Funicular_railway"_(1940-1945)_by_Alberto_Chiancone_(Porto_Santo_Stefano_Grosseto_1904-Naples_1988)_-_Castle_Sant'Elmo_Museum_in_Naples_(40724560601).jpg){kind=link}
film.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Beetle_(Coleoptera).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Psilopogon_mystacophanos_(Red-throated_barbet).jpg){kind=link}
_Flower_bee_Pollination.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Área_urbana_-_Recife_-_Pernambuco_por_Wildson_Silva.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Birds_in_Nature.jpg){kind=link}
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
_"Parrot_bird"_Psittaciformes_-_Amazon,_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by User:Tarun K Chowdary
[edit]- File:Ayesha Singh as Ratti Sinha in " Doli Armaano Ki ".png
- File:Ayesha Singh as Sai Joshi in " Ravivaar With Star Parivaar ".jpg
- File:Ayesha Singh as Reena in " Adrishya ".jpg
- File:Ayesha Singh as Amy D'Costa in " Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost ".jpg
- File:88 AS.png
- File:888 AS.png
- File:89 AS.png
- File:81 AS.jpg
- File:Ayesha_Singh_Pic.png
Images are all publicity photos or obvious screen captures. Uploader has claimed on an AFD discussion for the actresses article on EN that "Those images are my work , I edited them . If I posted original pics , you could have claimed copyright but these pics are my own edits ." [1] --Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Not own work per https://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Prebili%C4%8D&diff=5715791&oldid=5715781&diffmode=source A09090091 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Per user talkpage on slwiki, he sended VRT ticket. A09090091 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept, User withdrawed his request.--A09090091 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Doublon. L'Élan Wallon (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete users' talk pages. Different accounts cannot be merged but redirected. --Achim55 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by من هوحسام علي جاد (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of personal images that seem to be outside our scope. Commons is not a web hosting service
- File:Pحسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:240حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:Wحسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:232حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:291حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:291382حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:467حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:456حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:357حسام علي جاد.png
- File:5678حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:2567حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:35678حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:246حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:2 nحسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:Nحسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:065حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:935حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:67حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:876حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:2914حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد004.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد117.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد113.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد73.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد876.jpg
- File:87حسام علي جاد.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد88.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد98.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد006.jpg
- File:حسام علي جاد07.jpg
Herby talk thyme 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I... kinda already F10-tagged them before this mass-nom 😅.
Delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by FitIndia. Thanks Achim55 for identifying the master. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Codc (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
{{delete |reason=REASON (mandatory) |subpage=Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jensinger Schmensinger in voller Blüte.jpg |day=7 |month=July |year=2022 }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udmood (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Tiene algo chueco, nada más. Deleting F10. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.126.167.155 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader agrees. --Achim55 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
No reason BSR991 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per NOTPORN or whatever the guideline is. Commons isn't a porn host. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry,i want to deleted for personal reason. BSR991 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- PUEDE SER POR COM:PENIS TAMBIEN. 181.203.20.182 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per NOTPORN or whatever the guideline is. Commons isn't a porn host. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry,i want to deleted for personal reason. BSR991 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- PUEDE SER POR COM:PENIS TAMBIEN. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.203.20.182 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
No reason BSR991 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per NOTPORN or whatever the guideline is. Commons isn't a porn site. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry,i want to deleted for personal reason. BSR991 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- PUEDE SER POR COM:PENIS TAMBIEN. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.203.20.182 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kardeşlerim Berk Özkaya (talk · contribs)
[edit]no evidence any of these are own work and it appears the uploader is just using commons as a webhost
- File:For fur.png
- File:Televison series.png
- File:Forever and furlover.png
- File:Baby my forever.png
- File:GET LOST BITCHES!.png
- File:BEBEĞİM.png
Praxidicae (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kardeşlerim Berk Özkaya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:BGN Gazete.png
- File:BGN Radyo Televizyon.png
- File:Osmanlı.png
- File:Tansaş Eski Logo.webp
- File:Tansaş Yeni Logo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bichthinhcao
[edit]Out of scope. Logos not used on any projects, likely promotional.
- File:Metaconex featured image 2022-top.jpg
- File:Metaconex featured image 2022.png
- File:Metaconex featured image.jpg
Yeeno (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ArrahmaneF (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res timeline diagrams of a non-notable project, no educational value, DW and out of scope.
- File:Projet perrache5.png
- File:Projet perrache4.png
- File:Chronologie projet Perrache.png
- File:Projet perrache2.png
- File:Projet perrache 1.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot of raw text, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
![14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-P199-2022-07-06T14:00:00.000Z-File:From_his_book_"The_Pre-WORD".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
![13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-George_Chernilevsky-2022-07-11T13:34:00.000Z-File:From_his_book_"The_Pre-WORD".jpg){kind=link}
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional image, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by NatalieImbegot (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logo and photos of non-notable persons/event, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused clip art without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
![14:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-P199-2022-07-06T14:17:00.000Z-File:The_memorial_Eternal_flame_"Asterisk".svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
![13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-George_Chernilevsky-2022-07-11T13:41:00.000Z-File:The_memorial_Eternal_flame_"Asterisk".svg){kind=link}
Unused text image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
unidentified people without description Ske (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Seems to be the map of a fictional country, cannot find neither Nima nor Nimia Enyavar (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Image uploaded by an SPA account and is likely copyvio. Plus it's OOS anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Image uploaded by an SPA account and is likely copyvio. Plus it's OOS anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Plus it's just a bad quality image. Adamant1 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot and promotional corporate image, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Author's request deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
File:Centro Cultural Doutor Victor Rodrigues Machado, Laranjal Paulista - fachada sudoeste.jpg
[edit]
Not the file, but the redirect. Feel free to remove it since the original filename just lasted a few minutes. I had uploaded the file with a bad name and as soon as I noticed my mistake I asked for a rename, which was done in two minutes. IgorEliezer (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio: Obviously derivative work from somewhere. Image is from 1962, not "own work" from 2022. 91.34.47.29 06:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of scope Yeeno (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Private content, selfie, unused XRay 💬 05:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused text tables, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. Plus it's low quality. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jorite Richard (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, no educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: small crop from an unknown source, missing essential source info. And not educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo of non-notable web series. Article about subject was speedy-deleted on the English Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Not own work per description, and not-notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low res image of nondescript writing, no context, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gabriel rené (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal writings, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logos and screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. Above COM:TOO and likely copyrighted.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unclear as to what this logo is for. Possibly out of scope. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. Plus the album cover is likely copyrighted. So OOS and maybe COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo. Draft article on English Wikipedia was speedy-deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
![17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-Ixfd64-2022-07-06T17:28:00.000Z-File:"official_logo_of_Rishi_YT.jpg"_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
![09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/07/06#c-George_Chernilevsky-20220712091800-File:"official_logo_of_Rishi_YT.jpg"_.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of people who aren't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Bad quality image of a non-notable YouTuber. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope map that is related to a fictional disaster based upon a predicted world flood map taken from a 4+ year old reddit post, seems pointless. BlinxTheKitty (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-wikipedian: Out of Scope. Not notable --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diljeet Singh sran (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
- File:DiljeetSinghSran.jpg
- File:Mohali, punjab.jpg
- File:Diljeet Singh sran.jpg
- File:Diljeet Singh Sran.jpg
- File:Kalanwali, Haryana.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
all appear to be whatever-washed to fotop.net and aren't properly licensed
- File:ClubAvatar.jpg
- File:FloraCheungChingSze-1-b.jpg
- File:20210120 233542.jpn.jpg
- File:1 new gallery b 600 600 elle watermark1.jpn.jpg
- File:20210124 030533.jpn.jpg
- File:20210102 195119.jpn.jpg
- File:20210124 030635.jpn.jpg
- File:703 304997 354933.jpn.jpg
- File:070 JPG tn.jpn.jpg
- File:20210502 201400.jpn.jpg
- File:1 new gallery b 600 600 elle watermark.jpn.jpg
Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all of them. I'm certain that these images are duplicates of the user's previous uploads (see user's talk page) which were all deleted as copyright violations. Marbletan (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
These images are duplicates of the user's previous uploads which were all deleted as copyright violation.
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model Avatar Club2.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model Avatar Club1.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model elle2.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model elle3.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model elle1.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model B.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model C.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model A.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model 5.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model 4.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model 1.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model 3.jpn.jpg
- File:Flora Cheung nude arts model 2.jpn.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
As before, this image is another duplicate of a previous upload which was deleted as copyright violation.
Marbletan (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio as copyright violation. (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
self-promotion Tucvbif (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mahafuzer Rahman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos and no permission
Afifa Afrin (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Duplicates. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No es usuario 191.126.57.60 01:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Famous ? 191.126.57.60 01:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Instagram foto possible? 186.172.118.33 23:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
people in front of the subject.we have tons of picture of the hills.now delete it. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused tiny illegible diagrams without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danteelpapi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope.
- File:Grafficos de un terreno antes de la excavcion.jpg
- File:Grafficos de un terreno.jpg
- File:Terreno con suciedad.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
contains copyrighted elements Mindmatrix 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: missing permission for shown artwork/text. --Wdwd (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
images are from getty 웃OO 01:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation from [2] Gahukuro (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted banner 218.250.40.175 03:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:LL: the Flickr user is also the subject of the image (so he is not the photographer). Also added:
- File:Christian Paradis.jpg (rights don't belong to Flickr user as per EXIF data)
P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work but photo of existing image. And not notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
bogus copyright claim; this is a beauty pageant, not a Nigerian government legislative/admin/court document etc., original video material from which this is a screenshot appears to be a NET2 television program out of Ghana Bri (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
not own work, easely foundable on internet Rodm23 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader states it is their own work, but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader states it is their own work but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader claims it is their own work, but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not above the threshold of originality. Just change the source. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO, PD-Textlogo. --Wdwd (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader claims it is their own work but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader claims this as their own work but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be the uploaders own work and clearly copyvio if it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
not own work, easely foundable on internet Rodm23 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader claims it is their own work, but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyvio and a bad quality photograph anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, uploader claims this is their own work but it is not. Netherzone (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator because it absolutely does say that (also someone please replace it, it's still useful to have, and also don't delete the alt text I wrote thanks). QuietHere (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File has been deleted from source 213.205.240.101 07:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The file has been removed from source in line with EU privacy regulations. This is now a private residence and no longer a commercial operation. This photo provides and otherwise non-public view. 213.205.240.101 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Aren't we glad we have it here, then? What's the deletion rationale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The file has been removed from source as a request in line with EU privacy regulations. This is now a private residence and no longer a commercial operation. This photo provides and otherwise non-public view. 213.205.240.101 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The UK is not part of the EU, so whatever the EU privacy regulations are in relation to aerial photography (and I would be interested to know what they are, specifically, in a case in which you can see property and buildings but not people), they are not relevant to the UK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The file has been removed from source as a request in line with EU privacy regulations. This is now a private residence and no longer a commercial operation. This photo provides and otherwise non-public view. 213.205.240.101 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Copyright violation. File removed by cr owner, not available under CC. 148.252.132.64 18:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Given CC license cannot be revoked. --Achim55 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Originator and owner of photo is removing it from use. 85.255.236.106 08:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: it's a copyright take down request. 213.205.240.172 10:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File removed from source for EU privacy regulations. 213.205.240.101 07:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Copyright violation. File removed by cr owner, no longer available under CC. 148.252.132.64 18:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Nonsense. CC licenses cannot be revoked. --Achim55 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Originator of photo is removing due to copyright. 85.255.236.106 08:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: it's a copyright take down request. 213.205.240.172 10:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate file : File:Vue du peche.JPG Tmv (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: private vacation photo, questionable in terms of personality rights, questionable copyright situation (1986? 2013?) 91.34.47.29 07:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is the difference in between mountaineering and private photo. However, the picture is mine. The other people over there are friends of mine, and I have the copyright, of course. No personality rights are in danger. The picture shows the top of the mountain, quite different from Monte Bianco or Gloßglockner. This was my intention to place the photo on this page. In case of doubt, I can provide all the names of the people on the photo. They are all alive, of course. ---- Nawennschon (talk). 15:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
In addition, for people who like to go on mountains top (no just to have holiday), it is important to see whether there is special equipment necessary or not. This can be easily seen (if you want and if you are able). The Moldoveanu is the highest mountain in Romania. ---- Nawennschon (talk). 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- And those people have all agreed to have their image published on the internet and have it used by the terms of a CC license? --91.34.47.29 20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, on the photo are 4 people. Me and 3 of my friends. They all have agreed. ---- Nawennschon (talk). 12:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per replies above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per replies above. No reason for deletion. --Ordercrazy (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep credible and trustworthy photo source. No reason for deletion. --90.186.97.194 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
File:"Funicular railway" (1940-1945) by Alberto Chiancone (Porto Santo Stefano Grosseto 1904-Naples 1988) - Castle Sant'Elmo Museum in Naples (40724560601).jpg
[edit]_by_Alberto_Chiancone_(Porto_Santo_Stefano_Grosseto_1904-Naples_1988)_-_Castle_Sant%27Elmo_Museum_in_Naples_(40724560601).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Alberto_Chiancone_(Porto_Santo_Stefano_Grosseto_1904-Naples_1988)_-_Castle_Sant%27Elmo_Museum_in_Naples_(40724560601).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Artist died in 1988, not old enough. Artwork is complex and goes beyond simple photographs 219.78.191.184 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Photo (c) Christian Lehnen, permission needed, see e.g. https://holger-ruedel.de/robert-marc-lehmann-live-in-flensburg/ Magnus (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Worse version of File:San_quirico_03.jpg Naioli (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Request of content owner TAC PlazaMaster (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Request of content owner TAC PlazaMaster (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Request of content owner TAC PlazaMaster (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Request of content owner TAC PlazaMaster (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly is the request? Who exactly asks for the request, who is the content owner? Why should the photo be deleted, what is the reason? This also applies to the other four nominations for deletions. --JopkeB (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
copyvio manifeste. L'auteur n'a pas donné d'autorisation KAPour les intimes 09:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Fake license & creation date. In bottom left corner it's stated that it's based on 1953 photographies and edited in 1986 and 1988, so it's likely still copyrighted. Facenapalm (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- No wonder it's a junction of 4 pieces USSR Joint Staff topo maps made in 1980th, they are well known worldwide and are in free access for a long time and at many locations. I'm just joined that pieces to show enclave's full territory. Tzir-Katin (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
taken from another website without permission https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiulhSDtELEV5wG4s022m3keSgNDEyPYQxK5yGwmRu3MPQ-NBIPpNQh2lTlNbulOZl2Ebf0gW00zL0HYal7RzDiVX93_1cdgPxuIetXzfGaKgHiX05-RsVzw0KudhxL8zpnW5D2VKobElk--F4cTPrCS5_1rwv5A Putitonamap98 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (Camila Merino)
[edit]Two nearly identical smaller photos of Camila Merino, both claiming to be own work by different people, neither with camera metadata, neither to be believed.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - New user upload, no metadata available, both file have similar resolution. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp ("tourist snaps" or personal pictures)
[edit]'"tourist snaps" or personal pictures' uploaded by Matlin per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=566818733&oldid=566765145
- File:2003 03 28 Szentgotthárd DSCF0002 (51025373677).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0003 (51024543468).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0008 (51025279781).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0087 (51025373897).jpg
- File:2003 03 31 Berlin DSCF0088 (51025373832).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0019 (51025279741).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0024 (51025374227).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0025 (51025374192).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0033 (51024543763).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0034 (51025279601).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0035 (51024543713).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0036 (51025374017).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0081 (51025373987).jpg
- File:2003 04 01 Berlin DSCF0082 (51025373947).jpg
- File:2003 04 18 Robert 009 (51002931976).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (TUGAS POSTER KELOMPOK 6)
[edit]Both files are identical, were uploaded by different users as own work, and probably are copyvios as posters uploaded as part of an assignment named "Digital Literation Mid-Term Test".
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (Adminpedia files)
[edit]Created for attack/harassment. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg.
- File:Adminpedia-de.svg
- File:Adminpedia-en-2.png
- File:Adminpedia-en.png
- File:Adminpedia-en.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fa-2.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fa.svg
- File:Adminpedia-fi.svg
- File:Adminpedia-image.png
- File:Adminpedia-it.png
- File:Adminpedia.png
- File:Adminpedia-image.svg Added per restoration of this file at COM:UNDEL; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.svg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and restore the deleted one. This is not attack, but smart criticism. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the point to have these files here, except for annoying people. --Yann (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, Also not the first attempt. This isn't an attack it's a form of criticism and admins delete images for myriads of reasons like copyright laws and privacy protection, so pointing out that they delete images isn't an attack, it's literally what we expect of our volunteers with the tools to do so and this might mean that valuable images that are used in high visibility pages also get deleted. You've been trying for around 4 (four) years to get these deleted. Also it's never a good face for any establishment to deny any satire, a realistic way that these images could be used is in an article critical of admin action on Wikimedia websites, something which plenty of articles have been written about (see necessary websites like Wikopediocracy, numerous others like it, Reddit's WikiInAction, among others, as well as a number of Signpost articles about deletion debates, or just in general bad calls by admins when they are being discussed). Any image could be used as an attack image, a Vietnamese-Gernan user I know was constantly attacked with an in scope pornographic image by Musée Annam who was sexually harassing her, but that doesn't make that image less useful for educational purposes, it just means that he is a [insert explicitive here] (not meant as an actual attack, more like a joke, I don't hate him). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung: That attempt was just for File:Adminpedia-image.png, and I have precedent this time. The non-svg versions are still low quality, and all are still in poor taste. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Low quality images usually only get deleted if a better quality image of that same image exists, as far as I can find there are no high quality versions of all images and SVG files shouldn't automatically lead to the deletion of non-SVG files, simply because in many cases many websites only allow the usage of JPEG and PNG images. I never said that they weren't in poor taste, but satire almost always is. In fact it's extremely rare to find satire that isn't in poor taste, but I don't think that this should be a reason for deletion onto itself, these images are simply critical of admin action and were used by "anti-establishment" users to express this. Again, I would not prefer to have an establishment that wouldn't tolerate satire of itself, especially mild satire like this. With "mild" I mean that much more condemning images (which could be seen as attack pages) could have been used. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung: That attempt was just for File:Adminpedia-image.png, and I have precedent this time. The non-svg versions are still low quality, and all are still in poor taste. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If one could argue that it was created only to attack/harass and also can only be used for that, then we might have a reason for deletion. As to the first I am not a mind reader, so I will admit that it's possible that they were created only for that purpose, but they can be used to show the power disparity in the project which hosts the website with the number of visitors per day being overshadowed only by Google (I am talking about the project we are on right now). So the question is: "Is criticism of the second most popular project on the web notable enough to have a few files?" I believe that the answer is: "We probably don't have enough". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete I'm all for intelligent, constructive, criticism -- we could use more of it. But these are not constructive. Simply saying that we delete things does nothing to improve the project -- of course we delete things -- well more than a thousand per day. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Do you know the concept of satire? -- Chaddy (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Isn't all of this falling under Satire? Fleshgrinder (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For me as a longtime administrator on de-WP this sign is an important part of the daily work and characterizes in an excellent way the sense of administration. The deletion request is ridiculously humorless in the highest way. --He3nry (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep und verbessern statt löschen!!!! --Gardini (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Harharhar, suffering of boredom, lately? Those files exist for some 15 years, and here you come... --Amga (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Simply no -- Chaddy (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Well... Fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy? --Björn 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Preventing criticism has always been a good idea, right? Halbschwabe (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep irony, sarcasm... are important parts of critics and life --Über-Blick (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Info for transparency: These "keep" votes from people active in German Wikipedia are now coming in because He3nry alerted the administrator's noticeboard there. Well, like He3nry, I'm an admin in German-language Wikipedia, and not only there, but here on Commons too, and I don't feel offended at all by these satirical "anti-admin" banners. This is a way for people who think that admins delete too much to let off some steam, it's entirely harmless. The basic variant File:Adminpedia.png is widely in use on user pages in German-language Wikipedia (per GlobalUsageCount 238 times!), for many years (it was created in 2006 and is basically part of de-WP's folklore, I'd say) and I never heard of an admin there who would have felt harassed by this. So, I'm joining the Keep votes, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)- Keep Nü, es sollte schon bleiben. Etwas Humor und Selbstironie schadet definitiv nicht. Humor ist der Kitt, der Welten verbindet. Viele Grüße --Itti (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with 4nn1l2 - these images are not attack/harassment, although the irony they contain may not sit well with some people. A little off-topic, Debate between deletionism and inclusionism has been going on for over 10 years (even longer) in various projects, which reasonably explains why such images exist - and will also exist in the future. Stang★ 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Pages in Category:Jefftemp (Commons ban pages)
[edit]- Category:Banned Commons users
- Commons:BAN
- Template:Banned user
- Template:Banned user/doc
- Template:Db-g5
- Template:Db-meta
These pages were created by Gwilliams124 by fiat against policy, as attempts to change COM:BP without consensus by importing concepts from enwiki. Banning has been considered here for many years to be too bureaucratic, and process creep. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Gwilliams124. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, no idea why this was allowed in the first place. The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy basically allows any individual admin to ban a user while it requires wide community consensus to unban a user, this basically means that once a user is banned (s)he's banned for life unless they managed to have made enough friends before the ban to vouch for them. Importing these templates and categories legitimises these user-unfriendly processes, though I do think that a number of these templates and categories for globally banned users would be useful, even though I'm personally against the concept of banning a user here locally because of conduct on another website. That aside, there are simply no good reasons to have a template that explicitly links to The English-language Wikipedia's banning policy to be used here, that simply doesn't make sense under any circumstances. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I'd like to try to assume good faith here, but I find is awfully suspicious that an account registered only 5 (five) days ago suddenly creates policy pages and imports the English-language Wikipedia's G5 speedy deletion policy and general banning policy without ever engaging any content or policy discussions here. My guess is that this might be trolling. Interestingly enough, at the Wikinews (where they have registered only 8 (eight) days ago they made a number of import sockpuppet templates). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jefftemp (oficinadopaisagista)
[edit]These files contain spam for oficinadopaisagista.com.br in their structured data. See also COM:ANU#Spamming using multiple accounts.
- File:Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Projetos paisagísticos Transplante de árvores.jpg
- File:Projetos paisagísticos Alinhamento e disposição das árvores. Palmeira.jpg
- File:Viveiro de árvores, plantas para paisagismo.jpg
- File:Árvores para paisagismo Palmeira Imperial para paisagismo. Oficina do Paisagista.jpg
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't this stretching the definition of "spam" here? Let's say that there's a photographer who own a business and wants that business to be attributed, if we get OTRS / VRT permission and link to their business in the attribution we'd consider that "a donation" and such content is welcomed. Yet if such photographers upload these high quality images themselves here wishing for the same attribution it somehow becomes "spam"?! The Wikimedia Commons contains a lot of images from commercial websites, as long as these images are realistically educationally valuable. Why delete the image when you can simply remove the links? That is even if links for attribution are considered unwanted. If these images were imported from Flickr with the same description nobody would complain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung These are not links on Flickr that we have merely copied. This is part of a concerted effort directly on Commons to promote that website and sell more trees that has already seen deletion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. These files are part of a larger group of files (mostly already deleted) that were uploaded in a multi-user effort that is clearly for the purpose of advertising. The links to a commercial website are not part of the file sourcing. They are embedded as part of descriptive text such as "Plant nursery specializing in large trees, buy trees". File names in some cases are promotional text plus the company name. I don't think the nominator is stretching the definition of spam at all here. In addition, some of the deleted uploads from this group were identical to images found on other websites and mostly likely falsely claimed as own work. Under these circumstances, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle may apply with regard to sourcing/attribution. If these images are kept, at minimum the promotional links should be removed from the structured data. Marbletan (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an old logo of Tata Consultancy Services and the company wants to remove the old logo from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankimehta (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeff G. If they have a new logo someone can always upload it so it can be added to Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a nomination to remove the thumbnail from the Wikipedia article but to delete a bit of the company's history from Commons. Deal with the Wikipedia article in the talk page for that article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
film.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
film.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Movie poster not "own work" Arjayay (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
film.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
film.jpg){kind=link}
A wrong file was uploaded Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Alien sculptures
[edit]- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 01.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 02.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 03.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 04.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 05.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 06.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 07.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 08.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 09.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 10.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 11.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 12.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 13.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 14.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 15.jpg
- File:Aliens vs Predators Experience Museum in Kutna Hora 16.jpg
- File:Ellen Ripley.jpg
- File:Mechanical Alien (5880394255).jpg
- File:London Film Museum (3301350440) (cropped).jpg
- File:London Film Museum (3301350440).jpg
- File:Alien Resurrection 01.jpg
- File:VetrelecCovernantinIMax.jpg
- File:Alien vs Predator Experience Museum - Johnny Wolf, Kutná Hora.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I am afraid these pictures depict protected works of art and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder. --Gnom (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you're right (at least File:VetrelecCovernantinIMax.jpg is clearly a derivative work that is not acceptable). Nevertheless we might check the FOP rules for the concerned countries because it may apply (which is not the case for France, therefore my uploads should be deleted : File:Alien Resurrection 01.jpg). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no freedom of panorama for privately owned interiors in the Czech Republic, either. Gnom (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
+ File:ExpoSYFY - Alien (10803891925).jpg (which the nominator forgot to add here, though the DR was added to the file page) --Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Two files undeleted as per [3]. Yann (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=850598156#File:London_Film_Museum_(3301350440)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be a stock image, larger version appears at https://pakfactory.com/blog/how-to-avoid-custom-packaging-errors/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a picture of Phi Phi Island, Thailand instead of the Andaman Islands as claimed. Description contains a spam-link. The Banner (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING Solomon203 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
features image (far left) that has been delete from commons due to no permission Ringerfan23 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
More suitable for Wikisource or maybe Wikibooks if this is an excerpt from a book. Authorship cannot be ascertained with definitiveness. Out of scope for Commons. MxYamato (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: low-res and distorted image, visual characteristics suggest screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Better quality photo exists on Doug-Cutting.JPG --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 14:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicated file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S.Sreekara Narayana (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data, some obvious screengrabs and DW.
- File:Download (21).jpg
- File:E7C4qNsVoAI9Kag.jpg
- File:8cdb77620c733b1c868a69c098062b06--mysore-karnataka.jpg
- File:Vyasa guha.jpg
- File:Sri VyasaRajaru.jpg
- File:Https bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com public images 983f8cab-4e90-48ce-b9a9-a0b79fe3283e 500x500.jpg
- File:CyBtOL0XcAAEsTX.jpg
- File:04 Purandaradasara Mantapa Hampi.jpg
- File:Pmtpa.jpg
- File:Bheddojeevanam.png
- File:Rayaru-1.jpg
- File:Mantralaya-Rayaru.jpg
- File:Sripadrajaru.jpg
- File:Raghuttama Tirtharu.jpg
- File:SRIVADIRAJARUWITHHAYAGREEVA.jpg
- File:Udupi-krishnaa.jpg
- File:Purandaropanishat.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not in colour Robert Neustadter (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This file is not needed anymore. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Last time, you tried to give as a deletion reason that it's a black & white photo. Are you trying to purge this site of all historical photos? If so, why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No source no author, can't keep with present license. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
appears to be a copyvio, from here: https://www.muscatdaily.com/2020/01/21/remembering-sultan-qaboos/ Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a copvio photo but open public portrait photo of Tariq used in every publication. Check https://www.google.com/search?q=tariq+al+barwani&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2sua1n_L4AhW8W_EDHQeVDmsQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=969&dpr=1 88.255.101.83 01:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neginghaderii (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images with FB code in EXIF data, or missing metadata.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Sorry to ask but can you please tell me the reason for deletion request?
- I'm New user and try to learn more to be useful in Wikipedia.
- Best regards Neginghaderii (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the pictures from Trial motorcycle are old or not good quality, so I took a picture from my own Trial bike with my own camera, Sony a7s III. I don't Understand where I went wrong or how can I provide the license. I would appreciate if you help me to learn. Thanks Neginghaderii (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Koorosh Ghorbani.jpg and File:کوروش قربانی.jpg are taken from FaceBook (FB), so you need to get permission from the original photographer to upload them to Commons, see COM:VRT. I'll assume good faith and strike File:Trial motorcycle.jpg from the DR. Regards, --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Trial motorcycle.jpg > This file has a line on it here, dose it mean that its removing from (being nominated for deletion)?
- The motorcycle picture was also uploaded on my own flicker account to the address of :
- I don't know how I should get the license but I am ready to give any kind of license and I can assure you all the rights its mine, the flicker account, the camera even the bike in the picture :)
- File:Koorosh Ghorbani.jpg and File:کوروش قربانی.jpg > I take the picture but I don't know which face book account is using it, probably the rider in the photo used it which is my friend and I can ask him to give us the license from his Face book page. Can you please guide me how can we take a license from Face book page and what accounts is using this photo?
- Thank you Neginghaderii (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Sorry I forgot to attach my flicker account
- Flicker : Koorosh Academy
- I uploaded the motorcycle photo here, months ago. If there is any way to find the license I will appreciate you if you teach me so I will be able to add many photos related to my articles.
- thanks Neginghaderii (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Koorosh Ghorbani.jpg and File:کوروش قربانی.jpg are taken from FaceBook (FB), so you need to get permission from the original photographer to upload them to Commons, see COM:VRT. I'll assume good faith and strike File:Trial motorcycle.jpg from the DR. Regards, --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
i want deleted my all photo in wikimedia, i need privacy in my life, thanks for your attention Akhdanmp (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
i want deleted my all photo in wikimedia, i need privacy in my life, thanks for your attention Akhdanmp (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no files specified. --Wdwd (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elvis Tampubolon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:RSU HKBP Balige.jpg
- File:Siswa Yayasan Tunas Bangsa Soposurung.jpg
- File:SMA Negeri 2 Balige.jpg
- File:Guru dan Staff SMP Swasta Budhi Dharma Balige.jpg
- File:Asrama Putri Santa Katarina Balige.jpg
- File:Asrama Putra Don Bosco Balige.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Found at https://www.pinterest.com/pin/528187862531639790/, unlikely to be own work, especially given the file format Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal doc, text only, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I wrote an article which is draft right now and this is official letter from Iranian Motorcycling and automobile Federation that I used in one paragraph as a source. My article is waiting for review right now so please do not delete it till the manager see it. If they decide to delete they will and if not they will help me to get and upload the license. I took this photo and I don't know how to get and upload license.
- I will appreciate you if you help me with how to get the license and how to upload it on wikipedia so I don't have problem like this and I don't cause extra work for other users.
- Thanks you Neginghaderii (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal doc, text only, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I wrote an article which is draft right now and this is official letter from Iranian Motorcycling and automobile Federation that I used in one paragraph as a source. My article is waiting for review right now so please do not delete it till the manager see it. If they decide to delete they will and if not they will help me to get and upload the license. I took this photo and I don't know how to get and upload license.
- I will appreciate you if you help me with how to get the license and how to upload it on wikipedia so I don't have problem like this and I don't cause extra work for other users.
- Thanks you Neginghaderii (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Unsplash Terms of Use licenses are no longer accepted on Commons as of 2017, the photograph was submitted by the author in 2020. LeonaardoG (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Licensing. Was this taken by Melanie Pilon? or Mathieu Blanchard? or Gaelle Graton? There's a CC licence claimed here, but that would only be valid if this was Gaelle Graton's photo. It seems that (at the least) a COM:VRTS confirmation from Mathieu Blanchard is going to be needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is reprinted from https://news.1242.com/article/260609. 尾張の人 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Probably copyvio as there's zero evidence the credited photographers, Stadt Zürich Kultur and Francesca Camilla Bruno gave their permission for the file to be uploaded. Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from a video that's likely copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Not the uploaders own work and it's pretty unlikely the flyer is below the threshold of originality. Adamant1 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted album cover. Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP for 2-dimensional artworks in USA 219.78.191.184 16:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's already available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linton_Panel_IZIKO,_Capetown_DSC00228_(16091324620).jpg which is a higher res Flickr upload Maqdisi (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: duplicate file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: low-res/web-size image, visual characteristics suggest screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_Beetle_(Coleoptera).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Beetle_(Coleoptera).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pixabay's terms of use have changed from the licenses so as of 2019, files uploaded in commons will not be accepted. LeonaardoG (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_Beetle_(Coleoptera).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_Beetle_(Coleoptera).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Psilopogon_mystacophanos_(Red-throated_barbet).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Psilopogon_mystacophanos_(Red-throated_barbet).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pixabay's terms of use have changed from the licenses so as of 2019, files uploaded in commons will not be accepted. LeonaardoG (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_Psilopogon_mystacophanos_(Red-throated_barbet).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
_-_Psilopogon_mystacophanos_(Red-throated_barbet).jpg){kind=link}
_Flower_bee_Pollination.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Flower_bee_Pollination.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pixabay's terms of use have changed from the licenses so as of 2019, files uploaded in commons will not be accepted. LeonaardoG (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_Flower_bee_Pollination.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
_Flower_bee_Pollination.jpg){kind=link}
Likely not own work: low-res/web-size screengrab image with FB/transmission code in EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Image of an album cover that is likely not the uploaders own work and copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Not the uploaders own work. According the meta data it's copyrighted by scottmitchellphotography.com Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on 1976 team group photo. It's curved. It might be a rephotograph. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Does not appear to be own work and item depicted is not hand made Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Source page clearly marked (C). Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Promotional gallery. Multiple unacknowledged authors, some seem to be previously published. Commons isn't a personal gallery for photos and brag pages.
- File:Trofeo Paolo Tordi.jpg
- File:Vallelunga Assoluti d'Italia.jpg
- File:Federmoto.jpg
- File:Aprilia 250.jpg
- File:Classifica 125.jpg
- File:DRE-Racetrack.jpg
- File:Aprilia GP.jpg
- File:Honda SP.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Incorrect interpretation and wrong definition Livbel (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Uploader did not create item depicted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ines Schiller (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are obviously not selfies so we need permission from actual photographers to retain.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Ellin Beltz, thanks for deleting the other one. The second one of these two quite clearly belongs to the same series by photographer Daniela Pum. The first one is a bit more difficult. I actually can't find that one anywhere, though it does look like a professional promo photo too. --91.34.47.29 21:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
No reason. BSR991 (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Precisely, no reason given to deletion. Tm (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry,i want to deleted for personal reason. BSR991 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- PUEDE SER POR COM:PORNO TAMBIEN. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.203.20.182 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Pentane-1,5-diamine 200.svg. OmenBreeze (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- And what is the reason for deletion in this case? Wostr (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Duplicate of an existing file, which according to @Leyo: , should be deleted. OmenBreeze (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Wostr (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look, are duplicate uploads allowed or not? I'm getting mixed messages. OmenBreeze (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Wostr (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Duplicate of an existing file, which according to @Leyo: , should be deleted. OmenBreeze (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as the nom'ed file is not correctly uploaded/created as SVG since the text is not in path mode and hence gets rendered badly. By simply clicking on the image, you get this bad result. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is some problem with rendering, however, all thumbnails don't look too bad (sans-serif font). As we have a better replacement, this one can be deleted then. Wostr (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Club Deportivo Jorge Gibson Brown.png Mati1D (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Club Deportivo Jorge Gibson Brown.png Manti110 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chem461S16Group1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams without clear purpose, little educational value, out of scope.
- File:Fluorometer Schematic.jpg [a]
- File:Jablonski Diagram..png [b]
- File:LIF apparatus.png [c]
- File:Simple jablonski diagram.jpg [b]
- File:Fluorometer Setup.png [a]
- File:Fluorometer.png [a]
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Three sets here:
- [a]: Delete all three. They are dups of each other, and all have a typo with multiple replacements available, such as File:Fluorimeter.png (though I like the "monster in cuvette" label of File:Fluorimeter2.JPG).
- [b]: Keep PNG, Delete JPG. These are the same image, a nice example of a en:Jablonski diagram and none of the others in Category:Jablonski Diagram seem to have the same specific set of details and clarity. But we only need one of them and PNG beats JPG as a filetype.
- [c]: Keep as only apparent diagram at this level of detail of a en:Laser-induced fluorescence apparatus.
- [a]:
Deleted 4 of 6 per discussion. --Leyo 12:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size image without metadata, visual characteristics suggest screengrab. Also added:
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 12:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of a deleted duplicate, which was nuked in favour of File:Cadaverine-2D-skeletal.png (which is also redundant now that File:Pentane-1,5-diamine 200.svg has replaced it universally). OmenBreeze (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The nominated file can't be a duplicate of the already deleted file because it is higher resolution than the one it was nuked in favor of. <shrug> In any case, neither are really needed because the uses of both have been replaced by the svg equivalent. Marbletan (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, I think Keep. We usually keep at least one correct SVG structure diagram and at least one high-resolution PNG. This seems to be better than File:Cadaverine-2D-skeletal.png and we don't have any other PNGs. Wostr (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted the smaller of the two PNG as redundant; no consensus to delete PNG as redundant to SVG, so kept the originally-nominated file. --DMacks (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is my file, work and upload and I just want to delete it. Richard Bulva (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
I would tend tothe flag of a micronation might be at least interesting trivia to someone Keep, on the basis that, and I think 2 years is too long to delete a photo that's in use.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
this is my own work and i want to get it deleted Richard Bulva (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- You granted the file a free license, which can't be withdrawn. A courtesy deletion from Commons may nonetheless be possible per Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions, also since the file is not in use on any project. Providing a reason (other than 'because I want it') will help. Cheers, Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean but I am not saying 'because I want'. I am saying it is my own work and I have the right to get it deleted. Moreover it's not being used anymore. Ikan Kekek told me 'the flag of a micronation might be at least interesting trivia to someone', yeah, that's cool but I want to get it deleted. What should I do to delete my own work from here? Is it so valuable for everyone of you that my own work can't be deleted?? The second reason is people can see what I have uploaded, edited and so on. Yes I was interested in micronations, it's part of my 'history' or whatever you want to call it but now I am interested in different things and subjects and it happened to me already a few times people asked me what it is (the flag). I don't want it here anymore. Please help me delete it, that's all I am asking for. Thank you for your understanding and for taking your time and helping me. Richard Bulva
- In principle, Commons considers every free image valuable. Being the owner doesn't give you the right to have it deleted. Valid reasons for deletion are mainly (a) the image has no educational value and (b) there is a legal problem with it. For instance, if you have abandoned your micronation and never really did anything with it, you could argue that the image lacks educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why don't you delete it then? It has no educational value. I have abandoned it (I don't know when but it has been more than 1 year) and my micronation isn't known. As you can see, the flag isn't being used anywhere, my micronation didn't have Twitter, Instagram or any other social network except Reddit where it has 0 followers and it functioned only for a few days. I don't even know the password to it anymore so I can't delete the account. I did it just for fun and then I decided to put the flag here. A few months after that I abandoned it though. Therefore the educational value is literally zero. And moreover, the flag changed like a week before I abandoned the micronation, so even if the micronation still existed (which doesn't) it wouldn't be even accurate and up to date. So this file is an outdated flag of something that doesn't even exist for more than 1 year (I think 14-15 months considering that the Reddit account is from May 2021). This file isn't valuable anymore. And if it is so valuable for you, I as the rightful owner of this file, I allow you to download the picture and do whatever you want to do with it except share my name. You can publish it under your name, you can sell it, whatever. Now, help me, please, and delete the file. Once again, thank you for your help, I believe I can achieve deleting my own stuff. Richard Bulva (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, now I can support your request. I'm not an admin though, someone still has to make a decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why don't you delete it then? It has no educational value. I have abandoned it (I don't know when but it has been more than 1 year) and my micronation isn't known. As you can see, the flag isn't being used anywhere, my micronation didn't have Twitter, Instagram or any other social network except Reddit where it has 0 followers and it functioned only for a few days. I don't even know the password to it anymore so I can't delete the account. I did it just for fun and then I decided to put the flag here. A few months after that I abandoned it though. Therefore the educational value is literally zero. And moreover, the flag changed like a week before I abandoned the micronation, so even if the micronation still existed (which doesn't) it wouldn't be even accurate and up to date. So this file is an outdated flag of something that doesn't even exist for more than 1 year (I think 14-15 months considering that the Reddit account is from May 2021). This file isn't valuable anymore. And if it is so valuable for you, I as the rightful owner of this file, I allow you to download the picture and do whatever you want to do with it except share my name. You can publish it under your name, you can sell it, whatever. Now, help me, please, and delete the file. Once again, thank you for your help, I believe I can achieve deleting my own stuff. Richard Bulva (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- In principle, Commons considers every free image valuable. Being the owner doesn't give you the right to have it deleted. Valid reasons for deletion are mainly (a) the image has no educational value and (b) there is a legal problem with it. For instance, if you have abandoned your micronation and never really did anything with it, you could argue that the image lacks educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean but I am not saying 'because I want'. I am saying it is my own work and I have the right to get it deleted. Moreover it's not being used anymore. Ikan Kekek told me 'the flag of a micronation might be at least interesting trivia to someone', yeah, that's cool but I want to get it deleted. What should I do to delete my own work from here? Is it so valuable for everyone of you that my own work can't be deleted?? The second reason is people can see what I have uploaded, edited and so on. Yes I was interested in micronations, it's part of my 'history' or whatever you want to call it but now I am interested in different things and subjects and it happened to me already a few times people asked me what it is (the flag). I don't want it here anymore. Please help me delete it, that's all I am asking for. Thank you for your understanding and for taking your time and helping me. Richard Bulva
- Delete Supporting courtesy deletion per Richard's request and explanation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it. Richard Bulva (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I will leave this decision up to an admin. I get the picture that the educational value of this flag is slight, but Mr. Bulva, next time, please think carefully about what it means to give an irrevocable grant of use to a file. Maybe you'll be given the courtesy of having your irrevocable grant revoked this time, but being indignant and angry about the suggestion that there might be a reason not to revoke the grant you gave is really not the best approach. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'll say that I won't oppose deletion, but dial back your indignance, eh? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. I was not angry, nor indignant. If you think, I was, then, I am really sorry but I didn't mean to be rude to you or anyone else. Richard Bulva (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, we can just chalk that up to a misunderstanding, but if you're OK with anyone using it, why should it be removed from the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep While it's not in use, it was given under a free irrevocable license one year ago and just because it is your own work, that does not mean it is your "right to get it deleted"; too bad you didn't reflect upon your actions when you uploaded it under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I think you are wrong. It is reversible. Here: Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions I also found out that it is more likely to be deleted if it is not used anymore. It isn't used anymore. I am aware anyone still can use my file even if it gets deleted and I am okay with that. And the file is not irreplaceable. I created the flag from a website called 'Flag Designer'. Anyone can recreate the flag at anytime. It really has no value. I understand I made a mistake but I promise this is the first and also the last time I will ever be asking for courtesy deletion. Thank you for understanding me. Richard Bulva (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, legally when you release a file on Commons, you cannot revoke the license. Commons is usually nice enough to do such deletions, but legally anyone can use it if they want to as long as they comply with the license. SHB2000 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, and I am completely fine with anyone still using it (and I am 99% sure no one will use it). That's why I requested courtesy deletion. Richard Bulva (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, legally when you release a file on Commons, you cannot revoke the license. Commons is usually nice enough to do such deletions, but legally anyone can use it if they want to as long as they comply with the license. SHB2000 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I think you are wrong. It is reversible. Here: Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions I also found out that it is more likely to be deleted if it is not used anymore. It isn't used anymore. I am aware anyone still can use my file even if it gets deleted and I am okay with that. And the file is not irreplaceable. I created the flag from a website called 'Flag Designer'. Anyone can recreate the flag at anytime. It really has no value. I understand I made a mistake but I promise this is the first and also the last time I will ever be asking for courtesy deletion. Thank you for understanding me. Richard Bulva (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It has no value. This flag used to be the official flag of a micronation but was later changed therefore this file has wrong information and is outdated. Furthermore the micronation this flag belonged to doesn't exist anymore for more than 1 year.The flag in't used on any page and can be recreated on website called 'Flag Designer' for free. Richard Bulva (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: no foreseeable educational use, out of scope of the project. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
_%C3%81rea_urbana_-_Recife_-_Pernambuco_por_Wildson_Silva.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%C3%81rea_urbana_-_Recife_-_Pernambuco_por_Wildson_Silva.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unsplash Terms of Use licenses are no longer accepted on Commons as of 2017, the photograph was submitted by the author in 2020. LeonaardoG (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by King of Hearts at 18:02, 1 August 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: Unsplash Terms of Use licenses are no longer accepted on Commons as of 2017, the photograph was submitted by the author in 2020. --Krdbot 01:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: small crop from an unknown source, missing essential source info. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete The image's license tag is {{PD-USGov}}. The source noted in the image credits the Washington County Sheriff's Office. That office is not a U.S. federal government office, and therefore the license is inappropriate. Investigating further, the Washington County Sheriff's Office website does not contain any copyright notice. This does not mean everything on it is in the public domain, or available under a license compatible with Commons. Thus, there isn't any reason demonstrated to believe this image is available under the license stipulated, nor available under any license compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work (book cover), certainly not "own work". 91.34.47.29 21:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work from a CD booklet, certainly not "own work". 91.34.47.29 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not own work, unclear if we actually need more Hitler images on Commons Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not own work, unclear if we actually need more Hitler images on Commons Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Resolution is too low to be useful. The vector version at File:YouTube Silver Play Button 2.svg is far superior. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Dead source, uploader is a block evading hoaxer on English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oatsandcream/Archive). This could be a photo of anyone. https://archives.novascotia.ca/africanns/archives/?ID=151 says this is a man called Gabriel Hall. Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Good catch, it is actually Gabriel Hall, delete this and I will upload a correctly named version. The first clue is that it is not a tintype. --RAN (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Majovargas04
[edit]Out of scope. Logos and images not used on any projects, likely promotional.
- File:Logo Banco Promerica.svg
- File:Logo Prome.svg
- File:Promerica Logo.svg
- File:CVK.jpg
- File:Carlos Valenciano Kamer Profile.jpg
Yeeno (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep On the logos since they aren't above the threshold of originality and don't have to be used on a project to be useful. Delete the last two images though as OOS copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one as it may have a use. 2 deleted as duplicates 2 as copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
no source no permission cannot be a selfie Hoyanova (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Fake license & creation date. Facenapalm (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I have updated the information about the licence of this logo. Andrew4351 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Можете ли Вы отменить предложение для удаления файла? Данные о правообладателе я обновил. Andrew4351 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrew4351, there's no mention of Creative Commons license on given source website. By the look of things, this image is copyrighted and you are not a copyright holder, so it cannot be hosted on Commons.(на сайте-источнике нет упоминания лицензии Creative Commons. Судя по всему, изображение защищено авторским правом, а вы не его правообладатель, вопреки тому, что говорится в разделе «Licensing». Так что на Викискладе оно хоститься не может) Facenapalm (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Rubin16. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
A nice image, but not own work, unfortunately. Probably from a postcard, but no dates or details given MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to claim it as my own work. I am unfamiliar with how to submit a (presumably) public domain image for Commons. Can you help me do it right? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angeles482 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Clearly not own works but screengrabs. Although the raw data may not be copyrightable, there is no free license on the source websites for the charts. Also, the unused charts are mostly illegible, therefore unusable.
- File:Brèche du taux de participation économique entre les hommes et les femmes, selon l'âge et la condition de pauvreté, 2008-2012.png
- File:Evolution du taux d’analphabétisme au Mexique.png
- File:Rémunération entre les sexes des dix professions les mieux rémunérées.png
- File:Féminicides par état selon l'OCNF.png
- File:Prévalence totale de violence contre les femmes ayant minimum 15 ans par état en 2011.png
- File:Hommes et femmes par rapport au temps de travail dans la maison.png
- File:Taux de participation économique .jpg
- File:Féminicides par état, d'après l'OCNF.png
- File:Prévalence totale de violance contre les femmes ayant minimum 15 ans par état en 2011.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
JPG file not in use, superseded by SVG file 219.78.191.184 14:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep We don't normally delete on that basis. Someone may find it useful, and it is quite likely someone has an off-wiki deep link. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Jmabel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{copyvio|reason or source}} GaelleGraton (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No valid reason give for deletion. There's a PD dedication by the author and uploader, although the nominator seems to be trying to remove evidence of that.
- Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mélanie Pilon (Crédit Mathieu Blanchard).jpg, where an upload by the same nominator here is of the same subject. Yet that photo is credited to three different photographers. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Resolution too small. Will be super blurried and unreadable if someone tries to make it bigger. --Myloufa (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Going to AGF until we have better evidence that this is a copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Gbawden: Ok, and what about my comment? The fact that the picture is barely readable is usually a good reason to delete it, as it would be out of COM:SCOPE. --Myloufa (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Myloufa: The discussion is closed - rather post on my talk page. In this case, the fact is that we only have this photo on Commons and that trumps the quality issue until we have better quality images to replace this one. Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work considering other copyvio by this uploader (Commons:Deletion requests/File:AdrianSutherland.jpg). P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arunvarmaother~commonswiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook or smaller size photos. Metadata is usually "error-0" or not present. One image is credited to a camera and even it is smaller than facebook. Appears to be a promotional upload for Kerala area.
- File:CIAL Museum.jpg
- File:Golf club house.jpg
- File:Golf club 1.jpg
- File:Departure lounge.jpg
- File:Emigration Hall.jpg
- File:Firefly lounge restaurant.jpg
- File:Cochin Duty Free Entrance.jpg
- File:Cochin Duty Free Shopping.jpg
- File:Terrace lounge.jpg
- File:Kerala temple layout.jpg
- File:Tkm1.jpg
- File:0507-Kodimaram2.jpg
- File:Peruvanam-temple-b.jpg
- File:Cliff House Trivandrum.jpg
- File:Niyamasabha at night.jpg
- File:Niyamasabha Grand Staircase.jpg
- File:Niyamasabha@Night.jpg
- File:Niyamasabha.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This file is not a work of the government. The DOJ posted it on their website, but it's older than his appointment in 2021. Here it is on his faculty page at Duke.edu in 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20121017115955/https://law.duke.edu/fac/schroeder/ and also less cropped, which suggests that is the source file. Ich (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on these photos, logo and what seems to be a painting or drawing. The map was obviously published somewhere. The photos are all smaller than facebook and lacking in useful metadata. There are no common appearance in the photos, light, whitebalance, arrangement, all seem different people created these and someone just cherry picked off the internet.
- File:Gondwana Kingdom Map.jpg
- File:Gondwana emblem Amarkantak.jpg
- File:Flag of Gondi religion.jpg
- File:Gondwana Gantantra party.jpg
- File:Gondwana Express india.jpg
- File:Indian durgavati.jpg
- File:Singorgarh fort.jpg
- File:Kingdom of gondwana.jpg
- File:Shankarshah.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation, see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Keep for now - MD is not conclusive in this case. --Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
If this were own work, the description would read "auto-portrait"... need permission from actual photographer to retain and larger would be nice too. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
From user with 1 edit, not in use. Not educative. Wikipedia isn't the photohosting for own oeuvres. Out of SCOPE. Shakko (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: We don't have many examples of drip painting on Commons. --Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no point have having this little bit of text as an image file. Anywhere it is need, it should be written as text instead. Marbletan (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.Durnbey (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files serve no purpose except to promote the website code2god.org and the religious beliefs espoused there. This falls outside the purpose of Commons (COM:SCOPE). In addition, these files are uncited derivatives of unknown copyright status. For example, File:Is the world an illusion? - Holy Land Man.jpg is derived from this image: https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/lift-the-curtain-veil.jpg.
- File:Do we trust our moral senses? - Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:If the evil God created us where did we get the sense of morality and justice? - Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:Want to live a good and purposeful life? Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:Is the world an illusion? - Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:Choosing the positive option - Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:If God is Evil then...what? - Holy Land Man.jpg
- File:Consequences of a belief in an evil god holy land man.jpg
- File:Is it possible that god is evil don juravin.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Marbletan,
- Thank you for your comment. The images shared on Wikimedia commons are not intended for a promotional purpose. In fact the non-profit organization code2GOD, doesn't promote religious beliefs or any religious statement, but is strictly focused on translating the original Bible from Hebrew and interpreting the words/phrases. The images are uploaded because of strict educational purpose, following the Commons Standards (COM:SCOPE), moreover following: see "Allowable license terms" and "Evidence".
- The uploads are following the Commons Standards (COM:SCOPE), moreover see:
- Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required.Where, a URL from the page itself containing the file is being shared, author's name and project.
- These images are from the book: "The Logical Proof of God" by author Don Karl Juravin or pseudonym "Holy Land Man" who are also shared on the website: "code2god.org" and are just a part of the project of this non-profit organization that is trying to scientifically prove the existence of God and our Universe. Again, the images are not shared to promote this non-profit organization, but to support the scientific research and mission of this organization to give us evidence of our existence.
- These images are shared in order to support the Wiki page of the code2GOD where scientific research will be shared. Just as other non-profit and various organizations and entities have their part in the Wikipedia, where their work, mission, goal and history is being shared in order for the public to learn about them, these images are shared in order for the public to learn and understand the mission that this non-profit organization called "code2GOD" has.
- I am not an employee of this organization, but I like to provide scientific research and evidence of the 2000 year old question that has been baffling the human kind.
- For the WordPress file you've shared with me, I don't have an access to check the status of it, therefore I think that the file you are sharing with me, isn't public to be seen, therefore we can't prove the copyright status of it as well.
- The statement: "these files are uncited derivatives of unknown copyright status." - With the upload of the files, a URL to the website sourcing them is being shared, the author who created them is being shared.
- How can we improve the work in order for such questions like these about the copyright status or questioning the purpose will no longer be a subject of discussion?
- Thank you! Mr.Durnbey (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
_Birds_in_Nature.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Birds_in_Nature.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unsplash Terms of Use licenses are no longer accepted on Commons as of 2017, the photograph was submitted by the author in 2021. LeonaardoG (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_Birds_in_Nature.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Due to the non-compatible license. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
_Birds_in_Nature.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted magazine cover, or not? Is it conceivable that there is any PD license that could be applied with this magazine cover? PD-old does not work, since this cover is from the 1950s. Mosbatho (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have an altogether similar case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stern-cover-18-February-2016.jpg maybe, by analogy, it would help if I simply reduced the resoltion? -- Kku (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, this case is totally different, please read the licensing applied there. Please have in mind that COM:FAIRUSE material is not accepted on Commons. --Mosbatho (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
_poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_poster.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional material is not free. A person in Georgia (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
THIS IS MY WORK I DONT WANT IT TO BE ON WIKIMEDIA ANYMORE Anhelina Starkova (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
this is my photo I want it to be deleted Anhelina Starkova (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
IT IS MY IMAGE 84.117.86.166 11:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
IT IS NOT FOR PUBLIC Anhelina Starkova (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Uploaded 15 months ago licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. You cannot revoke this given license. Why do you want it to be deleted? --Achim55 (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Nice photo, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
this is my image Copyright 84.117.86.166 11:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I want it to be deleted It it my file Anhelina Starkova (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment You are not likely to have more success this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
this is my photo. please delete it 185.38.216.48 11:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete First proposed for deletion by original uploader 1 year after original upload. Yes, we've proved the point, too late for automatic courtesy deletion, and free licenses are not revocable. However image is unused, and categorized only as "Building interiors in unidentified countries". I see no particular in scope usefulness. -- 17:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep We can't allow someone to grind us down by repeatedly requesting deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate and low-quality recreation of the Flickr logo. The dots should be farther apart. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
October 1927 is too late for {{PD-US-expired}}, and despite the "Library of Congress" description it's just a PDF from a blog, which may contain errors or alterations. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, quasi-duplicate was already deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:London After Midnight-Script.pdf. --Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Source page given is clearly marked Copyright, however this emblem doesn't occur on that page. License is not correct "copyright holder not having any issue... and also ... not raised any issue." is utterly non-compliant with Commons Licenses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication of own work. Facebook size, no useful metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo that seems promotional in nature. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Statue is not in public domain: it dates to 1981 (by an unidentified sculptor). (source) See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lapu-Lapu Shrine. As the pending House Bill 8620 (by former Rep. Wes Gatchalian) containing freedom of panorama legal right died at the end of 18th Congress (died because left pending at the House of Representatives), the current no freedom of panorama remains. Note that the file name is also occupied by a previously-deleted file of a different sculpture that was deleted due to no FOP grounds too. This and the other deleted photo can be restored/undeleted if FOP is finally introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Question If it's by an unidentified sculptor, who has the rights to images of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: in practice no one, but by law (RA 8293), anonymous works enjoy copyright protection: 213.3. In case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the copyright shall be protected for fifty (50) years from the date on which the work was first lawfully published.... If the author's name is revealed, the standard 50+1 years after author's death is applied. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question So then isn't the logical thing to do to host the photo until or unless the author's name is revealed, and only then pull it? If there is no-one to enforce a copyright claim, it's thereby a nullity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We could even have a template for these kinds of cases that states: "Work by unidentified artist. If you created this work and would like to claim copyright over it, please let us know." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: still the work is under copyright as an anonymous work, which means it will fall public domain on January 1, 2032 or 50+1 years after it was unveiled to the public. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's under a copyright that you stated is unenforceable unless the artist comes forward. Stating that and promising to remove it whenever they come forward and ask for that seems adequate, no? Is there any possibility of an anonymous artist claiming retroactive royalties, damages or something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: it is not about the possibility if the sculptor reveals himself to the public. Rather, it is on WikiCommons' only allowance of works that do not cause potential troubles. That's why COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle exists.
- Upon further reading of the law (you can refer to the Google Drive link above by the IPOPHL agency), it appears if a work is anonymous, the institution who "published" it holds the copyright. Under "Chapter VI, Ownership of Copyright," in cases of written works:
SEC. 179. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works. - For purposes of this Act, the publishers shall be deemed to represent the authors of articles and other writings published without the names of the authors or under pseudonyms, unless the contrary appears, or the pseudonyms or adopted name leaves no doubts as to the author’s identity, or if the author of the anonymous works discloses his identity.
- It's under a copyright that you stated is unenforceable unless the artist comes forward. Stating that and promising to remove it whenever they come forward and ask for that seems adequate, no? Is there any possibility of an anonymous artist claiming retroactive royalties, damages or something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Online sources indicate the city government commissioned the work, thus:
178.4. In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary;
- And since the author is anonymous, the city government holds the copyright (cannot be considered {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}):
176.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise, nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner.
- OK, that's a different situation. Then it does have to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 14:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
File:TW 台灣 Taiwan TPE 台北市 Taipei City 中正區 Zhongzheng District 承德路 Chengde Road morning August 2019 IX2 30.jpg
[edit]
Unused personal photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal upload by an SPA account for someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about the Turkish Wikipedia article. It was clearly created as an advertisement and only has one trivial reference. So in no way is this person notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I linked the article. I would suggest, though, that we wait for the Wikipedia article to be deleted before considering whether to delete a photo of him. There are a whole bunch of websearch hits on his name, so even if the article is promotional, that doesn't automatically mean that he is not notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily the tone of the article, but the lack of references which usually indicates an article will eventually be deleted. I'm fine with waiting until that happens before we delete the image though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Point taken on the lack of references for sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily the tone of the article, but the lack of references which usually indicates an article will eventually be deleted. I'm fine with waiting until that happens before we delete the image though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I linked the article. I would suggest, though, that we wait for the Wikipedia article to be deleted before considering whether to delete a photo of him. There are a whole bunch of websearch hits on his name, so even if the article is promotional, that doesn't automatically mean that he is not notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your talking about the Turkish Wikipedia article. It was clearly created as an advertisement and only has one trivial reference. So in no way is this person notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
il s'agit d'un ancien logo, plus utilisé par radio Fajet. 89.158.111.50 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, at least on this basis: if it's an old, no-longer-used logo, it's part of the history of the radio station. A copyright claim would be another matter, but I doubt this logo is above the threshold of originality, though I'm no lawyer and don't even play one on TV. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This template appears to be a recreation of earlier similar templates which have already been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook. AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This might not be untrue – but opinions differ strongly, and I am among those who consider such a restriction tag as useful (see also the Category:Restriction tags for others of that kind). --ProloSozz (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The current consensus (as to be seen in these two DRs) regarding this kind of templates is to not permit them. We must be careful to avoid too much clutter in addition to the standard Creative Commons license templates. Right now there exist different legal opinions whether an upload to Facebook is in conflict with the license or not (see my former statement for the background). A bold statement “It is not permitted to upload this file at Facebook” could be in conflict with the original license template. All this let reusers wonder whether the original license is genuine and dependable. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I really would suggest a template that at least reminds the user that there _might_ (not _is_ or _must_be_) a conflict when uploading to FB or other Social Media. There are pics that are generally not suitable for Social Media – but there are also pics that have special reasons why they really are not allowed to post in SM; for the latter a reminder would be useful – and that would be such a template that clarifies that the pic is not suitable for SM. The form of that template could be something like "be aware to respect copyright when using it in social media" – leaving open whether it is clearly allowed or not allowed. But I see the problem that this would be considered as "it's OK for SM" (what is not meant) ... And that might also be one of the reasons to avoid such templates ... btw: this template was first not a template, but part of another pic; I separated it and made a template out of it. --ProloSozz (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know and right now it is just used for that only one pic: File:Tatra 87 (Foto Hilarmont).JPG. And the wording has not been changed in comparison to the earlier “no facebook” templates. We have a clearly established consensus not to accept such templates and before such a new version of it gets recreated, a new consensus should be found first, possibly with an adapted wording. I think that COM:VP/C is a good place for such a discussion, if this is deemed useful. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I started a discussion about it where you proposed (COM:VP/C) – and ask therefore to not yet delete it until a consensus of that discussion there is found ... --ProloSozz (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (For the record, that discussion was archived with no else comments) I'd love to not agree with In general, matierial from WP is not to be used in social media because of the population of TikTok, Instagram, Telegram, etc. where their "reproductions" of WP materials are much more easier than traditional social media services (FB, Twitter, Weibo, etc.) so the level of benefits on using WP materials may still different between peoples. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I started a discussion about it where you proposed (COM:VP/C) – and ask therefore to not yet delete it until a consensus of that discussion there is found ... --ProloSozz (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know and right now it is just used for that only one pic: File:Tatra 87 (Foto Hilarmont).JPG. And the wording has not been changed in comparison to the earlier “no facebook” templates. We have a clearly established consensus not to accept such templates and before such a new version of it gets recreated, a new consensus should be found first, possibly with an adapted wording. I think that COM:VP/C is a good place for such a discussion, if this is deemed useful. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I really would suggest a template that at least reminds the user that there _might_ (not _is_ or _must_be_) a conflict when uploading to FB or other Social Media. There are pics that are generally not suitable for Social Media – but there are also pics that have special reasons why they really are not allowed to post in SM; for the latter a reminder would be useful – and that would be such a template that clarifies that the pic is not suitable for SM. The form of that template could be something like "be aware to respect copyright when using it in social media" – leaving open whether it is clearly allowed or not allowed. But I see the problem that this would be considered as "it's OK for SM" (what is not meant) ... And that might also be one of the reasons to avoid such templates ... btw: this template was first not a template, but part of another pic; I separated it and made a template out of it. --ProloSozz (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The current consensus (as to be seen in these two DRs) regarding this kind of templates is to not permit them. We must be careful to avoid too much clutter in addition to the standard Creative Commons license templates. Right now there exist different legal opinions whether an upload to Facebook is in conflict with the license or not (see my former statement for the background). A bold statement “It is not permitted to upload this file at Facebook” could be in conflict with the original license template. All this let reusers wonder whether the original license is genuine and dependable. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is covered by COM:REUSE. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete this. Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Abusive recreation of deleted template. The deletion was reaffirmed and the request for undeletion was rejected. Make another undeletion request if you have new arguments, but this recreation out of process is not correct. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- What if there was no reason to delete it in the first place? Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates was deleted against a near consensus to keep them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, there are already full of reasons to delete em, don't say "no reason to do sth. like this" anymore, just a-n-y-m-o-r-e.
- Second, most of its "against" comments are to me canvassed (or at least proto-canvassed), that raised a lot of outlandish "hey don't delete my tags because I really love em", "hey facebook always violate my own lifestyles so I need tags to ask em to stop doing so", ... etc. But what happened till now? Facebookers are still, at least they are feel free to, copy-pasting those tagged files without asking first at Commons, some are even having knowledges on refraining from reactions from Commons users: just search their FB accounts and add em to blocklist, so that Commons users are unable to ask copy-ers to stop copy such works as the copy-ers' pages are blocked from viewing. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly inaccurate, per meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media. CC works can be uploaded to social media. If e.g. Facebook thinks it violates their terms of use, they can kick the users off for doing so, but that's up to Facebook, and is not a legal issue (and not likely to happen either). It's perfectly legal to upload provided you follow the licenses (i.e. give credit and name the license and provide links). If the prohibition is taken to be part of the actual license, it makes it non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What if there was no reason to delete it in the first place? Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates was deleted against a near consensus to keep them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Speedy Delete - This is not the proper venue for this discussion. The correct venue is Commons:Undeletion requests. Nosferattus (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete A proto-G4 case, I will also nominate the other sister tags for deletion as well. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
meme picture of a closeup of tattoo; likely copyvio Ringerfan23 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
_%22Parrot_bird%22_Psittaciformes_-_Amazon,_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
_%22Parrot_bird%22_Psittaciformes_-_Amazon,_Brazil.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pixabay's terms of use have changed from the licenses so as of 2019, files uploaded in commons will not be accepted. LeonaardoG (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
_"Parrot_bird"_Psittaciformes_-_Amazon,_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
- Info Upload on Pixabay was in 2016.--Wdwd (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wdwd: , But the license is not compatible with Commons see {{Pixabay}}. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: The file is missing the low quality "metadata". -- LeonaardoG (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my understanding the text in template {{Pixabay}} refer to the original upload (puplishing) date on pixabay. For this file the publishing date on pixabay was in year 2016 (before 2019). See source link (cite: Publicado 24 de Fevereiro de 2016) So, the CC0 license should be fine in this case.--Wdwd (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wdwd: , I understand, so if the file is kept it's someone's duty to verify it. Please. Thanks. -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, @Wdwd: , how to download the image on the Pixabay website with the Metadata? If you know, download a better resolution to send over the current file. It would be much better. Waiting for your answer. -- Leonaardog (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wdwd: , I understand, so if the file is kept it's someone's duty to verify it. Please. Thanks. -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Wdwd: , But the license is not compatible with Commons see {{Pixabay}}. -- LeonaardoG (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
_"Parrot_bird"_Psittaciformes_-_Amazon,_Brazil.jpg){kind=link}
The picture is taken from the subject's law firm website here: https://www.martinezandpartners.com/about/scott-martinez There is a copyright statement on the page the picture is on, and it says, "©2022 Martinez and Partners, LLC | All Rights Reserved." Because it says "all rights reserved," it cannot be released on Commons under a free license. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo collages need to have each picture uploaded separately and licensed correctly. This looks like an arrangement of post cards.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Ellin,
- These photos are all my own images. I am also the Mayor of the Borough. The image of the deer is actually from my backyard. The woman in the kayak is my wife. Montage4 is the only image that should show. Is there a process I need to follow to license them or otherwise prove they are my original images?
- Thank you, Tim Timruane (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Timruane: Each picture needs to be uploaded separately, not a collage of all photos together. Once you upload each image, describe each image, date each image and give each one copyright appropriate to Commons, they they would be ok in a Collage. The collage itself is not ok. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will do. Thank you! 208.114.63.5 19:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of file:Pokémon Regions.png Arlo James Barnes 22:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The design of this logo is clearly above the threshold of originality and I assume it wasn't installed before 1978. So the image is probably copyvio. Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This may not be a copyright violation per COM:FOP Netherlands. At least I don't believe it under the category of "photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models." Ixfd64 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- If your applying FOP instead of just that it's a unique logo design then I assume it would be either a work relating to architecture or applied art, both of which aren't OK. That said, a more interesting avenue of thought IMO would be if a theme park or the queueing area for a ride are considered public places. It seems like Dutch law is extremely vague on what would or wouldn't make something a public place, but obviously theme parks are private businesses. So I don't think COM:FOP Netherlands would apply to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This modern recording is still copyrighted, same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anthem of DPRK - KCTV (Audio).ogg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:North Korea anthem Vocal.ogg. DontThinkMuchTwice (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Ixfd64 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Solid color YouTube logo (2013-2017).png
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as per Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> PNG). -- Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:REDUNDANT, replaced on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Probable incorrect license and screengrabs of tweets seem out of project scope for commons Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- QUOTE: "The Modern Language Association recently recognized that a writer's best original source for information sometimes may come from Twitter updates. Acknowledging that news and events often break quickly or sometimes first on Twitter, the MLA devised a standard rule for properly citing a tweet in an academic paper."
- I think it's perfectly acceptable to use the tweet from the person's account to back up the exact time of death. This would have been written by one of his supporters who was actually with him when he died. isobelandlouise (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Veryscarymary: I'm indef'd banned from English Wikipedia for various and not welcome there. I totally accept and believe your upload to commons was is in good faith but I am reasonably (but not totally) certain it falls foul of what can be accepted here; but I defer to those who make decisions and know better. I was examining your uploads because I was working on images related to Graylingwell Hospital, observed you had uploaded one, and was looking if you had any others. When I noticed a screenshot of twitter my reaction was ... likely can't have that here (Well at least for many score of years). Probably best to ask at EN:WP:TEAHOUSE where they are mostly friendly and usually useful unless you get very unluckly. Alternative would be use en:Template:Cite Tweet & ensure the url is archived on archive.org or archive.today. See also EN:WP:TWITTER. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Krd 06:37, 25 November 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)
Copy vio 1--Bacromisee (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; source "Eeeeeeee" and author "Jeff Bergman" also point to this not being the uploader's own work. --Rosenzweig τ 08:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kiss Ferenc Erdészeti Szakgimnázium (talk · contribs)
[edit]Four images uploaded to promote an entity. Three old photos with no actual sources or authors, do not obviously date from 2019. One photo is more modern, and could date from 2019, but it also has no verifiable author and no metadata to assist. I suggest this is a promotional gallery and not user's own work.
- File:Tunyogi Gimnázium épülete.jpg
- File:Kiss Ferenc Erdészeti Szakgimnázium.jpg
- File:Kiss Ferenc Erdészeti Szakgimnázium főépület.jpg
- File:Kiss Ferenc fénykép.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:Kiss Ferenc fénykép.jpg PD-Hungary. --RAN (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: most per nomination. Kept File:Kiss Ferenc fénykép.jpg per PD-Hungary. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo uploaded by an SPA account of someone that isn't notable. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be notable in Czechia. No offense, please, but please check these things out before you make assumptions. There is a world beyond English Wikipedia. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the message I left you on the other DR. Your comment is a little rich considering you obviously didn't bother to look at Ozan Beydağı's Wikipedia article before you said he was notable. Maybe practice what you preach next time instead of telling random users how to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't read Turkish, but I can recognize an article when I see it. As long as there is a Wikipedia article, the individual is notable enough for a photo of them to be hosted here. If they delete the article as non-notable, the situation has changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, sorry I offended you, but I don't like the approach of deletion by default, and I sometimes see too much overzealousness to delete on this site. At the same time, I'm very much aware of how much blatant copyright violation and absolute nonsense is uploaded, so it's important to clean things up, and I thank you for participating in this process. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't read Turkish, but I can recognize an article when I see it. As long as there is a Wikipedia article, the individual is notable enough for a photo of them to be hosted here. If they delete the article as non-notable, the situation has changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the message I left you on the other DR. Your comment is a little rich considering you obviously didn't bother to look at Ozan Beydağı's Wikipedia article before you said he was notable. Maybe practice what you preach next time instead of telling random users how to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Léna (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Undated illustration taken from an ancestry website, may be a modern drawing of a historical figure. Source doesn't specify CC-Attribution and no author is attributed. Lord Belbury (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This document sources the image to a legitimate historical archive. While a precise date is not given, it shows the work is clearly contemporary to the subject, who died in the mid-1800s. This should be kept per {{PD-old-unknown}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Léna (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
First of all, the II SAB/Wa 714/15 court judgement has *nothing* to do with copyrights. It only established that the information about how a (specific in this case) political party commenced a logo design, who is an author (designer) and how a contract was shaped (to transfer copyrights to a party) is a public information, and parties shouldn't withhold such information from whoever asks (as they spend public money, and we have a right to know how they were spent). This ruling doesn't state anything else. And, secondly, the Polish law is not based on precedenses, so one judgement changes nothing - even if it had been about copyrights. Third, there is no "public information" clause in the Polish copyright law; that is, whether the information is or isn't public doesn't influence its copyright status.
Therefore such template is wrong, and all tagged files should be deleted. Masur (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- But it literally says that political parties logos are in public domain.
Podkreślenia wymaga, iż funkcjonując w życiu publicznym (tzw. przestrzeni publicznej) partie polityczne wykorzystują znaki graficzne (loga), które ułatwiają odróżnianie danej partii od innych. Logo partii, jako element rozpoznawczy, jest wykorzystywane w materiałach wyborczych (plakatach, ulotkach), eksponowane na konferencjach prasowych, folderach reklamowych, itp. Znak graficzny partii politycznej niewątpliwie należy do domeny publicznej. Jest wykorzystywany powszechnie, posługiwanie się nim stanowi przejaw aktywności partii na zewnątrz, a środki finansowe wydatkowane na jego pozyskanie nie są tylko sprawą wewnętrzną partii politycznej.
- Yes, but (1) in the Polish system of copyright, regulated by the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, the term public domain does not appear - it isn't a legal term. Therefore, the "public domain" in this ruling is a figurative speech rather than literal "no-copyright" expression; in the meaning that it (logos) are so widely and publicly accessible, known, recognizable. No judge would use a non-existant legal term. And if this judge had wanted to clearly stress the possible copyright statuts, then he would've made a clear reference to the Polish Act on Copyright and Related Rights; like he did regarding the Polish Act on Public Information Access that was considered in this ruling and was the basis of a whole case. (2) The case was on the access to information and not on establishing whether logos are or are not subjects to copyrights. The judge couldn't in his ruling touch matters that weren't brought in (copyrights). (3) the Polish law is not based on precedenses, so one judgement changes nothing, but here the ruling is not even about copyrights at all. I think you did treated one figurative sentence, from one ruling, too literally, but the legal world isn't that simple (and I sometime wish it was). Masur (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. The page to describe copyright policy of Poland is COM:Poland. On that page, this template is not listed, nor is there some statement about logos of political parties. Whether the specific ruling of the Warshaw court, per https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/ii-sab-wa-714-15-wyrok-wojewodzkiego-sadu-522124399 , can be introduced on COM:Poland should be based on a thorough discussion between specialists and interested Commons contributors. If this results in inclusion of this reason to keep images, the template can be undeleted. Currently it has to be deleted, although it is used on several file pages. Note: I also deleted Template:PD-Polishparty/doc and Template:PD-Polishparty/en. --Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)