Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/07/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete Found at https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2017/03/computer-science-professor-selected-as-sloan-fellow well before up-load here. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation 106.69.54.49 02:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 10:02, 24 July 2022 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 13:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
AsaSascedWSC E% v? V ñ . 108.30.138.25 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Test or nonsense request. --Achim55 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This file has wrong metadata and is a duplicate of File:Urkunde Albert Speil.jpg Nparis21 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because this file has been uploaded accidentally, has wrong Meta data and moreover is a duplicate, this file should be deleted. Leseweltreise (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader agrees with deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
No indication of free licence from source Dl2000 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
disruptive edits TheWikiPro0099 (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Gauravthaur (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see, while uploading this file a moment ago, that it in fact is quite blurry, and the graphical quality doesn't seem sufficient for wikimedia commons to me. Therefore I'd like to ask deletion of the file. Th. Pusch ThomasPusch (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Noncommercial (cc-by-nc-nd-3.0) Yann (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
not sure about its usefulness Enhancing999 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Nadie lo está. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.203.40.24 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Totally useless file. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above, troll, possible DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
No free license on the source webpage, which also says "Please note permission must be sought from the Curator for photographs of objects on display for the purposes of commercial or academic publications". Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation, the declared source URL is dead, but muesum.wales website has a non-free copyright page.[1] There is a copyright watermark from Liverpool Museum which also has a non-free copyright page on its website.[2] The uploader has uploaded other questionable files. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Facebook 181.203.40.24 01:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Blantely porn image and out of Common's scope 219.78.190.174 04:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Si no borran esta basura, hay que regalar ese teléfono al bibliotecario responsable. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.66.146 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Midling penis selfie. (Human anatomy and sexuality are within project scope; low quality photos of very common objects which Commons already has many better photos of are not.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Blantely porn image and out of Common's scope 219.78.190.174 04:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Si no borran esta basura, hay que regalar ese teléfono al bibliotecario responsable. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.66.146 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: poor quality penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"alternate History" fictional map. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this flag was used by the people to whom it is ascribed. It relies upon modern Islamophobic imagery that has no basis for being on a flag according to historical records (e.g., skull wearing turban above cross scimitars). Peter Gottschalk (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; OOS fantasy flag. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The following images are from Facebook so likely copyvio. Plus the person isn't notable anyway. So also OOS (the last image is being used in a Polish Wikipedia article, but it looks like a massive PROMO SPAM attempt). Although the images are still probably copyvio and therefore shouldn't be hosted on Commons even if he is notable.
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
verwackelt, Alternativbilder vorhanden Subbass1 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 20:00, 26 July 2022 UTC: verwackelt, Alternativbilder vorhanden --Krdbot 01:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|Subject may be identifiable.}} Subject may be identifiable. Bhphs (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
no source no permission Hoyanova (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete It is from her social media accounts [3]. Speedy delete as copyvio. --C messier (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio indeed. --Wutsje 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to upload the video file, but I was wrong, and I only uploaded the audio track. VincentLR (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 09:08, 28 July 2022 UTC: I wanted to upload the video file, but I was wrong, and I only uploaded the audio track. --Krdbot 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcelinho Santos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal self promotional images that are outside the scope of this project. Commons is not a web hosting platform.
- File:Marcelinho Santos selfie.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos recording.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos posing for one picture.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos cuting the hair.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos taking some pictures.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos posing for some pictures.jpg
- File:Marcelinho Santos.jpg
Herby talk thyme 08:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Logos uploaded by Tremedious15401 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: unused logos of some sort.
Lymantria (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
fantasy diagrams, out of project scope
- File:Free Associated Regions Freehavn General Assembly 2027(3).svg
- File:Free Associated Regions Freehavn General Assembly 2027(1).svg
- File:Free Associated Regions Freehavn General Assembly 2027.svg
Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal photo album, promotional use of blocked user on eswiki. MexTDT (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal photo album, promotional use of blocked user on eswiki. MexTDT (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal photo album, promotional use of blocked user on eswiki. MexTDT (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Personal photo album, promotional use of blocked user on eswiki. MexTDT (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Promotional image of a non-notable person. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused promotional image of a non-notable person. So OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
COM:TOO United Kingdom, self-nomination, moved to Wikipedia: en:File:Thomas & Friends logo.png. Sparkl (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo, put of scope Afifa Afrin (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo, put of scope Afifa Afrin (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo, put of scope
Afifa Afrin (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pruszkowskaa (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence that User:Pruszkowskaa and Adam Pietrusiak are the same person. VRT permission is needed,
- File:Ruch pieszy.jpg
- File:Informator miejski.jpg
- File:Kartusz Gdynia.jpg
- File:Tablica ulicowa.jpg
- File:Podkowa znak informacyjny.jpg
- File:Podkowa piktogramy.jpg
- File:Podkowa witacz.jpg
- File:Podkowa Plan Miasta.jpg
- File:Podkowa tablica ulicowa.jpg
- File:W C name plate.jpg
Ankry (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Very low quality diagram, many alternatives in Category:Metformin. Wostr (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Is fadhb iad fógraí, Níl Gan de minimis. Féach freisin an fasach seo sa duga Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: (nom): This came to my attemtion during categorization of work in Category:Tram stops in Dublin/Category:LUAS tram system which arose when I looking to loads a handful of LUAS images I had recently taken and was trying to find if they were duplicate. I had initially thought this was a totally straightforward near duplicate of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg but the likely outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin has made me come back a take a second look. I observe on the other Spencer Dock discussion M.nelson !voted delete on a Commons:FOP Ireland basis but on closer inspection Ww2censor used the COM:PCP criteria. Also pinging Gbawden as the closer of Spencer Dock. I now find this nomination as unsafe and will be withdrawing it under my alt username Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga under which the nomination was done. Apologies - the results of previous discussions have led me to step back on this one. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC) (Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga)
I withdraw my nomination: ainmniúchán neamhshábháilte. Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. --Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Uploader says copied from BJP party website, the BJP party website and its images are copyrighted. Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 10:24, 5 August 2022 UTC: No permission since 28 July 2022 --Krdbot 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture from internet Shadow4dark (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 04:37, 8 August 2022 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Promo/press photo --Krdbot 06:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope, a map not from reliable source. MBH 09:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- ...and all other files, uploaded by user, by the same reason: Special:ListFiles/Dmitrii_Vlasov MBH 09:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Well-Informed Optimist. --Rosenzweig τ 10:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence at Twitter or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444598951010834&set=pb.100063821975382.-2207520000..&type=3) that this is an official Congressional image. Accordingly, how can we be sure it's in the public domain? C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep The image was found both on Marjorie Taylor Greene's Twitter and Facebook pages through her official Congressional website. Even her profile on Facebook list her as a Government Official. By being an official Government official (A member of the United States House of Representatives), this image will be in Public Domain. Official Government Twitter and Facebook pages are PD. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: The assertions above are incorrect. Images taken by Federal employees as part of their job are PD, but except for those, nothing on a Federal website is neccesarily PD. That is also true of official Federal Twitter and Facebook pages. This is a Facebook image and there is nothing to show that the photographer was a Federal employee. Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
No evidence at Twitter or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444598951010834&set=pb.100063821975382.-2207520000..&type=3) that this is an official Congressional image. Accordingly, how can we be sure it's in the public domain? C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The image was found both on Marjorie Taylor Greene's Twitter and Facebook pages through her official Congressional website. Even her profile on Facebook list her as a Government Official. By being an official Government official (A member of the United States House of Representatives), this image will be in Public Domain. Official Government Twitter and Facebook pages are PD. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't match the image from Congress.gov Andre (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- On further investigation, the Republican Party is asserting all-rights-reserved license over this image at https://www.gop.gov/member/marjorie-taylor-greene/ C.Fred (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The same website uses all official portraits for the GOP Members of Congress. Plus, it doesn't say the image is owned by the GOP or any organization related to the Republican party. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The image is housed on gop.gov, the official government site (indicated by the Web extention ".gov") for the House Republican Conference. Furthermore, the Website header directly references Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as Chairwoman, the position she holds within the Republican conference of the House of Representatives. The Chairwoman of the Republican party is Ronna McDaniel. This makes it clear that the image is used on a government Website, which AUTOMATICALLY places all images, including this, within the public domain, and NOT with the Republican party or any political organization. The main bullet this reply falls under for deletion should be removed for inaccuracy. This comment is in full support of keeping the image and utilizing it on Marjorie Taylor Greene's page. Aernsthouse (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's not how it works. You'll need to provide some evidence that it's under a permissible license. Andre (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The image is housed on gop.gov, the official government site (indicated by the Web extention ".gov") for the House Republican Conference. Furthermore, the Website header directly references Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as Chairwoman, the position she holds within the Republican conference of the House of Representatives. The Chairwoman of the Republican party is Ronna McDaniel. This makes it clear that the image is used on a government Website, which AUTOMATICALLY places all images, including this, within the public domain, and NOT with the Republican party or any political organization. The main bullet this reply falls under for deletion should be removed for inaccuracy. This comment is in full support of keeping the image and utilizing it on Marjorie Taylor Greene's page. Aernsthouse (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The same website uses all official portraits for the GOP Members of Congress. Plus, it doesn't say the image is owned by the GOP or any organization related to the Republican party. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly copyvio. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- How so? This profile was posted on MTG's official Facebook and Twitter. By being a Government official, it comes under PD. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, we don't know if this image was taken by MTG herself or a US govt staffer, or her campaign, or a super PAC, or the GOP party apparatus. If all rights are reserved by the GOP we can't use this for commons, that isn't a PD image like the official congressional portraits that are in the PD. Andre (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- RandomUserGuy1738 is correct. Andre, this clearly falls under the public domain. It is posted from U.S. Government Websites and accounts, which automatically means it was created entirely with U.S. Government funds and resources. To even speculate that it was created by a political campaign or organization knowing its source is wholly wrong. Aernsthouse (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is correct. If it's the official portrait that may be the case, but I don't believe this one is. Andre (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- RandomUserGuy1738 is correct. Andre, this clearly falls under the public domain. It is posted from U.S. Government Websites and accounts, which automatically means it was created entirely with U.S. Government funds and resources. To even speculate that it was created by a political campaign or organization knowing its source is wholly wrong. Aernsthouse (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, we don't know if this image was taken by MTG herself or a US govt staffer, or her campaign, or a super PAC, or the GOP party apparatus. If all rights are reserved by the GOP we can't use this for commons, that isn't a PD image like the official congressional portraits that are in the PD. Andre (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- How so? This profile was posted on MTG's official Facebook and Twitter. By being a Government official, it comes under PD. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: The assertions above are incorrect. Images taken by Federal employees as part of their job are PD, but except for those, nothing on a Federal website is neccesarily PD. That is also true of official Federal Twitter and Facebook pages. This is a Facebook image and there is nothing to show that the photographer was a Federal employee. Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the work of Lena Drapella, a renowned climbing photographer. If they’re releasing their work to the public domain, then that’s wonderful, but that seems unlikely and an OTRS ticket is probably needed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Duplication of File:38_to_43_Gibson_Square,_Islington,_June_2022.jpg No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Duplication of File:26 Cross Street, Islington, June 2022.jpg No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work if it is an official portrait by the Russian government. Yue🌙 23:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It also can be googled. --Barbarian (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luisalvaz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Information about the author or the source is missing. Date? PD-Italy? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Italy. When you scan an original image, the derivative copy you create is your own work. --RAN (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: clearly PD-Italy + PD-1996. Ruthven (msg) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Is he F10? 181.203.40.24 01:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: DW and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Way above COM:TOO UK --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Unauthorized use of someone else's photo. 37.112.20.93 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Cropped from this one: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMRiuRMWQAAFmuJ?format=jpg --Achim55 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
it's a album cover of Suicidal Hipie https://imgur.com/2fVIZDD/, so this it's not alowed on Commons and it's copyright and it's copyrighted. Filiz1 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Copied from WhatsApp. Upload the original file, or send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This logo is clearly above the threshold of originality and it's copyright status is unclear. So it should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Image comes from Facebook. So likely copyvio. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Postcard, unclear copyright. 4ing (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Album cover, photo is not own work 4ing (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for street art and not deminimis Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination: Given the discussion so far at Commons:Deletion requests/2D Murals in Dublin I now consider this nomination to be unsafe. I therefore withdraw this nomination, but should the "2D Murals in Dublin" I reserve the right to re-nominate. But I don't want this deleted unnecessarily by mistake. Thankyou. 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
As much as I understand, these are screenshots from a game, thus not an "own work" uploader has any right to release under free license.
Tatewaki (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be the cover of a recent published catalog of sculptures by fr:Christophe Fratin. While the sculpure shown is in the public domain (Fratin died in 1864), the photo is most likely not. Rosenzweig τ 20:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This looks like Commons:Licence washing at Flickr. There is no evidence that the Flickr user is the copyright holder of this poster which was uploaded there a few years after the original event took place. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
While a DJ CDy-o is announced on the poster and the Flickr user has a similar name, it is unlikely that they designed the poster themselves since the main act was obviously Dorit Chrysler. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
DW; source "the person himself via email" - the person shown, the photographer/copyright holder, who? Needs Commons:VRT confirmation from copyright holder Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO UK --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This photo is very unlikely to be own work of the uploader given the small size, the lack of Exif metadata that would normally be expected in an original photo, and the fact that it has been previously published elsewhere with a non-free license at [4]. —RP88 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Proprietary file, the site from the source is protected by copyright. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Proprietary file, the site from the source is protected by copyright. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Proprietary file, the site from the source is protected by copyright. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Proprietary file, the site from the source is protected by copyright. La loi et la justice (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Marked "OTRS pending" since 2009 by uploader; uploader has no other contributions. Dubious "PD-Self" license while attributed to 3rd party. In use. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: No matching ticket found in VRT database. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is a duplicate of a better version Thecaribbeancoast (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I found the dupe copy and added it to the category, it is sufficiently different in quality to keep. I fixed the name, which is the real reason they wanted it deleted. An IP address is making disruptive edits at English Wikipedia and Wikidata on this subject. --RAN (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This file is licensed under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, and the source given is Philippine Esports Commission, which is an agency of the Philippine Government. However, there is no proof that this media was indeed created by the Philippine Esports Commission. Unless there is proof that the work was created by the Philippine Esports Commission, this file should be deleted per COM:PCP. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If you look closely at the bottom of the image, there is a watermark of the Philippine Sports Commission. Patrick Cristiano (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Patrick. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrong license. The website footer says all rights reserved in Persian. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication of release under GNU or CC HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication release under GNU or CC HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication release under GNU or CC HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrong license. The website footer says all rights reserved in Persian. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication of release under GNU or CC HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
{{ SupersededJPG | File:Neue Stadthalle Langen.jpg | Better appearance, overall poor quality of significance. Person spoiling the picture, moreover recognisable}} Hesse143 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Watermark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Procedural nomination following my removal of Crown copyright UK tag, which automatically generates a speedy deletion tag. I could not generate a non-speedy deletion request without replacing the tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the source page[5] is marked "Crown Copyright", but the logo is a derivative work based on the flag of Wales. The flag is almost certainly free (see the examples in Category:National flag of Wales), and the cross cut-out and the lettering are below the threshold of originality in the UK. My only concern is whether the rather jaunty posture of the dragon creates a new copyright. I assigned the {{PD-UKGov}} tag following the example of File:Flag of Wales.svg. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is the emblem of the 203 (Welsh) Field Hospital, a British Army unit that was established in 1967, so the design can be assumed to date from 1967. COM:CROWN and File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf indicate that the applicable duration of Crown Copyright is 50 years, so Crown Copyright would have lapsed. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Revised verbiage. Kuran ta (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Your reason for deletion doesn't seem relevant to me, but I would support deleting any image of this nature because it's not very interesting, plus marketcentric.org is copyright, all rights reserved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Revised verbiage. Kuran ta (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Revised. Kuran ta (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation, the assigned license does not appear on the source webpage, and it is unlikely that Senedd Cymru owns the copyright of the documents shown. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete at least the one on the left appears to be some kind of newspaper cutout. El Grafo (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No usuario 181.203.40.24 01:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Image is used at pt:Usuário(a):João_Luís_Silva_Goulão, but that user made no edits other than setting up that user page and uploading the image, failing the "active participant" criterion of COM:INUSE.
- El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Real cybertube (talk · contribs)
[edit]These works appear to have been sourced from "elsewhere". Where a source is given it is sufficiently vague to cast doubt on the licencing for use here. COM:PCP applies. The use of COM:VRT to regularise the licencing is essential to seek to ensure that these images are correctly licences to be here.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all no evidence of copyright ownership. Ovinus (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Real cybertube (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all no evidence of copyright ownership. Ovinus (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Samad Vurgun
[edit]No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to satisfy PD-Azerbaijan
- File:Samad Vurgun (1924).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1925).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1926).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1928).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1929).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1930).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1940).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1941).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1946).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1948).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1950).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1951).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1953).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1954).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun (1955).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun 2 (1946).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun 2 (1953).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun 2 (1954).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun 2 (1955).jpg
- File:Samad Vurgun 3 (1953).jpg
PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep According to Commons:Publication and the Berne Convention definition, publication is not just appearing in a magazine or book, it is when an image leaves the custody of the photographer, and is made public. I could see if these images were all by the same photographer and were found as negatives that never left the photographer's custody until they ended up in an archive, like the Bain Collection at the Library of Congress. The Bain Collection remained as negatives when donated to the LOC and we assume they are unpublished, until a copy is found in a newspaper or magazine. --RAN (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, the burden of proof is on the uploader to provide the proof of publication, down to the year and location of publication. None of that is clear in ANY of these photos. Publication = made public.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, all except the last one, which I'm nominating seperately. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Violation of COM:NOTHOST, WP:OR, WP:HOAX rules. Such flag never was used by anyone and is a pure fantasy of the uploader. Consequently, this file clearly violates the "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" (see: COM:NOTHOST). -- Pofka (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. See talk Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belarusian flag with Columns of Gediminas.png. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The file is used by Wikipedia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This flag is sometimes used by the Belarusian opposition. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was inserted into the Russian Wikipedia only by the same Russian uploader Лобачев Владимир. It's self-created by combining a few files into one. The combination is really an absurd: Lithuanian national symbol (Columns of Gediminas) on a non-official Belarusian flag. No educational value and this design (file) never was used by opposition or anyone else. So it has no educational value and is non-notable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NOTHOST provides a clear explanation of what is this rule about Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection. And historical national flag of Belarusians (be-tarask:Бел-чырвона-белы сьцяг) combined with the one of historical Belarusian emblems (be-tarask:Калюмны) is not the case, since it is realistic and educationally useful. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep But with category «SVG special or fictional flags» and add templette
{{Fictitious flag/svg}}--Андрей Перцев (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Source disappeared. Was deleted. No evidence that the license is valid. Yann (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. It looks like all the key documents (source, license information link) are backed up on the Wayback Machine. Someone with a greater knowledge of the Portuguese language and/or Brazilian Government might be able to comment further, but I don't see any red flags which make me doubt the license here. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide the link at Wayback Machine where you found that? --Krd 09:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP, no permission. --Krd 06:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No indication of being published under a free license HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @HeminKurdistan. The picture was taken by his friend and the privilege is for him personally, I took this picture from Mohammad Saleh Meftah himself. Bestbiowriter (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please ask the copyright owner to to grant permission using Commons:Volunteer Response Team. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission received. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
ship does no more exist as pilot boat and full destroy Shiptrade (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep You're saying because she ship no longer exists, the image should be deleted? Why do so many deletion requests involve requests to wipe records of history clean? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- because why it is so difficult to just delete a picture. I am the owner of this original picture and i was the owner of this ship and now i see that i can't decide to delete myself the picture of my former boat, crazy time. Shiptrade (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- When you submit a photo using Creative Commons Copyleft, you agree to do so for all time. If this were a selfie or a picture of a family member or even of your house, I could easily understand why you'd want to suppress it, but this is a picture of a boat, so how do people benefit from its deletion? We'll see what an admin says; maybe you'll be given a courtesy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is taken from a screenshot of video, a picture of which can be found here. So it's likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Doubtful this is below the threshold of originality. So copyvio. Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The image is from Spotify. So likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Album cover. So likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO UK --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if a gradient surpasses the TOO in the UK, probably it does. Fma12 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
pt: Érico fez um levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, e imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (assembleia legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: Érico made a survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, and images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 12:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons (F2)
- File:بيكولو دراغون بول.jpg
- File:غوكو دراغون بول.jpg
- File:ترانكس دراغون بول.jpg
- File:باردوك دراغون بول.jpg
- File:غوهان دراغون بول.jpg
- File:فريزا.jpg
- File:فيجيتا دراغون بول.jpg
- File:دراغون بول سوبر.jpg
- File:دراغون بول زد.jpg
- File:برولي دراغون بول.jpg
- File:سيل دراغون بول.jpg
--Karim talk to me :)..! 03:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; blatant copyright violations with false license claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1)
--Karim talk to me :)..! 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The logo seems to be not free. Even if the uploader has rights on it, the company is likely not notable and is placed in WMF projects for spam. Ignatus (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Watermark in top left, unclear if free license Boylarva99 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
File from autohome.com.cn : https://car.autohome.com.cn/photo/55266/1/7653054.html Navigator84 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
File from autohome.com.cn : https://car.autohome.com.cn/photo/55266/1/7653050.html Navigator84 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omer Babekir Osman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely that these are the own work of the uploader, as claimed. These photos lack the Exif metadata that would normally be expected in original photos. I don't think we can keep these without additional evidence that these photos are freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer), either via COM:VRT or a with a link to the photo's free license (particularly since these appear to have been previously published elsewhere with non-free licenses).
- File:خالد عمر يوسف.jpg — previously published at Sudan Telegraph.
- File:عمر الدقير.jpg — previously published at facebook.
—RP88 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: copyright violations - MPF (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation. The assigned cc-by-sa-4.0 does not appear at the declared source. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This might qualify for {{OGL3}}, based on the copyright page on the source gov.wales website.[6] However, this may be unsafe as this document appears to have been created by Natural Resources Wales. This is a is a Welsh Government sponsored body, but I can't see an OGL license or any other free license on its website.[7] Verbcatcher (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: https://naturalresources.wales/footer-links/copyright/?lang=en, https://gov.wales/copyright-statement. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The artist died in 2013 and copyright in Austria lasts for 70+ after the artist's death. So this is copyvio. Same goes for the follow images.
- File:Erzengel, Henriette Florian 1988.jpg
- File:F.T. Csokor, Henriette Florian 1965.jpg
- File:Gartenweg, Henriette Florian 1994.jpg
- File:Geburt der Eva, Henriette Florian 1973.jpg
- File:Harfenspieler, Henriette Florian 1963.jpg
- File:Meilenstein des Friedens, Henriette Florian 1974.jpg
- File:Toteninsel, Henriette Florian 1973.jpg Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2084. --Rosenzweig τ 12:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Freedom panorama in Austria doesn't apply to non-public places like building interiors and the artist died in 1997. So this is copyvio. Same goes for the following images:
- File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau 02.jpg
- File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau 03.jpg
- File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau 04.jpg
- File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau.jpg Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Admint1:Please keep all 4 photos, because other users (Nik L.) see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Karner_Stein_im_Jauntal#/media/File:Karner_Stein_im_Jauntal_Kogelnik_01.jpg, He actually has published photos of interiors by the famous artist Kiki Kogelnik. Thank you very much for your kindness. Naturpuur (Diskussion) Naturpuur (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Admint1: Please keep the photos File:Goiginger-Kaserne, Kunst am Bau 01.jpg because meanwhile I was asking for the permission at the head office of the organization. Actually I have no answer, probably because of time of vacation or something else. As soon as I have got the answer I will proceed to inform you immadetly. --Naturpuur (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:FOP Austria, this building (a barracks) is probably not a building generally open to the public, and these artworks are also not parts of the building (like walls, windows, doors, pillars, stairs) covered by Austrian fop per a decision by Austria's highest court. So Austrian freedom of panorama does not apply in my opinion. Artist de:Kiki Kogelnik died in 1997, so the files can be restored in 2068. --Rosenzweig τ 12:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grave of Bartolomé Mitre
[edit]All photos of this category are derivative work copyright violations. According to [8], the three statues were designed by sculptor w:it:Edoardo Rubino, who died in 1954 according to the Italian Wikipedia. Thus the sculptural work is unfree until the 70th anniversary of his death + 1 year, on January 1, 2025, in which these photos can be undeleted and future uploads under commercial licenses are permitted. Argentina does not recognize freedom of panorama for public art.
- File:Buenos Aires - Cementerio de la Recoleta - 20090104-13.jpg
- File:Recoleta 063.jpg
- File:Recoleta Cemetery - Mausoleums 36.jpg
- File:Recoleta Cemetery 21.jpg
- File:Sepulcro Bartolome Mitre I.jpg
- File:Sepulcro de Bartolomé Mitre.jpg
- File:Sepulcro de Delfina Vedia de Mitre 1..JPG
- File:Sepulcro de Delfina Vedia de Mitre 2..JPG
- File:Sepulcro de Mitre.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Revised. Kuran ta (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright of Lupin III is still in effect as the author Monkey Punch died in 2019. See also this DR. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
low res, no exit, and likely a cropped version of the picture in this page: https://fashion.ifeng.com/c/7pUNKilAOTU Marcus Hsu talk 15:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
probably COM:LL MiguelAlanCS (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 10:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyvio: vosgesmatin.fr does not release its files under a free licence vip (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
From https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/justicia-terapeutica-lanzan-un-programa-para-personas-en-conflicto-con-la-ley-y-el-consumo-de-sustancias-nid2163248/ GeorgHH • talk 13:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
a derivative work or small crop from an unknown source, missing exif. Marcus Hsu talk 15:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
a derivative work or small crop from an unknown source, missing exif, author and permission.. Marcus Hsu talk 15:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In use in multiple projects. Shows a simple hand gesture; another version of gesture can rather easily be created if this one is deemed of dubious copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Very low resolution copy of a professional architectural photo or render - not own work. Can be found elsewhere on the internet, including on TinEye since 2019, and in this higher quality cropped version. -M.nelson (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
dubious own work, low quality, no metadata HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
no source given no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
no source given no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- the source is labeld under as own work do i have to add that information to a diffrent part? Hetetenisop (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is, that the photograph has been published previously on pinterest and on linkedin, so our COM:VRT procedure is required. --Achim55 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
On this image (at the bottom) is mentioned copyright Robert Recker Wouter (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Bild ist ein Scan einer Werbebroschüre. Habe ich naiverweise hier hochgeladen, wird aber wohl nicht mit den Lizenzregeln konform sein. Alternativ: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eschershausen_Wickensen01_Amtshaus.jpg Lulumara (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Own work? Higher resolution can be found here Wouter (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Own work? Higher resolution can be found here. Wouter (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
photo of photos in a book, which is not clearly identified; remaining technical labes Mykhal (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
desenho na capa do livro joão cartomante 181.203.40.24 01:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination,. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Possibility of copyvio Schubbay (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The source https://digitalcollections.lib.uh.edu/concern/images/8c97kr746 lists this photo as "in copyright", but at some point in the past might have suggested that the photo is in the PD. But a 1994 photo in the US is not in the public domain per COM:HIRTLE (unless taken by the government). Per the Hirtle chart, the photo is copyrighted and thus we need proof that the photographer licensed it freely, which is not provided. -M.nelson (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The copyright is held by FRELIMO, not the uploader. If the uploader is a member of FRELIMO and has permission to release the logo under a free license, they must provide proof. Yue🌙 23:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Parkes died in 1958, this image was not created as part of his duties as an officer in the Royal Navy, so the term of protection in the country of origin (the UK) would end in 2028. The image should remain on en.wiki for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, work of British artist en:Oscar Parkes. The file can be restored in 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 07:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
License is wrong, Parkes was a member of the Royal Navy, not the USN. Also, he died in 1958, so the term of protection would still be in effect in the country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is where things get tricky. How did the NHHC get these pictures? Were they donated, with their copyrights attached, or did he keep them for himself? Probably better to use the generic NHHC license stating no known restrictions. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd assume they were published somewhere - I've seen a number of Parkes' illustrations in contemporary (see for instance here). So they are likely PD-US, but we still have to deal with the UK copyright, which won't lapse until 2028. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, work of British artist en:Oscar Parkes. The file can be restored in 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Invalid license, Parkes was an officer in the Royal Navy, not the US Navy. Also, he died in 1958, so the term of protection in the country of origin is still in effect. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, work of British artist en:Oscar Parkes. The file can be restored in 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplicates higher res File:Sixth Definitive issue of stamps of Russia (sheetlet).jpg AntonioK talk 07:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not an exact duplicate, colors are different. --Rosenzweig τ 08:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Carreguei por engano. 181.203.40.24 01:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Recorded by TTS Service, not an own work. 百战天虫 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uncontested. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The polynomials are flipped in the first version, I'd like to provide a correct version without multiple revisionsWellidontcare (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
very blurry, many better files see {{c| Ideal City - formerly attributed to Luciano Laurana - Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino}} Oursana (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Кедало Анастасия (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbm.2017.0004 No information about the original sources.
- File:Алун Джонс и Алан Дэвисон получают медаль за достижения в области биотехнологии .png
- File:Структура соединения.jpg
- File:Скан тела.png
- File:Фотография с коллегами.png
GeorgHH • talk 12:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Файл нигде не используется. MarchelWito (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (Google Translate of nomination: "The file is not used anywhere"). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр Бригаднов (talk · contribs)
[edit]At least according to the name of account, the uploader is the same as (male) object of all these photos with all of them except maybe one (not nominated within this batch) made by another person, hence uploader doesn't have a right to release them under free license as "own work".
- File:С Натальей Бондарчук на кинофестивале «Кино - детям» в Самаре.jpg
- File:С Анной Бруссер в ТИ имени Бориса Щукина.jpg
- File:«Поминальная молитва» в театре-студии «Галифе». Тевье-молочник.jpg
- File:Александр Бригаднов с Оксаной Сташенко. Съёмки фильма «Гори, гори ясно!».jpg
- File:Александр Бригаднов в роли Кочкарёва в спектакле «Женитьба». Подколесин - Александр Лемехов 01.png
- File:Александр Бригаднов с Еленой Лазаревой после премьеры спектакля «И ангелы грянут в небесные трубы!..».jpg
- File:Александр Бригаднов в роли Хлестакова в спектакле «Ревизор».jpg
- File:Александр Бригаднов на вручении премии «Студент года». Солнечногорск, января 2021 года.png
Tatewaki (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Файл нигде не используется. MarchelWito (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (Google Translate of nomination: "The file is not used anywhere"). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alain Richarme (talk · contribs)
[edit]These photos show works by Italian sculptor fr:Guido Righetti, who died in 1958. So the works are not in the public domain yet, and the files should be deleted. There is no freedom of panorama in Italy (where the sculpture of the two deer is located). The files can be restored in 2029.
Rosenzweig τ 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation from "The Lost Generation" by David Tremayne (Haynes Group; 2006) Pyrope (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
File:1210 Prager Straße 92-96 - Hedwig Lehnert-Hof - Fliesenmosaik (1) von Elisabeth Ernst 1983 IMG 4755.jpg
[edit]The person who painted this is still alive and [FOP] in Austria doesn't apply to private grounds or non-public interiors of buildings. Plus there has to be the surrounding context anyway. So this is copyvio. I'm also nominating the following files for the same reason.
- File:1210 Prager Straße 92-96 - Hedwig Lehnert-Hof - Fliesenmosaik (2) von Elisabeth Ernst 1983 IMG 4756.jpg
- File:1210 Prager Straße 92-96 - Hedwig Lehnert-Hof - Fliesenmosaik (3) von Elisabeth Ernst 1983 IMG 4761.jpg
- File:Elisabeth Ernst am H Lehnert Hof 1.jpg
- File:Elisabeth Ernst am H Lehnert Hof 2.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 01.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 02.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 03.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 04.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 05.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 06.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 07.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 08.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 09.jpg
- File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 10.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
KeepThe Hedwig Lehnert Hof is not privately owned, it is a Gemeindebau, owned and operated by the municipality of Vienna on publicly owned ground. FOP in Austria encompasses works of art that are permanently placed in the public (regardless of "surrounding context"). --Tsui (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously there's a difference between something being publicly owned and something being a public area. I assume the law refers the later, which is why COM:FOP Austria says nothing about ownership but does say "interiors of buildings" aren't covered by FOP. It would be a pretty ridiculous stretch of the word to interpret "interior" as meaning anything other then the indoor, non-public part of a building. Let along to act like it has anything to do with ownership. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Gemeindebau is not closed by doors except the staircases. It can be reaches from public space. On google street view you see one of the mosaics in the entrance for cars as well as that there is a pedestrian passage near the barrier, the mosaic in the passage is File:Hedwig-Lehnert-Hof 01.jpg. The same situation on the back side, public paths, closed for cars [9]. If you have a look at
- you will see that the mosaics are outside the doors closed and thus conform to FoP-Austria. Unless you can prove that the other mosaics are behind the closed doors of the stairs, please assume that all of them are outside the building and thus conform to FoP-Austria. The map [10] shows that there are public paths all around and in the middle of Hedwig Lehnert Hof. Furthermore, FoP-Austria states an exception for interiors of buildings, namely works, which themselves are components of the structure, which is clearly the case here. Acc. to [11]: Die Wandbilder fügen sich in die architektonische Gestaltung des Baus ein, beziehen sich stark auf diese und stellen Elemente der Architektur dar. There were created in 1982 along with the building which was created in 1981-83. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have the exact quote right now, nor do I super feel like about it, but from what I remember the law says the whole "public" clause relates to if the artwork is a common , community possession or not. Say like a statue in a park or train station. I don't think you can call artwork on private property where someone has to walk down a hall way to see it "Common property." Anymore then say If a had a fountain statue at the end of my driveway that people could potentially see from the road or walk down my driveway to look at if they wanted to. Or for that matter something like a mannequin in a store window. Sure, technically a bunch of people could probably stand on the sidewalk and stare at the mannequin through the store window or peak over my hedges if they wanted to see the fountain, but that's not what the law means by "public space." The mannequin and my fountain aren't common property. Otherwise your treating the law like it says "outdoors" or "viewable from the environment", regardless of the context. When that's not what it says. Nor are either interpretation within the general spirit or purpose of Austria's freedom of panorama laws. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- so this is about unclearness of what is public or private (what makes a lot of mess!). We consider stuff owned by the state, the region, the church, the municipality as public. Right? Independent whether there is some neo-liberal construction in between: The station is owned by the railway company, which is owned by a stock company, of which the state owns the majority of. Now, is this public or is this private? The building in question is owned by a company named Wiener Wohnen, which is owned by the Wien Holding, which is owned by the municipality of Vienna. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The building in question is owned by a company named Wiener Wohnen, which is owned by... Like I've already said in a past comment the law has nothing to do with ownership. It 100% has to do with if the place is "public" or not. Which is why the law repeatedly states things like "interiors of buildings" and mentions streets/train stations as public areas that FOP applies to. Like I said before it's a ridiculous stretch of the law to interpret a term like ""interiors of buildings" to mean "owned by the government." It never says otherwise either. Let alone does it insinute anywhere that FOP applies to the interiors of government property. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- And, FoP-Austria talks about the place of photograph, not the place of object. If there is a fountain in your private court that can be seen through the fence, I can publish a photo thereof unter FoP. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Talks about the place of photograph, not the place of object. I mean, your not wrong, but your not correct either. Really it talks about both because it's kind of insinuated that someone who is taking a picture of the interior of a train station is inside said train station. Maybe you could take a picture of the train station's interior from the sidewalk outside of it, but that doesn't really matter to the equation. What does is that the train station is a public place. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that someone could legally take an image of a person's bedroom from 2 miles away using a telephoto lens as long as you were standing on a sidewalk when they took the image. Since pictures taken on sidewalks are covered by FOP laws or whatever. Obviously that's not how the law works. It's ridiculously bad faithed to act like it does. There's zero instances where FOP laws would allow you to legally take an image someone's private property in that way. "Hey, it's cool I took a photograph of someone's bedroom without their consent because I was standing on the sidewalk and freedom of panorama brah!" Yeah right dude. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- so this is about unclearness of what is public or private (what makes a lot of mess!). We consider stuff owned by the state, the region, the church, the municipality as public. Right? Independent whether there is some neo-liberal construction in between: The station is owned by the railway company, which is owned by a stock company, of which the state owns the majority of. Now, is this public or is this private? The building in question is owned by a company named Wiener Wohnen, which is owned by the Wien Holding, which is owned by the municipality of Vienna. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have the exact quote right now, nor do I super feel like about it, but from what I remember the law says the whole "public" clause relates to if the artwork is a common , community possession or not. Say like a statue in a park or train station. I don't think you can call artwork on private property where someone has to walk down a hall way to see it "Common property." Anymore then say If a had a fountain statue at the end of my driveway that people could potentially see from the road or walk down my driveway to look at if they wanted to. Or for that matter something like a mannequin in a store window. Sure, technically a bunch of people could probably stand on the sidewalk and stare at the mannequin through the store window or peak over my hedges if they wanted to see the fountain, but that's not what the law means by "public space." The mannequin and my fountain aren't common property. Otherwise your treating the law like it says "outdoors" or "viewable from the environment", regardless of the context. When that's not what it says. Nor are either interpretation within the general spirit or purpose of Austria's freedom of panorama laws. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Looking at google maps with streetview the mosaiks are located in a public place. The area is closed for cars but anybody can walk through and see the mosaic. There are no doors between the mosaic and the open space as far as I concuded, so although they may be in a sort of tunnel, it can not be said the mosaics are in the interior. Therefore I decided to keep these images per COM:FOP Austria. --Ellywa (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luisalvaz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Information about the author or the source is missing. Date? PD-Italy? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the date is 1990, then the photo must be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. The file was originally tagged "own work" and published under CC-BY-SA license.
- @Silvio64 dovresti chiarire lo stato della foto scrivendo a permissions-it
wikimedia.org e in particolare se l'hai scattata tu e quando. Ruthven (msg) 14:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is a "simple photograph" imho and therefore copyrighted only for 20 years after creation of the image per COM:Italy. I do not see sufficient arguments for deleting this image. The Wikimedia Foundation – through the statement of the Legal department - does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. The document on Commons at COM:URAA states “A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.” I decided to keep the image, because it has a correct licence for the country where it originated. In addition, the file page is showing a warning sign that a licence tag is missing which will show the image is possibly not in public domain in the USA which will prevent re-users from the USA to use it freely without additional research. If you do not agree with this decision, you are kindly requested to nominate the image again for deletion in order to have a broader discussion about it. --Ellywa (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Shonagon (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Artwork not in public domain. There is no Monolith Jewel in The Louvre Museum but in Les Arts décoratifs Museum which is in Louvre Palace and not part of Louvre Museum: http://collections.madparis.fr/bracelet-7 The Monolith bracelet in Les Arts décoratifs is not that one in the picture.
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted work of art, wherever it is shown. --Ellywa (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир
[edit]- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795).svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772).svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-1.svg
These are totally fake flags without any historical backing and absolutely no reliable sources supports their appearance, thus they are not useful for an educational purpose. It is absolutely clear that every piece of these flags are fake and were created by uploader Лобачев Владимир. Wikimedia Commons is not COM:NOTHOST and we are not allowed to upload fake things and label them as "real". User Лобачев Владимир clearly wants to defeat the purpose of this project and should be presented with strict sanctions for his disruptive activity. ---- Pofka (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The basis for the reconstruction is given in the description of each flag.
- The descriptions of the flags of the voivodeships are taken from the armorial Kasper Niesiecki.
- The coats of arms are depicted in Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1588, as well as on the seals of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).
- The presence on the flags of the Chase is mentioned in Statute of the GDL of 1566. In the “Description of European Sarmatia” by Alexander Gvagnini (1579) about the banners of the Novogrudok Voivodeship, it is clearly stated that we are talking about the state emblem of the principality (lat. “Vexillum bicorne rubei coloris Stemmate Magni Ducatus, in campo albo insignitum in bello gestat”). The same phrase is quoted in the Polish edition of the Description in 1611 by Martin Paszkowski (Polish “Chorągiew o dwu rogach masci czerwoney taż co y Wielkiego X. Litew: Mąż zbroyny na koniu białym z miczem...”). Thus, the Pahonia was a symbol of statehood on its banner.
- An example of a voivodeship flag (Troksky) and a county flag (Grodno) are given in the book Herby Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. T. 4, „Pasy lite, ozdoby, chorągwie i proporce”, 1905.
- Also, the colors of the flags of the voivodeships were printed on 1918 postcard.
- Voivodeship flags are already present on Wikimedia Commons, as a reconstruction without citations: File:Banner of Viciebsk Voivodeship.svg, File:Banner of Miensk Voivodeship.svg. Based on the flag of the voivodship, there is the flag of Samogitia - File:Flag of Samogitia.svg. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The frame and the name of the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania (IOANNES CASIMIRUS DEI GRATIA REX POLONIAE MAGNUS DUX LITHUANIAE) were removed, as they were taken from the site of reenactors without reference to an authoritative source. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Prior to this, drawings of flags were used without any justification and references to the writing in authoritative sources. Their form is taken from the flags of the Teutonic Order during the Battle of Grunwald.
.svg)
- Here are some flags of the Teutonic Order:
- Here are some flags of the Teutonic Order:
- In the image File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg, there has already been discussion about deletion. See File talk:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg. Keep --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Provide historical sources which includes such design of Lithuanian flags. Teutonic Order flags are not related with Lithuania. Otherwise, all of them should be deleted because they have no educational value and are nothing else than your personal fantasy. Your arguments how you restored 16th century Lithuanian flags colors based on a random Belarusian postcard from 1918 is an absurd (there is no proof that author of this postcard knew the authentic colors) and only testifies that these flags are imaginary and have absolutely no educational value. The 1905 book is not much better for verification purposes and includes only two flags.
- Furthermore, the horse riders colors are totally random. You said that you based Lithuanian coats of arms on files in categories (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4), however all files in these categories are colorless, so it once more testifies that you colored the Lithuanian coats of arms randomly, based on your personal taste. Moreover, these horse riders are clearly computer-generated and were not taken from authentic sources. Here are authentic flags from the 15th century (pay attention to the horse rider's colors):
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_in_1416.jpg){kind=small}
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_from_1414_to_1418.jpg){kind=small}
- On the contrary, your fake creations reminds LEGO toys instead of authentic reconstructions based on historical sources. In this case COM:NOTHOST rule must be enforced to prevent such purposeful manipulations which have no educational value and only causes harm to users by confusing them. Not a single piece of these flags is authentic. -- Pofka (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the form of banners of the voivodships of the Commonwealth in the 16th century:
Here is the form of the military banners of the Commonwealth in the 17th century:
- Here is a description of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1:
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Mąż zbrojny w szyszaku (Petrasancta przydaje srebrny) na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym ; w prawej ręce jaka miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyžami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.
- Example 1. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Kiev Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Województwo Kijowskie, że się pomieścić może z starostwem swojem jużem namienił wyżej. Za herb nosi anioła bialego w czerwonem polu. Paproc. o herb. f.718. Gvagnin w Kronice Ruskiej fol. 24, powiada że chorągiew jego zielona o dwu rogach, w polu czerwonem, z jednej strony pogonią Litewską, z drugiej strony Niedźwiedziem czarnym, w polu białym naznaczona, atoli co się tycze pogoni pomylił się Gvagnin. Bielski fol. 9. krom anioła z jednej strony chorągwi, który w jednej ręce miecz goły, nadoł końcem spuszczony, w drugiej pochwy trzyma: na drugiej stronie, przywlaszcza mu Niedźwiedzia w bialem polu, u którego noga lewa przednia trochę do góry podniesiona.
- The banner of the Kiev voivodeship was green and had two horns Source: Stefan Kuczyński. Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje. 1993. S. 97. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Example 2. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Duchy of Samogitia from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają.
- Example 3. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Vilnius Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Herb województwa tego z jednej strony chorągwi czerwonej pogonia, jakom ją wyżej określił, z drugiej strony kolumny albo słupy, o których gdzie indziej mówić się będzie. Tegoż samego herbu i powiaty w tem województwie zostające zażywają, tylko że chorągwie powiatowe o jednym końcu, województwa chorągiew o dwóch.
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Brest Litovsk from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Herb tego wojewódziwa Pogonia zwyczajna (bo też do prowineyi należy) tylko że ubior błękitny na koniu i na rycerzu , w polu czerwonem. Paprocki fol. 718.
- Keep Historical accuracy is an issue, but they are educational and I see no copyright problems. How to use them on Wikipedia can be discussed there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Compare with the reconstruction of Lithuanian historians from Samogitia. The difference is small.
-1.svg)
- See Edmundas Rimša Atrėbutika (lt) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Lithuanian version (second) uses authentic Coat of arms of Samogitia (see: File:Grand Coat of Arms of Samogitia.svg), while the one uploaded by Лобачев Владимир uses a self-created fake bear. Moreover, it uses text "Zmudzka", which is non-Lithuanian word, but a Polish/Russian word meaning Samogitia (in Lithuanian it is called Žemaitija). The flag is 100% fake and as already stated previously – has absolutely no educational value, especially when a much more authentic version exists in Commons. By the way, the usage of a Polish/Russian word on a Lithuanian flag reminds some kind of political aims and violates WP:NPOV as no valid sources supports such claim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: In polish it will be "ŻMUDŹ" or "WOJEWÓDZTWO ŻMUDZKIE", if using adjective. But not "żmudzka" - this is russian. Author don't know lithuanian and polish as well, he is writing in russian using latin script. Hoa binh (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Yeah, probably this is fake Russian language used on flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Total propaganda. I request to put an end to Лобачев Владимир's actions which clearly violates good-will. -- Pofka (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: In polish it will be "ŻMUDŹ" or "WOJEWÓDZTWO ŻMUDZKIE", if using adjective. But not "żmudzka" - this is russian. Author don't know lithuanian and polish as well, he is writing in russian using latin script. Hoa binh (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Lithuanian version (second) uses authentic Coat of arms of Samogitia (see: File:Grand Coat of Arms of Samogitia.svg), while the one uploaded by Лобачев Владимир uses a self-created fake bear. Moreover, it uses text "Zmudzka", which is non-Lithuanian word, but a Polish/Russian word meaning Samogitia (in Lithuanian it is called Žemaitija). The flag is 100% fake and as already stated previously – has absolutely no educational value, especially when a much more authentic version exists in Commons. By the way, the usage of a Polish/Russian word on a Lithuanian flag reminds some kind of political aims and violates WP:NPOV as no valid sources supports such claim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Totally fake. There were no historically any signs at the flags. And in which language are this sings? Trocka, Witebska - this is not polish language (Witebska WHAT? Trocka WHAT? This is only single adjective without a noun, totally nonsense in polish). Author don't know polish language, this is russian language write in polish alphabet - it's even gramatically incorrect, voivodship was MIŃSKIE, not MIŃSKA - mińska is in russian. Hoa binh (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Exactly. Even the names on these flags are totally random and were never used in reality (this is some kind of pseudo Russian language), which once more confirms that these files has absolutely no educational value. By the way, user Лобачев Владимир is already well known for aggressively trying to Russify various topics of Eastern Europe. This is certainly one of these examples. -- Pofka (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Delete of course. They have no educational, nor any other value except personal - therefore they should be kept personal. It is a clear violation of COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST. This user Лобачев Владимир is even aggressively pushing his fake flags to historic pages claiming they areal (!!). For example he aggressively pushed his anime phantasy flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1792.svg) as a flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litevsk%C3%A9_velkokn%C3%AD%C5%BEectv%C3%AD, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Ducado_de_Lituania, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%8B%E9%99%B6%E5%AE%9B%E5%A4%A7%E5%85%AC%E5%9B%BD, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand-duch%C3%A9_de_Lituanie, https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groothertogdom_Litaue to name just a few. It is a disgrace and corruption of Wikipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- See Chorągiew Trocka:
-
- Chorągiew Grodzienska:
- No, no, and no. Someone has put in his book image of Grodno Voivodship military standard (not "flag"!) and put there explanation, that this is grodzieńska, id est: "Flag of Grodno Voivodship". This is just informational sign in the book, not part of the flag. Single "grodzieńska", "trocka" etc. doesn't has any sense in polish. You don't know polish language and making errors. Hoa binh (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Scientific Polish source using such words.Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje, Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993, S. 190:
Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Chorągwie trocka i grodzieńska tę czerwoną, tylko województwa trockiego i jego mają płachtę niebieską...
- Exactly: CHORĄGWIE trocka i grodzieńska - it means "Flags of Trock and Grodno". Single trocka and grodzieńska are just adjectives, and doesn't has any sense without a noun. So, as you show us, you don't know polish language. And you don't understand, what is written in this book. That's all, causa finita. Hoa binh (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Formally, these are not flags of voivodships, but banners militia of the nobility of the voivodeship (en:Pospolite ruszenie). They were used only during the war. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- All he does is creates fake flags with fake texts without any educational value and tries to pollute this project with them. Clearly malicious activity. Knowing this case, his upload history of various coats of arms raises strong further concern how much harm he has already done to this project. I suggest permanent IP BAN. -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: Yes, we need sanctions for russian missinformation in Wikimedia. We should ban Лобачев Владимир immediately. His boss Putin want to teach Ukrainians about ukrainian history, he want to teach us Polish and Lithuanians about history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No way. There he wrote, that Samogitian bear is Kiev bear. Hoa binh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Exactly. He is clearly working for the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian structure and spreads Russian propaganda, false information on a daily basis in Wiki projects. -- Pofka (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: Yes, we need sanctions for russian missinformation in Wikimedia. We should ban Лобачев Владимир immediately. His boss Putin want to teach Ukrainians about ukrainian history, he want to teach us Polish and Lithuanians about history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No way. There he wrote, that Samogitian bear is Kiev bear. Hoa binh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly: CHORĄGWIE trocka i grodzieńska - it means "Flags of Trock and Grodno". Single trocka and grodzieńska are just adjectives, and doesn't has any sense without a noun. So, as you show us, you don't know polish language. And you don't understand, what is written in this book. That's all, causa finita. Hoa binh (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Scientific Polish source using such words.Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje, Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993, S. 190:
- No, no, and no. Someone has put in his book image of Grodno Voivodship military standard (not "flag"!) and put there explanation, that this is grodzieńska, id est: "Flag of Grodno Voivodship". This is just informational sign in the book, not part of the flag. Single "grodzieńska", "trocka" etc. doesn't has any sense in polish. You don't know polish language and making errors. Hoa binh (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST Gdarin (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC).
- Delete No historical value, no educational value, might be by mistake taken as an illustration in wikipedia article or wikidata item. Paelius
discussion17:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) - Delete, like Gdarin and Paelius. Nadzik (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Chorągiew Grodzieńska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu grodzieńskego).
Chorągiew Słonimska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu słonimskiego).
-
Chorągiew grodzieńska. 1615 -
Chorągiew słonimska. 1588—1633
Chorągwie powiatu grodzieńskiego i słonimskiego z 1 poł. XVII w. Muzeum Wojska Polskiego w Warszawie, nr inw. 24254, 24255 (The banners of the Grodno and Słonim poviats from the first half of the XVII century. Museum of the Polish Army in Warsaw, No. 24254, 24255)
See Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1764-92
[edit]-
Original -
Vector version
.jpg)
.svg)
Here is the original from the heraldic book. Next is the vector version. If someone draws closer to the original, I will only be glad. Isn't vectorization forbidden on Commons? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)
[edit]The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai voivode district.
Source: REBORN AFTER DESTRUCTION. Dedicated to the Flags of the Lithuanian Army (vdkaromuziejus.lt). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Remove those fictional flags. These flags are intended to imitate modern Belarusian state symbolism and are in conflict with the basic rules of the heraldry tradition system. The blason of coat of arms says exactly how the Lithuanian coat of arms looks like, regardless of whether deviations have occurred, however, deviations are not suitable for presenting any state symbolism. It is worth mentioning that Лобачев Владимир also inserted into several wiki-projects that Belarusian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the "Slavic paganism" was it's the main religion which is completely untrue-evident hoax. If the "Slavic paganism" were practiced at such a late time, there would be archeological sources and artifacts of it in medieval Lithuania, but they are not and especially Slavic religion was extinct. It is clear why these changes have been made when they lack any sources. All these edits are to represent the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the primary ethnic Slavic state and the predecessor of modern Belarus, which means they are not for educational purposes, but for the needs of Belarusian nationalist propaganda to rewrite Lithuanian history. I think such attempts are a threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is, you refer to my wrong political position, which is the reason for deleting files? And the sources describing the flags and their image in solid sources, as well as the preserved originals of the historical museum, do not play a role. Did I understand correctly? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- For example, here are two images:
-
Original from the Polish Army Museum
-
My drawing
.svg)
- Do you doubt that such a flag exists in the museum, or that my drawing clearly distorts the original? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not talking about this flag of Grodno powet. Note that I do not mention Grodno powet anywhere in my comment, so why do you mention it? I write especially about your flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which you insert in many articles as a state flag, even though it contains obvious deviations from the heraldic model (red or white Vytis instead of blue etc.) which was introduced by Jagiellonians, but imitates the symbolism of modern Belarus, therefore this file
is not suitable for use as the state flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This your answer about flag of Grodno powet is intended to divert the topic although in my post it is clear what I mean. What do you say to why you prefer this flag instead of others? Because it suits to your national/ethnic attitudes as well as other your edits that add Slavic language and the Slavic paganism? To present medieval Lithuania as Slavic?! Dragovit (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, here's another example: the militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship. I redid it.
- Description of banner 1: The coat of arms of the Trakai Voivodeship was the Lithuanian Pogonią in a red field. Based on the color of the banner, the Voivodship parliamentary uniform was created, which was a scarlet robe, green lapels and a white jacket. (Source 1)
- Description of banner 2: The banner of the Trakai Voivodeship with two horns contains the coat of arms of the Grand Duke of Lithuania: an armed man on a horse with a sword, in a red field. (Sourse 2)
- I am not talking about this flag of Grodno powet. Note that I do not mention Grodno powet anywhere in my comment, so why do you mention it? I write especially about your flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which you insert in many articles as a state flag, even though it contains obvious deviations from the heraldic model (red or white Vytis instead of blue etc.) which was introduced by Jagiellonians, but imitates the symbolism of modern Belarus, therefore this file
- Do you doubt that such a flag exists in the museum, or that my drawing clearly distorts the original? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.svg)
- Are there any complaints about this image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, as you said it's a "militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship", if that's true, that's enough, because "militia banner" means it's not a real flag. Military nor personal banners are not state flags and cannot present a state, region or district, they're just banners of some troops or belongs to a person, that's all, so the names of these banners (not flags) are at least inaccurate and misleading, also you present them incorrectly. User Hoa binh says the same thing. These banners contain names and titles (Sigismund III, duke of Lithuania) and apparently belongs to one monarch although in their names are political entities like voivodeships with use since the Middle Ages, which does not make sense, it's weird. Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that "flag" should be replaced with something else. For example, "standard" or "banner". The Russian Wikipedia article and category has been renamed. But here, until the end of the discussion, I cannot rename the files. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, as you said it's a "militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship", if that's true, that's enough, because "militia banner" means it's not a real flag. Military nor personal banners are not state flags and cannot present a state, region or district, they're just banners of some troops or belongs to a person, that's all, so the names of these banners (not flags) are at least inaccurate and misleading, also you present them incorrectly. User Hoa binh says the same thing. These banners contain names and titles (Sigismund III, duke of Lithuania) and apparently belongs to one monarch although in their names are political entities like voivodeships with use since the Middle Ages, which does not make sense, it's weird. Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any complaints about this image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Pay attention that user Лобачев Владимир continues to upload new versions of these files with significant modifications. This only proves how fake these images really are. -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This allegation is an attack on an objectionable participant. I ask administrators to pay attention to unfounded accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is the description of the flag in Russian sources:
Образованное в 1506 году Витебское воеводство имело на своем гербе образ воина на белом коне в шлеме с поднятым над головой мечом и щитом с шестиконечным крестом, так называемым "Крестом прп.Евфросинии Полоцкой". <...> О том, как выглядела витебская хоругвь во второй половине ХVI века, можно узнать из книги итальянского волонтера Александра Гваньини "Хроника Европейской Сарматии". Он служил в витебской крепости с 1569 по 1587 г.г. Ротмистр Гваньини писал: "Стяг, на конце раздвоенный, зеленого цвета с гербом Великого князя в белом поле". Однако витебская печать 1559 года — всего лишь за 10 лет до начала службы итальянского волонтера ? имела образ Спаса нерукотворного. Расхождение символических образов городских хоругви и печати позволяет усомниться в том, что "Погоня" была древним городским гербом.
Source: Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание (geraldika.ru)
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)После административной реформы 1564–1566 гг., когда возникли воеводства, каждое из них получило из великокняжеского скарба (казны) знамя определенного цвета с изображением государственного герба. Известно, что воеводство Полоцкое имело знамя желтое («сикоража»), в белом поле Погоня; воеводство Новогрудское — полосатое («пелистое»), в белом поле герб; воеводство Витебское — зеленое, герб в белом поле; воеводство Берестейское — голубое («блякитное»), в красном поле герб; воеводство Минское — «гвоздиковое» (нежно-красное), в белом поле герб; воеводство Мстиславское — желтое знамя, в «чирвоном полю» герб. Имелись также и знамена поветов, городов с изображениями Погони.
Source: https://news-21-by.turbopages.org/turbo/news.21.by/s/society/2009/10/12/381215.html
- Unreliable sources. Turbopages? Really? -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The link contains excerpts from an article by Mikhail Tkachev, a Belarusian historian, archaeologist, local historian, heraldist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Lecturer at Grodno State University. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source with likely distortions. There is a clear consensus that all these flags you created are totally fake and has no historical value. You was the only one who requested to keep it (by the way, voted in favor of yourself twice, but probably that's the way of authoritarian democracy). -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Not a reliable source with likely distortions." Personal opinion, not based on anything. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source with likely distortions. There is a clear consensus that all these flags you created are totally fake and has no historical value. You was the only one who requested to keep it (by the way, voted in favor of yourself twice, but probably that's the way of authoritarian democracy). -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The link contains excerpts from an article by Mikhail Tkachev, a Belarusian historian, archaeologist, local historian, heraldist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Lecturer at Grodno State University. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for mass-deletion of these images imho. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. A considerable subset of these images is in use on the projects today, so they have to be maintained. I did not see a reason to only delete some of them, but you are welcome to nominate the unused images again, so another admin can make an additional decision. --Ellywa (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир (2)
[edit]See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795).svg (moved to File:Banner of Vilnius Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg)
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg (moved to File:Banner of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg)
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772).svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-1.svg
Created after the initial rejection to stop this disruptive user:
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618)-2.svg
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Minsk Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-2.svg
- File:Banner of Vitebsk powet (1609–1618).svg
- File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg (here the second version was uploaded just in order to purposefully erase one of the main national symbols of Lithuania: Double Cross of the Jagiellonians on a blue shield)
He also uploaded even more worthless modified versions to these older files above. For example, see: this file which has 10 different versions of which 6 versions are completely different from each other. This is a perfect illustration how fake and how worthless these files really are.
The clear majority of the community, including Polish Wikipedia administrator, said at Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир that these files should be deleted and presented valid arguments because they have ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE. I request for a review of this decision by other administrators. Ellywa declined to delete them just because they are used in multiple projects, but they are so widespread NOT because they have any value, but because of the aggressive policy of the uploader Лобачев Владимир to insert these worthless flags into many wiki projects everywhere. Removal of them results in intensive day-to-day edit warring with the uploader and it is impossible to remove them with the intervention of the administrators in all the wiki projects as it requires long explanations in tens of different languages. The job must be done here because they violate one of the main Commons' rules: COM:NOTHOST and that is more than enough. The only way to stop this Russian propagandist bad faith edits, uploads is to delete all of them and to block him because this Russian user is using Wikimedia Commons as a platform to spread fake news about other countries national symbols, flags and the recent Ellywa's decision only encouraged him to create more of these fake flags and to pollute the Wikimedia projects with them. Seeing what is happening in Ukraine, Russian propaganda about other countries should be met with strict sanctions. Please show him that the Wikimedia Commons is not lawless and that bad faith edits, uploads are not welcome here. Pinging other users who also said that these files should be deleted: @Микола Василечко: , @Hoa binh: , @Ke an: , @Gdarin: (Polish Wikipedia admin), @Paelius: , @Nadzik: , @Dragovit: . Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries. Pay attention that real and truly valuable flags, banners cannot have 6 completely different versions uploaded in a short period of time. That is a clear proof of WP:HOAX and bad faith (violation of Commons:Assume good faith). ---- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The sources for each flag are given in the description of each file. These are historical works of Polish heraldists and modern research in Polish, Belarusian and Russian. Moreover, one historical banner of the voivodeship is available almost in its entirety in National Museum of Lithuania, and the full banner was reconstructed by Vytautas the Great War Museum:
-
The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania -
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum -
Updated version
.jpg)
- For many voivodeship banners, articles have been created in the Russian Wikipedia, where all sources are listed in detail. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Pofka:
I ask the administrators to stop such baseless accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries.
- @Ellywa: Can't find any previous discussion on this. Help me? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Example:
-
The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania
-
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum
-
Updated version
-
Falsification
Falsification!
The shape of the horse is wrong: legs, head, tail.
Not such a knight: sword, head, armor.
Not the blanket on the horse.
This is not a scientific copy, this is the author's vision. And this is not what was in the original! Fantasy!
Others are probably the same fictions and fantasies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you draw a rider and a horse better, I will only be glad. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Banner of Vitebsk powet (1609–1618):
-
Original -
Vector drawing -
The rider is taken from here
.svg)
- This is not a drawing! It is the copying of the wrong horse and rider that led to the falsification of the flags! If you can't draw, don't make fake copies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I draw your attention to the fact that until the 19th century there were no reference images of flags and coats of arms. Description (blazon)) was considered the main one. And each artist painted the flag or coat of arms in his own way, strictly following the description. Therefore, the height of the raised leg of the horse or the length of the sword is not significant. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here you need to understand the difference in the image of a banner based on a picture and an exact copy of a specific picture. I didn't try to make a 100% copy of the drawing. This is only a general idea of the banner of the voivodeship, based on existing images and descriptions. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg (here the second version was uploaded just in order to purposefully erase one of the main national symbols of Lithuania: Double Cross of the Jagiellonians on a blue shield)
The coat of arms or the Jagiellonian Cross has changed throughout the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At first, his lower crossbar was larger, he was golden and he was located on a blue shield. Later, the crossbars became equal in length. Then the color of the shield turns white, and the cross turns yellow or red. Even later, the shield becomes red, and the cross becomes white or yellow (silver or gold). Although the coats of arms of the Polish nobles and armorials often retained the early colors (golden cross on a blue shield).
-
Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg -
From Armorial Lyncenich. 15th century -
Coat of arms on the gravestone of Jagiello. 1435 -
Fragment of the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1416 -
Fragment of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1536 -
From Stemmata Polonica. 16th century -
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555 -
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555 -
From the coat of arms on the gates of Vilnius Gate of Dawn. Late 16th - early 17th centuries -
Coat of arms from the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1764
.svg)
,_which_was_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_in_1416.jpg)
_crop.svg)
_Yellow.svg)
_Red.svg)
Bernhard Karl von Koehne clarifies that during the time of Kasper Niesiecki (the author of the drawing of this coat of arms), the rider's shield was red. At the same time, Bernhard Karl von Koehne claims that the blue shield was the main color for the rider.
Even in the Republic of Lithuania there were different versions of the coat of arms
-
1940 -
1990 -
1991
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- This reply of Лобачев Владимир is a proof of his mass manipulation and purposeful falsification of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. All files he purposefully listed here are inaccurate interpretations by the authors or his own falsifications. The Coat of arms of Lithuania did not change over the years and always had a blue shield with yellow or gray cross. See this gallery:
-
Flag of Vytautas, 1416 -
Flag of Jogaila, 1416 -
Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty, 1440 -
1492 -
1548 -
1555 -
1550-1609 -
1601-1700 -
1764-1795 -
1793 -
Banner with emblem of November Uprising, 1830-1831 -
Since 1918 -
Since 1991
-
Authentic coat of arms (with blue shield) on the wall of Wawel Castle in Krakow -
On the wall of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow -
Coat of arms of John III Sobieski crowning the royal chapel in Gdańsk -
Authentic coat of arms of Augustus II the Strong, 18th century -
Ceremonial (coronation) sword of Stanisław Augustus Poniatowski, who was the last Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland in 1764-1795
,_1440.jpg)
.jpg)
,_1550-1609.jpg)
_with_the_Double_Cross_of_the_Jagiellonian_dynasty,_1601-1700.jpg)
,_1764-1795.jpg)
.jpg)
,_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania,_designed_by_Antanas_%C5%BDmuidzinavi%C4%8Dius.jpg)
-POL,_Krak%C3%B3w.jpg)
- Simply compare 1416 flags with the sword from 1764. Here is a proof how Лобачев Владимир falsified one of the main elements of the coat of arms, but if you check the upload history of these files nominated for deletion you will find much more random falsifications, interpretations that even contradict each other. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Banner of Vilnius Voivodeship
[edit]Banner of Pospolite ruszeniu of the Vilna Voivodeship in 1615.
-1.svg)
-2.svg)
SOURCES
In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodeships on the front side of the banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia" (Дубенецкий Н. Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание – ru).
Original-pl: "Woiewodztwo Wileńskie vżyma Pogoniey z iedney strony na choragwi/ a z drugiey strony słupow/ iest choragiew czerwona/ o dwu koncach / barzo wielka. Sa też w tym Woiewodztwie cżtery powiaty dosyč niemałe: iako Osmanski/ Welkomirski/ Braclawski/ y Lidzki/ z ktorych kazdy ma choragiew swa z osobná/ lecż o iednym koncu tylko." (Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597)
Translation: Vilnius Voivodeship had Pahonia on one side on the banner / and on the other side Columns of Gediminas / red banner / double-ended / very large. There are also four good powiats in this voivodship: such as Oshmyansky / Vilkamirski / Braslawsky / and Lidsky / of which each has its own separate banner / with only one end.
Vilna Voivodeship. ... on one side of the red banner - Pahonia, on the other - Columns or Pillars (Wincenty Sarnecki. Obraz stosunkow zachodzacych miedzy Polska Litwa i Rusia, 1869, P. 77).
Kasper Nesetsky in Roll of arms (1728) describes the coat of arms Pogonya as follows: "In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross." (Niesiecki К. Korona polska przy złotej wolności…. — Lwów, 1728. t.1. — 692 s.). B. Köhne specifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Кёне Б. В. О литовских гербах / About Lithuanian coats of arms, 1847 — С. 224).
A characteristic feature was the designation of the povet or voivodship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. Source: Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok : 2018, P. 496 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Banner of Duchy of Samogitia
[edit]-2.svg)
Two sources about the banner are given in the file description. I can explain in more detail here.
A white cloth with two braids, having on one side the Chase - the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield, and on the other - a rising black bear in a silver (white) collar on a red shield - the coat of arms of the Duchy of Samogitia. (Source).
The Pahonia in the Roll of arms of Kasper Nesetsky (1728) is described as follows (source):
Original-pl: Mąż zbrojay w szyszaku na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym; w prawej ręce miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyżami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.
Translation: In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak (helmet) on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross.
B. Köhne clarifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Source)
In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodships on banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia". (Source)
Alexander Gvagnini reports that the voivodeship usually has the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Pursuit on a red shield on a white banner with two braids.
Original-pl: Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają. (Source 1, Source 2)
Marcin Bielski in his "Polish Chronicle" (1597) and Bartosz Paprocki in his book "Coats of Arms of the Polish Knighthood" (1584) report that on one side of the gonfalon there is a Chase, and on the other side there is a rearing black a bear in a white collar, in a red shield, as a symbol of his land. A similar description of the flag was repeated by Kasper Nesetsky in the 18th century. (Source).
A characteristic feature was the designation of the voivodeship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. (Sourse)
A similar reconstruction, but without indicating the territory and the name of the monarch, is given in two sources: vexillographia.ru and zemaitiuzeme.lt.
_Map.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Elisabeth_Ernst_1983_IMG_4755.jpg){kind=link}
_Map.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Map.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Map.jpg){kind=link}
_Map.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Elisabeth_Ernst_1983_IMG_4755.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Elisabeth_Ernst_1983_IMG_4755.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_von_Elisabeth_Ernst_1983_IMG_4756.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Elisabeth_Ernst_1983_IMG_4761.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_painted_in_1875.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
All known images of banners from 1609-1618 have inscriptions with the name of the monarch and the territory.
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
To the end
[edit]- Keep There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. Also, I don't think the clearly bad attitude of the nominator should be encouraged by deleting the files. It seems like they nominated them for deletion as a way to grind an axe more then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: "there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime" no there is no evidence. These files are a pure imagination/falsification of the same uploader. See example by Микола Василечко above. If anyone will be allowed to create flags about other countries without any historical backing then we will soon turn this valuable project into a comedy. But that is exactly what this user is trying to do - to defeat the purpose of Wikimedia, Wikipedia in presenting actually valuable, educational content. National symbols is not a toy, therefore mass falsifications should not be tolerated. Check how many times he modified each of these files in a few months by drastically changing symbols, figures, texts, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Uumm yeah there is. The drawings are based on real flags. Also, none of the flags I checked are being used on Wikipedia. So your assertion that these somehow defeat the purpose of Wikipedia is obviously hyperbolic nonsense. Same with calling them "mass falsifications" or saying that their existence will turn the project into a comedy. There's a whole category of unofficial flags, Category:Special or fictional flags, that literally no one cares about except for a couple of fringe fear mongers who can't seem to make a real argument for why the flags are an issue. So they just attack the uploaders and play into fake panic about Russian propaganda or whatever. IMO these are no different then fan art.
- @Adamant1: "there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime" no there is no evidence. These files are a pure imagination/falsification of the same uploader. See example by Микола Василечко above. If anyone will be allowed to create flags about other countries without any historical backing then we will soon turn this valuable project into a comedy. But that is exactly what this user is trying to do - to defeat the purpose of Wikimedia, Wikipedia in presenting actually valuable, educational content. National symbols is not a toy, therefore mass falsifications should not be tolerated. Check how many times he modified each of these files in a few months by drastically changing symbols, figures, texts, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- You could do exactly the same fear mongering, war drum beating about an image like Air Rush.jpg and how it's spreading false information about My Little Pony or whatever and that the uploader is anti-My Little Pony troll that should be blocked for mass falsification of My Little Pony characters or whatever. No one gives a crap about fan art being hosted on Commons though. Let along does My Little Pony fan art make Commons look like a comedy. With fictional flags specifically, there was an RfC about it awhile ago and there was zero consensus that they shouldn't be hosted on Commons. Same goes for the "propaganda" argument. Plenty of things that could be considered propaganda are hosted on Commons. Again, no one cares and it's not really an issue.
- Personally, I could give a crap myself if Commons host "propaganda" or not, but there'd have to be a better argument about why such things should be deleted then conspiracy theory laden tirades about Russian trolls or whatever. I think your getting into some extremely questionable territory by going on propaganda witch hunts though. It could set a extremely bad precedent if files were deleted simply because someone thought they were misinformation. Really, Commons is better off as a project if it stays natural on such issues. It's the job of a file host to fight, or take sides in, ideological nationalistic wars. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- What you are saying is that we should ignore one of the main rules of the Wikimedia Commons COM:NOTHOST which clearly states that "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection". I see absolutely no possibilities to use fake flags, coats of arms for an educationally useful purposes. Uploading such files only does harm to the project. Sorry, but I have nothing else to discuss because I respect rules and according to this rule it is not allowed to pollute Wikimedia Commons with trashy files. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection." My bad, I didn't know these were photographs of someone's vacation. Those kinds of blatantly wrong and bad faithed statements are exactly why I think the images should be kept. There's zero reason anyone should side with your opinion if you can't make a reasonable argument and do so without using obvious strawmen. Same goes for the nonsense about the images causing harm and polluting Wikimedia Commons with trash. You can yell such things into the void all you want, but you've provided zero evidence that the files cause any harm or are trash. So why I should care? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- What you are saying is that we should ignore one of the main rules of the Wikimedia Commons COM:NOTHOST which clearly states that "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection". I see absolutely no possibilities to use fake flags, coats of arms for an educationally useful purposes. Uploading such files only does harm to the project. Sorry, but I have nothing else to discuss because I respect rules and according to this rule it is not allowed to pollute Wikimedia Commons with trashy files. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I could give a crap myself if Commons host "propaganda" or not, but there'd have to be a better argument about why such things should be deleted then conspiracy theory laden tirades about Russian trolls or whatever. I think your getting into some extremely questionable territory by going on propaganda witch hunts though. It could set a extremely bad precedent if files were deleted simply because someone thought they were misinformation. Really, Commons is better off as a project if it stays natural on such issues. It's the job of a file host to fight, or take sides in, ideological nationalistic wars. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: I combined the second DR with the first. No need for a new name and I deleted the addition "(continues his dirty work)." Please remember to assume good faith. Ellywa (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin statement here (see above) that these are "fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST" is clearly an authoritative neutral opinion regarding this problem. It should not be allowed to pollute Wikimedia and other Wikipedia projects with trashy files and cause edit warring in every of these projects when somebody tries to remove your fake files. Your decision to keep these files encourages the uploader to cause even more edit warring in other wiki projects and to continue polluting the Wikimedia Commons. Please strongly reconsider your initial decision or another administrator reading this please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics. -- Pofka (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Without wanting to take a position between you, I will only explain the position of Commons and our rules. Commons is a repository for files. On Commons, we do not decide whether an image is correct or not, whether it is fantasy or real. That should be done on the projects. An admin like myself can delete images that are out of scope per COM:SCOPE, or images which are not educational useful. If an image is used on the projects (and there is no problem with the copyright or privacy) we will keep the image. A discussion of correctness of images should take place at the projects, e.g. Polish, Russian etc. Wikipedia, because on these projects the experts work together to obtain consensus. Currently, many images on the list are in use. On Russian WP, there even exists an article about one of the banners, ru:Полоцкая_хоругвь. Why is it not deleted if - as you say - it is a "fake flag"? Finally, if the uploader appears to be a problem-user involved in editwarring op Wikipedia (I did not check this, and I will not, it is not my task), a solution should be found on the Wikipedia, not here. So please solve the problems on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I ask the administrators to take action to restrict me from unfounded accusations and unethical behavior of this user. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics (Pofka)
- It was confirmed here by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin that your are an offender, so there is no need to falsely pretend a victim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly this whole thing just comes off like a bad faith, TENDENTIOUS attempt to get your way by using Commons to skirt around Wikipedia policy. You should really just deal with this on their end instead of trying to use Commons' deletion process as a way to win a disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was confirmed here by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin that your are an offender, so there is no need to falsely pretend a victim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- these are based on real flags in the meantime this isn't true. Bordure is imaginary, same with the text "Sigismundus..." and "Mińska..." they are taken from completely different flags, banners of so called "wojsko powiatowe", as the name itself suggest these were flags of regiments (not lands!) from powiats (not voivodeships!). Emblems and colors are based on rather vogue descriptions. Flags that are based on primary sources shouldn't be allowed, only those based by reconstructions made by professional historians or vexillologist should be allowed. Literally Wikipedia is the only place you can find maps like this. Marcelus (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about the rules for writing Wikipedia articles. But here we have to rely on the rules of Wikimedia Commons. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Negative educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Лобачев Владимир is great-russian propagandist. All this flags are ahistorical fakes. They were not flag of voivodships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commolwealt. But Лобачев Владимир is still uplodading them with many new variants and puts them on Wikidata (like here), so then he can say that "there are in use". Hoa binh (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: I have given below some sources for files reconstruction:
- Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566
- Alexander Guagnini
- Marcin Bielski
- Bartosz Paprocki
- Kasper Niesiecki
- National Museum of Lithuania
- Vytautas the Great War Museum
- Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego : spisy : w X t. / Inst. historii Pol. akad. nauk ; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa, 2003–2022
- Can you name the authors and research papers that dispute the sources cited? Or give a different description and drawings of the banners of the voivodeships? I hope you don't act like in the Polish Wikipedia, where they simply asked the administrator to remove the page with my arguments. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page didn't have any value, and you know it. You are creating talk pages with gallery of multiple of yours graphics, without any commentary or with commentary from Google Translator, which doesn't have any sense. Why, for what? No one knows. Hoa binh (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand correctly that you do not have counter-arguments based on scientific sources? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source where we can find such a flag of let's say Vilnius voivodeship? So far you are giving primary sources that don't even have images of the flags Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page didn't have any value, and you know it. You are creating talk pages with gallery of multiple of yours graphics, without any commentary or with commentary from Google Translator, which doesn't have any sense. Why, for what? No one knows. Hoa binh (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: I have given below some sources for files reconstruction:
- Your example from Wikidata is based on an actual flag design. Sure, it's not a 1/1 recreation of the original design, but it's not ahistorical fake propaganda by any means either. There's nothing with creating an SVG image of a flag when the original is low quality or otherwise hard to make out. The amount of personal attacks the uploader has received for doing so is rather extremely ridiculous. It would be a BS standard if no one could make a drawing of a flag without being accused of being a Russian propaganda peddler or whatever. Obviously there should be actual evidence to that being the cases besides just "Their spreading propaganda by recreating a flag as an SVG file." Especially if it's going to be used as a justification for deleting the images. Seriously, the whole thing is completely absurd. I could make a much better argument that this whole thing is being fueled by bad faithed Russiaphobia. Viciously attacking someone simply because they are Russian and trying to get their files deleted for the same reason has to at least go against https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-discrimination policy if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete You know, it's absolutely true that this file has several uploaded versions different from each other. And at all times, the description of the file has stayed the same. No source has been brought to justify each of these different versions. It seems to truly be fictitious fabrications. Fictitious flags are allowed in Commons as far as I know, but if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. At least some of them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. Shouldn't that be Wikipedia's thing to do deal with? Like would we seriously delete an image just because "So and So Rando Vexillology Blog" is miss-using it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, another option would be going through 30 Wikipedia projects and starting discussions in each one of them to remove the images this user is adding. But understandably that's not the most desirable thing to do for anyone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the material was collected, more and more nuances became clear. Therefore, changes were made. For example, it became clear that banners changed over time. Therefore, I decided that it is necessary to specifically indicate in what period of time any image existed. Most of all, including visual material, was for the period of the Russian-Polish war of 1609-1618. When enough material had accumulated, the last edits were made and articles were created indicating all sources: ru:Виленская хоругвь, ru:Витебская хоругвь, ru:Жемайтская хоругвь, ru:Киевская хоругвь, ru:Новогрудская хоругвь, ru:Полоцкая хоругвь, ru:Трокская хоругвь. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is one of these:
- 1. You hadn't read the source fully but still uploaded a work based on it, and as you later continued reading it you realized your work was inaccurate and had to correct it. Several times, and starting from November 2021 to July 2022.
- 2. You found new information with other sources, but did not add them into the file or in the edit summaries when uploading the new versions. Therefore, the source in the description that you gave and is still there, "General view of the flag as described by Kasper Nesetsky", is wrong and outdated and only valid for the first version or versions.
- Neither favors your credibility as an editor here in this case. Although I might have understood it wrongly. Correct me if such is the case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's figure out the banners in more detail. Take, for example, the Trokai Voivodeship, whose banner of 1615 has survived, although not in full.
- We know a description of the banner of 1566 from Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566), another description of 1578 (Alexander Guagnini), and other image of banners of two Lithuanian museums (National Museum of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great War Museum).
- Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566: the banner of the voivodeship is blue, the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is located in a white shield.
- There are several old heraldic sources of 16-18 centuries, where similar descriptions of the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are given, several is known: Marcin Bielski (Kronika polska, 1597), Alexander Guagnini (Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, 1578), Bartosz Paprocki (Gniazdo cnoty, 1578), Kasper Niesiecki (Korona Polska, 1738).
- Kasper Niesiecki is based on a description of the work of previous authors. The most detailed description of the banner of the Trok Voivodeship is given by Alexander Guagnini 1578: The banner was a two-sided rectangular panel of azure fabric of thirty-five ells with with two braids. The front side depicted the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield. All versions (all new file versions) are fully consistent with this description. But the banners continued to change.
- National Museum of Lithuania has the preserved part of the banner. Based on the preserved part and description of the heraldic literature of the 16-18 centuries Vytautas the Great War Museum made reconsotation.
- In order for the banners of all voivodeships of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to be comparable (on the same date), they are all now made in the reconstructed form of 1615 (Polish–Muscovite War (1609-1618)).
- We cannot say that one of the heraldists of the past was wrong, since this is not in scientific sources. To say that the previous versions did not match the descriptions of heraldists is also impossible.
- If there is a desire, you can study modern Polish studies in 10 volumes - Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa (Województwo Trockie XIV-XVIII wiek, V. 2). -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's rather hyperbolic. I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 Wikipedia projects. Maybe four or five at the most, but it's not like there isn't just as many or more deletion requests and AN complaints about this already. Personally, if it were me I'd just deal with it on Wikipedia's end since it's not like someone can't just do an un-deletion request if this turns out to be nonsense or the files can't alternatively be uploaded to Wikipedia. More so because there's already multiple administrators who are saying they won't delete the images if they are still being used on Wikipedia. There's no way your going to be able to edit war the files off the various projects so they can be deleted without it eventually turning into an RfC or ANI complaint. Not to mention this is an ongoing, recurring problem anyway. I'm sure you'd agree that going through this same nonsense every time someone uploads an image of a flag isn't a functional way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's several ways to do it. We could at least get from this deletion request to mark certain files as inaccurate or fictitious. That way nobody in those Wikipedias could defend the use of these files as they would have these tags. This would save several discussions and make editors more prone to your suggestion of going throughout several Wikipedias as there'd be less work to do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. Although I think it also needs to be dealt with on Wikipedia's side at some point, but at least that would settle things on Commons end in the meantime. I would also suggest doing an RfC about fictional flags to finally put the issue to rest on Commons' side, but I think there was one recently that people are already ignoring. So I'm not going to waste my time on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's several ways to do it. We could at least get from this deletion request to mark certain files as inaccurate or fictitious. That way nobody in those Wikipedias could defend the use of these files as they would have these tags. This would save several discussions and make editors more prone to your suggestion of going throughout several Wikipedias as there'd be less work to do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the material was collected, more and more nuances became clear. Therefore, changes were made. For example, it became clear that banners changed over time. Therefore, I decided that it is necessary to specifically indicate in what period of time any image existed. Most of all, including visual material, was for the period of the Russian-Polish war of 1609-1618. When enough material had accumulated, the last edits were made and articles were created indicating all sources: ru:Виленская хоругвь, ru:Витебская хоругвь, ru:Жемайтская хоругвь, ru:Киевская хоругвь, ru:Новогрудская хоругвь, ru:Полоцкая хоругвь, ru:Трокская хоругвь. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, another option would be going through 30 Wikipedia projects and starting discussions in each one of them to remove the images this user is adding. But understandably that's not the most desirable thing to do for anyone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. Shouldn't that be Wikipedia's thing to do deal with? Like would we seriously delete an image just because "So and So Rando Vexillology Blog" is miss-using it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure about how hoaxes are handled on Commons, but I recognize many trustworthy editors from Polish Wikipedia in that deletion discussion. It seems extremely likely to me that this images are, in fact, mislabelled to the point of being hoaxes or outright fabrications Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Adamant1, There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a zero evidence they are based on actual flags. If they are imaginery they should be renamed and moved to proper categories Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Marcelus There's images of real flags that the PNGs were based on all over this deletion request. Just to give one example of the many that have been provided, File:Flag of Grodno powet (1413-1795).svg is obviously based on File:Chorągiew grodzieńska.JPG. Anyone can look at Лобачев Владимир's flags and see which original flags they are derivatives of. Really, claiming that his drawings of the flags are completely made up and/or otherwise fictional is just bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heraldic sources and depictions in the two museums are listed above.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир I am asking for the source of for example Vilnius voivodeship flag. And no, a primary historical source isn't enough (either way none of the sources mention bordure or any text on the flag), I need actual vexylology book that clearly says that this flag looked exactly that. Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- See Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597, Niesiecki K. Herbarz Polski. Tom 1, 1839 — S. 134; Łopatecki K. Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok 2018, P. 496;
- Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can not read this things, you are still puting here titles of works in polish, but you can't read them and understand. You are using translator while you are writing in Polish Wikipedia, and what you are writing, don't have any sense in Polish ("Jaki jest winowajca wizerunków historycznych herbów?" - no sense, this is not polish language). You don't know polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian... But you are want to write polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian history by your own. In russian, of course. Hoa binh (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Niesiecki and Boniecki are primary sources. I was asking about the secondary source which that provides exact same reproduction as yours. The fact that you refer to Łopatecki's book shows that you do not know the Polish language and do not know what you are talking about. It's a book on the "pospolite ruszenie" and it talks about the flags used by troops called up from the powiats. There is nothing there about what the banners of the voivodeships were like. A voivodeship ensign is not the same as a powiats troop ensign, are you able to understand that? Voivodeship flags were kept in the treasury and only used for special occasions - rulers' funerals, coronations etc.Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир I am asking for the source of for example Vilnius voivodeship flag. And no, a primary historical source isn't enough (either way none of the sources mention bordure or any text on the flag), I need actual vexylology book that clearly says that this flag looked exactly that. Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The flags that became the model for these reproductions are not voivodeship flags, but the flags of the troops of the so-called 'powiat troops'. These were troops called up by local sejmiks to defend a territory or for a war expedition when the nobles themselves had little desire to fight or found themselves too weak. The first such troops in the Grand Duchy were appointed for Sigismund III's Moscow expedition, which is why his name and titulature are there. As for what the voivodeship banners really looked like, two of them have reached our times: the Bełz and Poznań banners. As we can see, these are simply the coats of arms of these provinces without any additions. Thank you and I would ask you not to publish the products of your own imaginationMarcelus (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about the banners of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. And we are discussing the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They are not necessarily the same. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to me how much leeway people on the delete side give each other to be wrong things. But then their more then willing to fly off the handle about nationalist propaganda spreading or whatever if someone on the keep side so much as gets a fact even slightly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived, so these are closest to the orginals Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived Doesn't that just bolster the idea that this doesn't really matter since there isn't a 100% historically accurate way to draw the banners in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is false. Some authentic banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania survived (see: 1, 2) and they differ in colors, details. We cannot simply create random images of the non-surviving banners without any historical backing because such creations by Commons users are simply worthless and violates the COM:NOTHOST rule as they have no educational purpose. By tolerating such an absurd we will come to a point when somebody will be creating medieval flags with Mickey Mouse. -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived Doesn't that just bolster the idea that this doesn't really matter since there isn't a 100% historically accurate way to draw the banners in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived, so these are closest to the orginals Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to me how much leeway people on the delete side give each other to be wrong things. But then their more then willing to fly off the handle about nationalist propaganda spreading or whatever if someone on the keep side so much as gets a fact even slightly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2) and in the third (see: 3) he described it as "Principality of Lithuania and Russia" (use translator for this one). We all know that Russia is a state which counts its history only since the second half of the 16th century (see: Tsardom of Russia) and Muscovy (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to Ruthenia (present-day Belarus and Ukraine). Moreover, he removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3, as well as 4, 5, 6), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of propaganda troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. His actions have clear bad faith aims and they are not random mistakes. There is another a bit similar nomination (see: HERE) in which he also aggressively try to distort the Lithuanian symbols by falsely presenting a Belarusian city coat of arms as the Coat of arms of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- When arguments come to an end - attacks on the user begin. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This image does not bother anyone--Mar545 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. See my previous decision. Since then (July 2022) no other admin bothered to look at this deletion request. Again - at least one of these images, File:Banner of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg is used on several projects. --Ellywa (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
-1.svg){kind=link}
Fake Coat of arms. The modern coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania (1991) cannot be used in the coat of arms of the voivodeship of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1513–1795). The author inserts this image into Wikipedia articles as a real coat of arms and misleads users (1, 2, 3). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. Please take a look at Medival coat of arms across wikipedia. Back then, there was no such thing as standardisation. The definition of the coa of Podlachia is "silver eagle and Pagonhia (knight on the horse), on the red background". Again, there's no standarization. If you find list of other coats of that Voivodeship, you will find tones of different shapes of those charges in the coa. This is common practice to simply take existing charges and use them to create a new one. Want more examples. Look at some other coats used across Wikipedia. For example have you seen coats of the Duchy of Masovia and Duchy of Warsaw (Middle Ages)? That's just modified coats of arms of modern Masovian Voivodeship and Warsaw West County with changed colours. Many other SVG recreations of the medival Voivodeship coats? Again, they are just coats of the modern voivodeships with changed colors. Additionally, for your information. Neither of coats u used instead, are "real" either. This File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Подляшское.svg comes from 19th century book, and isn't even accurate in comparison to any other depiction of the coat of arms, especially those that actually were used during the existence of the voivodeship (the coa of the voivodeship was always depicted as having one joined shield in the shape simlar to that on modern coa of Poland, not 2 separate shield). This was just artist's (wrong) intepratetion of how it looked back then. And this File:POL województwo podlaskie IRP COA.svg that you used in Podlachia is even worse. Firstly, have you seen that eagle made of 3D shapes? Contrasting to 2D cartoonish horse, that basically looks lik coa of Lithaunia with a little changed design? Middle Ages didn't work like our current world. There was no standarised design, and most of the time, how coa looked, was left completely to the artists, who was told only a basic idea how it shood look ("paint a white eagle on red background"). Most of coa of Voivodeship that are used on Wikipedia right now, comes from this 19th century book, and are as much of an artistic interpretation as any other u can find. But, to go on compromise, I can propose either using other Pagonhia charge (such as the one from current Podlaskie Voivodeship), or even just replacing the charges with the ones from those 19 century illustrations. Also, even when the file is "incorrect" in your opinion, I don't think that you have right to demand its deletion, looking at how you can find fictionlalised and fanmade flags, and coa, etc, all over Commons. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1. The main claim is that there could not be an image of the modern coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania on the coat of arms of the voivodship of the 17th-18th centuries. Given the dispute between Lithuania and Belarus over the possession of the rights to the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, this is doubly important. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2. For historical formations, it is desirable to use historical coats of arms. Modern interpretations sometimes differ from the actual old coats of arms. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The file is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Лобачев Владимир: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. Or you could rename the image to “reconstruction” or “interpretation” of the original. --Ellywa (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
