Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/09/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_человека.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
voyeur Chinese:偷窺 202.75.83.59 (talk) |01:11, 20 September 2022
Keep In use, and what in the world does that remark mean? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Same photo as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Masterpiece_Swimming_Pool_2011.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.75.83.59 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, not a duplicate. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Not a dupe. --Achim55 (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Requested by the author and rightful copyright owner (me). I would like to delete this file and its history and then reupload it on an anonymous user which does not contain my real life name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 21:26, 19 September 2022
- Weak keep
, in use. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 
Delete Not in use, and requested deleted by the copyright owner. 12u (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @12u: It was in use when I wrote that. It has been here for 42 days, well beyond the COM:CSD#G7 limit of 7 days. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --A.Savin 12:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
not good file JasonRay777 (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
_%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0.jpg){kind=link}
_%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
parce que je n'ai fait aucune demande pour cette page. 70.82.124.128 14:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. This sculpture is here only temporarely (according to the description), so not within FOP Netherlands. JopkeB (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Vera (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
{{speedydelete|1=F3.Video Screenshot. Capture from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=uyLxBG1evdg&ab_channel=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%94%B7%E3%81%8C%E6%8E%88%E6%A5%AD%E3%82%92%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E3%81%BF%E3%81%9F]7:44}} あずきごはん (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Source video is CC. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts I meant to leave this out of my mass-tagging of sophisticated logos but it looks like I forgot to uncheck the box. I think the license can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}} and the image can be kept on Commons. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Nothing implies that the image has been published under an open licence, which makes it unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons. Nachtbold (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation. --Polarlys (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
keine Panoramafreiheit in Russland Haster2 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --A.Savin 00:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MathingDivby (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files. Possibly out of project scope. Some files may be in scope, and are somehow categorized. Possible that if we delete some files, then we destroy some structure/system related to these user's files. Possible is to delete all (maybe except two most informative diagrams) to lose loose ends
Estopedist1 (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Unprofessional request by me. Starting a new DR to include all files--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MathingDivby (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files. Possibly out of project scope. Some files may be in scope, and are somehow categorized. Possible that if we delete some files, then we destroy some structure/system related to these user's files. Possible is to delete all (maybe except two most informative diagrams, i.e. File:DiagNumhalfSixth1.jpg and File:DiagNumhalfSixth.jpg) to lose loose ends
- File:DiagNumPix16.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix15.jpg
- File:InSummary.jpg
- File:NumVarEqualNumNum1.jpg
- File:DiagNumhalfSixth1.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix131.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix91.jpg
- File:DiagNumcubicYARD1.jpg
- File:NumVarEqualNumNum.jpg
- File:DiagNumRod10Info.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix13.png
- File:DiagNumPix10.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix9.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix8.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix7.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix6.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix5.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix4.jpg
- File:DiagNumPix3.jpg
- File:DiagNumMPHtoFPS.jpg
- File:DiagNumcubicYARD.png
- File:DiagNumhalfSixth.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmed.papon.35 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that are outside the scope of this project.
- File:Ahmed papon.jpg
- File:Ahmed Papon.69.jpg
- File:Ahmed.papon.35.jpg
- File:AHMED PAPON.jpg
- File:Ahmed Papon (kabbo).jpg
- File:Ahmed Papon 35.jpg
- File:Ahmed Papon.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Herby talk thyme 10:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
Achim55 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - entirely for self-promotion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Nonsens, only own name, not useful. XRay 💬 13:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a YouTube thumbnail (see left corner). Possible copyvio Trade (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Ellin Beltz at 18:59, 20 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 01:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
unused logo. Google search doesn't help. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope Trade (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused file. Personal imagination. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
out of project scope 5.165.140.192 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit existiert in der Elfenbeinküste nicht. Bauwerk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Entsprechend Urheberechtsverletzung. Genehmigung der dargestellten Person existiert nicht. Entsprechend auch Verletzung des Persönlichkeitsrechts 95.90.243.48 09:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Personality rights irrelevant as person hardly visible or identifiable (could be cropped way, anyway). Wrt to architectural copyright for the cathedral, de minimis might be applicable (resp. should be discussed) in this case. However, cropping of the cathedral would clearly be a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --A.Savin 09:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Genehmigung der dargestellten Personen existiert nicht. Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten der dargestellten Personen. 95.90.243.48 09:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --A.Savin 09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio - old and outdated basemap, but still protected by copyright for some more decades Enyavar (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Facebook image, unlikely Own work Ankry (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Facebook image, unlikely Own work Ankry (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio d'une photo du site https://www.mennecy.fr/la-mairie-et-ses-services/le-conseil-municipal/adjoints-et-conseillers-municipaux/ et publication d'une photo prise par Pierre Rousseau (photographe officiel de la ville de Mennecy) sans mention de son autorisation pour la publication ici. Poudou99 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio d'une photo du site https://www.mennecy.fr/la-mairie-et-ses-services/le-conseil-municipal/adjoints-et-conseillers-municipaux/ et publication d'une photo prise par Pierre Rousseau (photographe officiel de la ville de Mennecy) sans mention de son autorisation pour la publication ici. Poudou99 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Photography came from unknown source origins 202.75.83.59 (talk)
If you find the location where you takes this photo, keep it. Otherwise, delete
- Wait a second: Are you nominating a panorama in wide use with coordinates given because you don't know where the photograph was taken, or are you accusing the uploader of not taking the photo? Why? This is a user with well over 2,500 uploads. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- He need to provide the location source of this photo, He said near Kowloon Park, but I can’t find the view in whole Kowloon Park area, I can’t take this photo there 202.75.83.59 07:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete User said One Peking Road,but One Peking Road isn’t open for pubic -- Hmtvie
- User:Baycrest provided geocoordinates. Clicking them produces this camera location, which is closer to Haiphong Road than Peking Road. But in any event, you need to provide a citation to a law if you are claiming this is somehow an illegal view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unfair for other users in Wikipedia 202.75.83.59 (talk)
- Because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why he can take this photo in One Peking Road 202.75.83.59
- If he got special permission, out of spite, you want to delete it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Speedy Delete 202.75.83.59
- Absurd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. (Apparent disruptive deletion request. Both nominator and only delete voter both since blocked. Photo by longtime contributor; no indication they are nor the photographer; photo in wide use, if there is slight inaccuracy in geo location coordinates that is not a reason to delete.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Low quality 2A01:B747:412:344:157A:81F5:1EE1:159B 03:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep 1,600x1,200 resolution image is not too bad.--A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep AXXXXK (Cheng123xx) sock continue disruptive editing.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
poor quality 202.75.86.157 07:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, bad-faith DR by Abcdefghixx-SP speedy-kept. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR UK A1Cafel (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR UK A1Cafel (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
photo delibrately has billboard watermark cropped out from the original. 100cellsman 04:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete Source website quoted clearly states copyright: "© 2022 BRITNEY PIX" Crep1711 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
copyvio from an audio recording 100cellsman 04:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No indication of stated free licence or permission on Twitter source quoted. Virtually certain to be copyright design as per COM:ALBUM. Crep1711 (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
the source provided says "Todos os direitos reservados." - "All rights reserved" rubin16 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Archive org cache shows it was clearly marked copyrighted before this was copied here. (Too bad this wasn't noticed earlier; was in use in multiple projects). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Privacy Photo is forcusing on the rooms from Cordis Hotel
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 04.jpg
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 03.jpg
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 02.jpg
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 05.jpg
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 08.jpg
- File:HK MK 旺角 Mong Kok Langham Place Office Tower view Cordis Hotel May 2022 Px3 10.jpg
Question It's illegal to take photos of hotels in Hong Kong? None of these photos are closeups of rooms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- yes, illegal 202.75.86.158 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Some of them are close -- Hmtvie
- Speedy delete:All, he is expectly use the rooms in Cordis Hotel as target
- Speedy delete:All, candid: photos need report to HK police and lawyer
- Keep all photos nominated by this IP and their other IP address. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: that proofs nothing — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.75.83.59 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Disruptive dubious nomination by since blocked nominator. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
unused, no description. Per watermark, possibly copyrighted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, CV. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
File:HK Wan Chai North 中環廣場 Central Plaza 46th floor Sky Lobby view October 2018 SSG 16 Eastern District.jpg
[edit]
Unclear 11:05, 20 September 2022|Hmtvie
- Weak Keep: not very sharp, but still usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo is expected same in Checkerboard Hill but he edit the photo first before upload Hmtvie (talk)11:20, 20 September 2022
Comment I don't understand. Could you please try to explain the problem another way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete OK Ossewa (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; uploader concurs with deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Photography came from unknown source origins
If you find the location where you takes this photo, keep it. Otherwise, delete 12:38, 20 September 2022|Hmtvie
- Comment In use. Explain the problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know the location where he takes this photo -- Hmtvie
- And that's an issue because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep To be unambiguous, keep: it's in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unkown location — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.75.86.158 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Verletzung Datenschütz aka Persönlichkeitsrechte, Zuordnung KFZ-Kennzeichen und Wohnplatz, keine Zustimmung vorliegend Haster2 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Blurring might be an option. --Leyo 21:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Potential problem fixed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Verletzung Datenschütz aka Persönlichkeitsrechte, Zuordnung KFZ-Kennzeichen und Wohnplatz, keine Zustimmung vorliegend Haster2 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Though that's more of a courtesy-issue, car numbers could easily be blanked out, if its worth the effort. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep and deletion of 1st version. --Achim55 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: potential problem resolved per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo unclear 13:08, 20 September 2022|Hmtvie
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Architect Pierre Fakhoury still alive (b. 1943). --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Not own work, many of it in Internet. Kareyac (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
file in copyviol; not under a free licence, not under a treshold of originality etc. — danyele 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I believe this image could be retained due to it being from a camera with no human input. However I have never changed a flickr license like that before and seek a second opinion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Flickr feed is "Official Flickr for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park Service and the nation's largest urban national park" so PD-US-Gov would seem to apply, regardless of automatic camera status. License tag adjusted accordingly. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Metadata indicates this is a Facebook/Instagram download. What is the source? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; yoinked from facebook with false claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
If my memory serves right, this is the same photo as the deleted one at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uniontown PA.jpg. Once used in past versions of w:en:Pennsylvania. Too small resolution which suggests it is unlikely authored by the uploader, but by a different photographer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Your memory is correct. Also DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Clearly a modified (flipped and background replaced) version of a commercial image by Tracy Wright Corvo for the Honolulu Civil Beat [1] [2] Star Garnet (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
watermark indicating copyright by "al iraqia university" throws heavy doubt on claim of "own work". Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
no evidence of a free license at source Strakhov (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I am the owner of this image and I no longer want it to appear on Wikimedia. Eyeintheair (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Because? The least you can do when requesting courtesy deletions of usable, non-personal files you uploaded 8 years ago is to try to persuade an admin by giving a reason for deletion. In the absence of any good reason, I would oppose deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, CC licenses are irrevocable. --Strakhov (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I am the owner of this image and I no longer want it to appear on Wikimedia. Eyeintheair (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Because? The least you can do when requesting courtesy deletions of usable, non-personal files you uploaded almost a year ago is to try to persuade an admin by giving a reason for deletion. In the absence of any good reason, I would oppose deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I am the owner of this image and I no longer want it to appear on Wikimedia. Eyeintheair (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Because? The least you can do when requesting courtesy deletions of usable, non-personal files you uploaded 8 years ago is to try to persuade an admin by giving a reason for deletion. In the absence of any good reason, I would oppose deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I am the owner of this image and I no longer want it to appear on Wikimedia. Eyeintheair (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Because? The least you can do when requesting courtesy deletions of usable, non-personal files you uploaded 3 years ago is to try to persuade an admin by giving a reason for deletion. In the absence of any good reason, I would oppose deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Copyright still exists for a colonial bridge that was according to the title built some 112 years ago? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Côte d'Ivoire has a copyright duration of 70 years after the death of the author". Die Frage ist, wann der Architekt starb. 42 Jahre nach dem Bau kann sein, muss aber nicht. Solange das unklar ist, muss man von einer Urheberrechtsverletzung ausgehen. Haster2 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks; I understand the issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. EIn Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Ikan and Túrelio. Built in 1910 and still copyrighted? C'mon man... --A.Savin 09:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali und Senegal. Urheberrechtsverletzung. Weiterhin Verletzung der Persönlichkeitsrechte der dargestellten Personen ohne Zustimmung. 95.90.243.48 09:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. So machen deinen Beiträge wirklich keinen Sinn und sind nicht hilfreich. Haster2 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Haster2, ich schlage vor, dass du dich mit arroganten Äußerungen wie Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. etwas zurückhältst. Erstens wird und wurde nicht jedes Bauwerk von einem Architekten entworfen (ich war in den 80er Jahren oft in Jugoslawien, du glaubst nicht, wie viele Häuser damals ohne Architekt und Bauingenieur gebaut wurden), und zweitens besteht sehr wohl ein Unterschied hinsichtlich der Schöpfungshöhe zwischen z. B. der Sagrada Família und einer Lagerhalle, die aus standardisierten, konfektionierten Betonfertigteilen errichtet wurde. --Achim55 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. So machen deinen Beiträge wirklich keinen Sinn und sind nicht hilfreich. Haster2 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Túrelio. --A.Savin 09:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Achim55 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rede keinen Unsinn. Selbst eine Lagerhalle und ein selbst errichtetes Haus ohne Architekten hat eine Schöpfungshöhe und unterliegt den Urheberrecht. Und die Bitte, nur mitzureden, wenn man weiß, wovon man spricht, hat nichts mit Arroganz zu tun. Dergleichen ist elementar wichtig. Du beispielsweise hast offensichtlich keine Ahnung von Urheberrecht, meinst dich dennoch zu äußern. Das Ergebnis ist ein klarer Fall von Dunning-Kruger-Effekt. Haster2 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- For this (and other issues on COM:ANU, I have blocked you for 1 week. Please don't say I didn't warn you before. Regards --A.Savin 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rede keinen Unsinn. Selbst eine Lagerhalle und ein selbst errichtetes Haus ohne Architekten hat eine Schöpfungshöhe und unterliegt den Urheberrecht. Und die Bitte, nur mitzureden, wenn man weiß, wovon man spricht, hat nichts mit Arroganz zu tun. Dergleichen ist elementar wichtig. Du beispielsweise hast offensichtlich keine Ahnung von Urheberrecht, meinst dich dennoch zu äußern. Das Ergebnis ist ein klarer Fall von Dunning-Kruger-Effekt. Haster2 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Es ist völlig egal, ob die Brücke Schöpfungshöhe hat oder nicht. Auf dem Foto ist nur eine ganz gewöhnliche Straße zu sehen, die zufällig über eine Brücke führt. --Stepro (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Stepro, ein Bauwerk ist von allen sichtbaren Seiten urheberrechtlich geschützt. Auch von oben, auch in der Draufsicht. Die Brücke wurde mit Straße, eben als Straßenbrücke, entworfen. 80.187.117.42 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Gregor, ich habe mir erlaubt, deine IP zu sperren. Nicht wegen deiner merkwürdigen Ansichten, sondern weil wir Sperrumgehungen nicht leiden können. --Achim55 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MANDADI LUCKY (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images are taken from newspapers, screenshots of TV channels, Quora and Sakshi news article and all of them qualify for speedy deletion under F1
- File:Bhavanam Venkatarami Reddy.jpg
- File:K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy.jpg
- File:T. Anjaiah.jpg
- File:TTD Rathotsavam.jpg
- File:Andhra Mahabharatham.jpg
- File:Vikuntam.jpg
- File:TTD Tirumala.jpg
- File:TTD Dwaja avarohanam.jpg
- File:TTD Chakra snanam.jpg
- File:TTD Aswa Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Chandraprabha Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Suryaprabha Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD. Gaja Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Gaja Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Hanumantha Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Garuda Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Mohini Avatharam & Krishna Avatharam.jpg
- File:TTD Sarvabupala Vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Mutyala pandiri vahanam.jpg
- File:TTD Simha Vahanam.jpg
- File:Simha Vahanam.jpg
- File:Dwajarohamam.jpg
- File:N T R.jpg
- File:Jalagam Vengala Rao.jpg
- File:Marri Chenna Reddy.jpg
- File:Telangana seal.jpg
- File:Telugu Talli vigraham.jpg
- File:Telugu Talli full picture.jpg
- File:Krishnadevaraya zilla.jpg
- File:Anantapuram zilla.jpg
- File:Potti Sriramulu zilla.jpg
- File:Prakasam zilla.jpg
- File:Duggirala Bhavapuri zilla.jpg
- File:Palnadu zilla.jpg
- File:Gunturu zilla.jpg
- File:Annagari zilla.jpg
- File:Krishna zilla.jpg
- File:Eluru zilla.jpg
- File:West Godavari.jpg
- File:East Godavari.jpg
- File:Konaseema zilla.jpg
- File:Kakinada zilla.jpg
- File:Anakapalli zilla.jpg
- File:Visakhapatnam zilla.jpg
- File:Alluri zilla.jpg
- File:Manyam zilla.jpg
- File:Srikakulam zilla.jpg
- File:N.Kiran kumar redyy.jpg
- File:United Andhra seal.jpg
-- DaxServer (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence of a free license at source. --Strakhov (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alanshawn001444 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Used for self promo on en.wp and wikidata.
- File:Alan Shawn - " LOVE " covert art.pdf
- File:Alan Shawn - " The Light " covert art.png
- File:Alan Shawn - "dragon eyes" covert art.png
- File:Alan Shawn sings for the world.png
- File:Alan Shawn - "NO ONE" covert art.png
- File:Alan Shawn during the show.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn - "I WILL NEVER RUNAWAY" covert art.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn "FEEL BETTER" covert art.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's performing on live.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's beginning.jpg
- File:Alan shawn.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's performing on his live concert.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's performing live.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's performing.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's first concert.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's new concert is on the way... it's the beggining.jpg
- File:ALAN SHAWN.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn's voice.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn's performing images.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn's performing with guitar.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn performs with his guitar.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn performs with his guitar . he is incredible.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn live with mic.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn live.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn performs with his guitar on live.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter green back.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter street view.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter cover.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter- street.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter - live.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter cover sea.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter live 2.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter street.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter street 2.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter live.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter interview.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer-songwriter.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer cover.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer sea 2.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer sea 1.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn - wiki pic.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn cover.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn singer.jpg
- File:Alan shawn.png
- File:Alan Shawn - help me feel again cover.jpg
- File:Alan shawn.pdf
- File:Alan shawn energy.pdf
- File:Alan Shawn.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The music cover artwork will be copyrighted too Herby talk thyme 14:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alanshawn001444 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, created for advertising.
- File:Alan shawn the last one 1.jpg
- File:Alan shawn backlight.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's world.jpg
- File:Alan shawn savior group music.jpg
- File:Alan shawn performance.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's looking.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singing with the people.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's life style.jpg
- File:Alan shawn voice of the truth.jpg
- File:Alan shawn's guitar.jpg
- File:Alan shawn laughs.jpg
- File:Alan shawn new one.jpg
- File:Alan shawn 3.jpg
- File:Alan shawn savior logo.jpg
- File:Alan shawn savior.jpg
- File:Alan shawn Martin guitars.jpg
- File:Alan Shawn savior.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singing with people.jpg
- File:Alan shawn laughing.jpg
- File:Alan shawn singer.jpg
- File:Alan shawn fender.jpg
- File:Alan shawn solo.jpg
— Afeef (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It does appear to be nothing more than cross-wiki advertising/self-promotion. Marbletan (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prensaslimdee (talk · contribs)
[edit]These would appear to be personal self promotional images. There does not appear to be any usage on other project which suggests that they are outside our scope.
- File:PlayBoy.jpg
- File:Slim Dee con Anita Sibona.jpg
- File:Collage Slim Dee.jpg
- File:Slim Dee Profile.jpg
- File:Slim Dee at Cerutti.jpg
- File:Slim Dee Air Jordan.jpg
- File:Slim Dee at Jordan Campaign - PSG.jpg
- File:Slim Dee en Barcelona.jpg
- File:SLIM DEE TRAP ARGENTINO.jpg
- File:Slim Dee At Video Record.jpg
- File:Slim Dee by Nike.jpg
- File:Slim Dee at We Color Fes 2018.jpg
- File:Slim Dee en manifestación.jpg
- File:Slim Dee rap.jpg
- File:Slim Dee Trap.jpg
- File:Slim Dee chill at Camerino.jpg
- File:Kinder Malo + Slim Dee at Cordoba Argentina.jpg
- File:Slim Dee y La Mona Jimenez CMJ en La Cueva.jpg
- File:Slim Dee at Studio Theater Live Show.jpg
- File:We Colors Festival Slim Dee Jay Carreras.jpg
- File:Slimdee at Flexy festival.jpg
- File:Slim Dee trap.jpg
Herby talk thyme 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amchiche Avarkan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Montages of static images including copyrighted ones like the Drake meme, with soundtracks unlikely to be the work of a single person.
- File:Kabyle 33.webm
- File:Kabyle 22.webm
- File:Kabyle 11.webm
- File:Ahmed avarkan kabyle.webm
- File:Kabyle 3.webm
- File:Kabyle 2.webm
- File:Kabyle 1.webm
- File:Kabyle.webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan 3.webm
- File:Vive La Kabylie Libre et indépendante.webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan 2.webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan 1.webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan.webm
Lord Belbury (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amchiche Avarkan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Further videos of found images (eg. https://www.facebook.com/groups/tunepal/posts/2264316487041950/) set to music unlikely to be the uploader's own work.
- File:Amchiche Avarkan Vive le Mak Vive la Kabylie ⵣ.webm
- File:Vive La Kabylie Libre et indépendante ⵣ.webm
- File:Kabyle Kabylie ⵣ.webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan ⵣ.webm
- File:Kabyle ⵣ.webm
- File:Kabyle (2).webm
- File:Kabyle (1).webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan (2).webm
- File:Amchiche Avarkan kabyle (1).webm
- File:Kabyle aḥarki.webm
Lord Belbury (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Credited to Lukas Filipec in the EXIF data. These two photos are taken from a different camera from the uploader’s other photos and the metadata name doesn’t match the uploader name.
Ytoyoda (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The user did not prove that he is Lukas Filipec (copyright holder in EXIF data). Permission via OTRS should be provided.
- File:Daniel Kurovský.jpg
- File:Aron Chmielewski - dres.jpg
- File:Libor Hudáček - dres.jpg
- File:Erik Hrňa - dres.jpg
- File:Patrik Hrehorčák.jpg
- File:Vladimír Dravecký - dres.jpg
- File:Marko Dano.jpg
- File:Jan Zahradnicek.jpg
- File:Jan Jaromersky.jpg
- File:HCODavidMusil.jpg
- File:HCOJakubMatyáš.jpg
- File:HCOMartinMarinčin.jpg
- File:HCOTomášKundrátek.jpg
- File:HCOMilanDoudera.jpg
- File:HCOMarianAdámek.jpg
- File:HCOKacetlOndřej.jpg
- File:HCOMazanecMarek.jpg
- File:HCOKameš.jpg
- File:HCOZadinaTrenink.jpg
- File:JanPeterekHCO.jpg
- File:Trenér Václav Varaďa.jpg
Gumruch (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The user continues uploading files without any answer:
- File:Tomáš Marcinko - Třinec.jpg
- File:Andrej Nestrašil - Třinec.jpg
- File:Martin Růžička - Třinec.jpg
- File:Miloš Roman.jpg
- File:Vladimír Svačina - Třinec.jpg
- File:Petr Vrána - Třinec.jpg
- File:Jan Peterek - manažer.jpg
- File:Vladimír Országh - Třinec.jpg
- File:Zdeněk Moták.jpg
Gumruch (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shaguftansari1122 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I've found exact matches of 13 of this uploader's images on various pages of the https://ahduni.edu.in website, which declares "COPYRIGHT AHMEDABAD UNIVERSITY 2022", and speedied them as copyvio. Per COM:PCP, this nom is for the rest of their uploads, which are of same style and subject.
- File:Academic Advising and Tutoring Programme at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Tutorials at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:PhD student at the Biological and Life Sciences division of the School of Arts and Sciences.jpg
- File:Green Lifestyle at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:First Year at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University Policies.jpg
- File:Libraries at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Undergraduate Research Programme at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Research Seminar Series at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Doctoral Dissertations at Ahmedabad University.png
- File:Publications & Reports at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Research grants at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Research Laboratories at Ahmedabad University.png
- File:Interdisciplinary Research at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:University Research Board at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Amrut Mody School of Management, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Amrut Mody School of Management.jpg
- File:Graduate Programmes at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Long Duration Certificate & Diploma Programmes.jpg
- File:Orientation Week 2022.jpg
- File:Professor Ramadhar Singh becomes the First Indian Social Psychologist on Psychology Society's Heritage Wall of Fame in the US.jpg
- File:Student Onboarding at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Orientation 2022 at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Students- Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:ProjectCHAKRA at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Clubs and Associations at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Clubs at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Music Club at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Independent Study Period.jpg
- File:Life at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Students at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Student Move-in at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Youth Festival 2022 at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:The Performance and Visual Arts Showcase 2022 by School of Arts and Sciences.jpg
- File:Holistic Education at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University Enterence.jpg
- File:13th Foundation Day 2022.jpg
- File:The School of Engineering and Applied Science.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Welcome to Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Life At Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Students of Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University- School of Engineering and Applied Science.jpg
- File:Students in a practical workshop at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Merchandise at Ahmedabad University Book Store at University Centre.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University hosts International Faculty in a Cultural Immersion Visit.jpg
- File:Ahmedabad University Logo, Main Gate, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:The School of Arts and Sciences, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Amrut Mody School of Management, Heritage Building, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Cafeteria, University Centre, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Night View of the University Centre.jpg
- File:Courtyard, The School of Engineering and Applied Science, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:View of The School of Arts and Sciences from University Centre.jpg
- File:School of Engineering and Applied Science, Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Venture Studio.jpg
- File:Book Store, University Centre.jpg
- File:Multi-purpose Hall, University Centre.jpg
- File:Pillar at Main Gate, Ahmedabad University (Gate no.10).jpg
- File:Main Gate, Ahmedabad University (Gate no.10).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
DMacks (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And a few more uploaded after that previous set of deletions and batch-nom:
- File:Research at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:OPPORTUNITIES WITH UGRP AT AHMEDABAD UNIVERSITY.jpg
- File:Benefits for Faculty at Ahmedabad University.jpg
- File:Academic Support for Students at Ahmedabad University.jpg
I also speedied another in the more-recent batch, and gave them a stop-copyvio-now warning. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thumbnail of File:Eglise de Vera.jpg, and not used. —Ismael Olea (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
non-free image Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Please see COM:DERIVATIVE. These stained-glass artworks were created sometime after 1997, so they are still in copyright.
- File:Baptism of Jesus. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC, Boynton Beach, FL.jpg
- File:Heaven. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:In the Beginning. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:Let Me Come, Lord. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:Music Ministry. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:Noah's Ark. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:Resurrection of Christ. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC, Boynton Beach, FL.png
- File:The Dove and Cross. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435, USA.jpg
- File:The Garden of Eden. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:The Lighthouse. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:The Lord's Supper. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:The Nativity. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:The Ten Commandments. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
- File:The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida_33435,_USA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2011_South_Federal_Hwy,_Boynton_Beach,_Florida.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Genericusername57 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission for shown artworks. --Wdwd (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
delete Khalil Le Rajaoui (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
bad quality self portrait of a non notable person Strakhov (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Definitely fake license, nonfree image taken from Internet 5.165.140.192 22:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
same as File:File_20170407121159.jpg, taken from web, fake license 5.165.140.192 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
URV? - In den Metadaten ist Andreas Atzlinger als Fotograf genannt, das Foto wurde aber vn jemand anderem als "eigenes Werk" hochgeladen. Barbasca (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
it is a low-res copy of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Вокзал_Краматорск.JPG with a false information about author. Real author is User:Artemco Bestalex (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It was used in here before. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This photo seems to be owned by Monica Tranel for Montana, and not the uploaders own work. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This chemical structure is not correct. The methyl group at the lower right corner should be a hydroxy group. Compare with CAS#10481-92-2. Marbletan (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission required from photographer. No evidence of a free license. Captain-tucker (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, uploader had uploaded many sports trading cards for Darren Perry and images taken from other websites that I deleted. Royalbroil 04:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is an identical file in Commons: File:Uberaba.Univerdecidade.jpg Py4nf (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. It's essentially a duplicate of an existing file, except with unnatural saturation applied. Marbletan (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is an identical file in Commons: [[File:Uberaba.Univerdecidade.jpg]] Py4nf (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate file, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Old photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: DW, missing info/permission for the origional photograph. --Wdwd (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung 2003:EA:2700:4F00:45C4:68FF:8065:F498 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Warum? Sind geschützte Fonts verwendet worden? --Achim55 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wäre mir nicht bekannt. Einfache Schrift, keine besonderen Gestaltungsmerkmale, die darüber hinausgehen. Welkend (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO: simple geometric shapes or text -> PD-textlogo. --Wdwd (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The metadata contains a copyright statement (©Scott Dressel-Martin), and the uploader is not the copyright holder. 2601:282:1680:3190:A0D0:4A24:4BBE:A586 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I thought I specifically removed the copyright in the metadata before uploading. This photo is the property of Denver Health. We knowingly removed -- or thought we removed -- any copyright language in the metadata so that it could be uploaded to Wikipedia and be under the Commons guidelines. I honestly could have sworn I removed that copyright statement before uploading. I can reupload the same image with everything removed properly if needed.
- DenverHealthMarketing (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission. @Jeff at DenverHealthMarketing: Please see COM:VRTS how to proceed. --Wdwd (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
There is an abundance of doubt about the licencing of this picture. The notes provided by the uploader do little to clear the mist. I believe it has been uploaded in good faith, but that the permissions for it to be here are problematic. COM:VRT is the way to resolve this. COM:PCP applies 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Looks like the only thing of interest here is a presumably copyrighted sign. Unless we establish that this was in a country with appropriate FOP, it should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 92711Stefan as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich habe und hatte nie die Rechte an diesem Bild --92711Stefan (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as uploader's claim, 10 months after upload, seems hardly credible. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Even if it seems unbelievable, the license must not be based on belief. With the reporting of the misrepresentation and the knowledge of Wikimedia that it was a misrepresentation, liability claims could be transferred to wikimedia. Deletion is recommended from a legal point of view. 92711Stefan (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- D.h. im Klartext, du hast vor knapp einem Jahr beim Rechtsakt der Behauptung deiner persönlichen Urheberschaft an diesem Foto und der Erteilung einer pauschalen Nutzungsgenehmigung in Form der CC-Lizenz[3] schlicht gelogen. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ringsee.jpg&oldid=607667371){kind=link}
Kept: Based on other recent nominations (speedy deletion requests) from the uploader like file:Schwerzer Nachtschatten - Blüte.jpg or file:Probstei Wechteerswinkel.jpg, I assume it's an attempt to revoke the cc-license granted years ago. It is not a recent upload (upload mistake) and licenses are not revocable. Therefore I decide to keep this file. --Wdwd (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Ich möchte nochmals darauf hinweisen, dass ich keinerlei Rechte an diesem Bild habe und mein bestmögklichstes versuchte, um diesen Fehler zu korrigieren. Dennoch veröffentlicht Wikimedia das Bild weiterhin, so dass Wikimedia mit dem Wissen über eine fehlende Lizenz nun selbst in der Haftung steht. 92711Stefan (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Ich möchte nochmals darauf hinweisen, dass ich mein Möglichstes getan habe, um meine Urherberechtsverletzung auf Wikipedia zu korrigieren. Weil Wikipedia meiner Auffroderung zur Behebung meines Fehlers nicht nachkam, besteht eine Störerhaftung gegenüber von Wikipedia. Hab schön öfters gelesen, dass es kriminelle Strömungen bei Wikipedia gibt. wow. 92711Stefan (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Ich bin nicht Urheber dieses Bildes. 92711Stefan (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: already deleted by Krd. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no evidence of free license at source. apparently internet image grabbing Strakhov (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This picture appears to be the Facebook User Photo of the group depicted. See https://www.facebook.com/mspsoficial/videos/p-miguel-ochoa-msps/2003356973139581/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete last version. There is no reason to replace the old one. O Gato de Botas 12 (talk · contribs) should upload his image in a new archive. Yanguas (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted version from "03:19, 12 February 2022" as copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Is the user ALEXANDER NAIDENOFF PHOTOGRAPHER? See the metadata: www.naidenoff.com copyright. It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The original photo is unlikely to be own work, so the derivative would not be free. FlyingAce (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: CV per reverse image search. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The original photo is unlikely to be own work. FlyingAce (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as OOS. The original photo may well be "own work" selfie - but this is a personal photo by user without in-scope contributions. Not used, no evident in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Infrogmation. The photo is a DR of this internet image. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Thanks, Mosbatho, I was unfamiliar with the source image. DW copyviol. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Logo of a fitness club, Unused CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lastresniñas (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:LTNN.jpg
- File:Leches LTN desc.jpg
- File:Pack LTN.png
- File:Las tres niñas leches.jpg
- File:Leches y cremas Las Tres Niñas.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo credit should read: David Parry/PA Wire, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 03:10, 3 October 2022 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People signing condolence books for Elizabeth II --Krdbot 07:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Photo credit should read: David Parry/PA Wire, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 03:09, 3 October 2022 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People signing condolence books for Elizabeth II --Krdbot 07:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
my request as uploader and copyright owner Syzyszune (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded in March 2020; in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
my request as uploader and copyright owner Syzyszune (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Why? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep (I would have closed this if an admin had not already participated) No new deletion rationale; file remains in use. Brianjd (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - If one wishes to renominate this file with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I as the uploader and the copyright owner of this image want to delete it. Syzyszune (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept, deletion request just closed as kept, and no new reason for deletion offered. (@Syzyszune: repeated requests for deletion without explanation of *why* it should be deleted are unlikely to do anything other than annoy other users.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I as the copyright owner of this image want to remove the image. Because in the picture I used the wrong Kawi script. Syzyszune (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Image is still in use. Can someone with familiarity with Kawi script take a look at this? @Syzyszune: What is the problem, and why didn't you mention it in your previous deletion requests? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Rosenzweig τ 18:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
In writing this character, there is a typo and it is not in accordance with the writing of the Kawi script Inayubhagya (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is the 5th time this reason has been given to delete a file in use. Could you fix or replace the image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Ikan Kekek - @Inayubhagya: SO FIX IT. If you made a mistake, please make a corrected version and upload that over this. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek @Infrogmation I don't intend to fix it. I hope you can understand what request I mean is to delete this image file. Inayubhagya (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Someone has to fix it. It won't be deleted, because it's in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I, as the uploader and owner of this file, would like to remove it from Wikimedia Commons Inayubhagya (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded in 2020, much too late for a courtesy deletion. Also in use. This is now the sixth nomination in 18 months without a proper and convincing rationale why this file should be deleted. Please stop it. --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are incorrect characters in the file. Because when I wrote the script there was a typo and it didn't match the Kawi script. Inayubhagya (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- So why not fix it - make a new corrected version and upload it over the current version? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are incorrect characters in the file. Because when I wrote the script there was a typo and it didn't match the Kawi script. Inayubhagya (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Mu mesti berhenti dengan perlakuan ini. Bosan-lah! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Inayubhagya Just fix it and upload a new version. I !vote Keep per above. Tryvix1509 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Tryvix1509 I don't plan to build or upload a new version. But I asked for this image file to be deleted. Inayubhagya (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous DR's. Just create a corrected version and overwrite this file by clicking "Upload a new version of this file". --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is in fact freedom of panorama as long as the image is not used for commercial purposes. I do not wish for the image to be used for commercial, but merely informational (i.e. journalistic) purposes. If it is necessary to modify the license, so be it. It is unfortunate that the license by default is commercially oriented. SashiRolls (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sadly, non-commercial use was disallowed on Commons. All images uploaded to Commons must be permitted for commerical use and the creation of derivative works. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SASOLQuirk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious own work. 1 file with watermark and another with a copyright holder stated in EXIF, both of which are not the uploader.
- File:VW - Sasol Racing Rally Car.jpg
- File:SASOL Gas Pipeline - Temane - Mozambique.jpg
- File:ORYX GTL Plant - Qatar.jpg
- File:SASOL Olefins and Surfactants - Lake Charles - Louisiana.jpg
- File:Sasol - Head Office Johannesburg South Africa.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Likely copyright violations. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nebuwolf12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]cross-wiki self-promo. Deletion per Wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/09/08#Q108788171. Including Category:Tony James Nelson II
- File:Tonyjamesnelson2.jpg
- File:Tribal Young Brown Enemies.jpg
- File:Hit Me On.png
- File:TYB & Real Litty - Jacksonville Story.jpg
- File:Roovet Records.png
- File:Roovet Sound Logo.png
- File:Roovet.png
- File:Roovet Sound Icon.png
- File:Tony James Nelson II Owner of Roovet Corporation.jpg
- File:Tony James Nelson II 2.jpg
- File:Tony James Nelson II.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kendash1987 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are claimed to be own work but they have wildly varying image sizes and inconsistent, or missing EXIF. The naming of the images indicate they are likely taken from corporate brochures or web sites, and one of the files is even named "Collage-about-us.jpg". File:CorporateOverview 2.jpg and File:CorporateOverview 3.jpg can be found in this 2015-16 brochure. A crop of File:CorporateOverview 1.jpg can be seen at [4], and although cropped, it is actually higher resolution than the image uploaded to Commons. File:CorporateOverview 7.jpg is a map of pipelines that one would typically find in a company annual report or similar. File:CorporateOverview 5.jpg is a typical corporate PR type image that is usually used to illustrate "hey look, we're doing research". The claim to own work is dubious.
- File:IndianOil Refinery.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 4.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 5.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 7.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 6.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 3.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 1.jpg
- File:CorporateOverview 2.jpg
- File:Collage-about-us.jpg
Whpq (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ali-110-313 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: mostly low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data. All photos related to the same person, unlikely that uploader was present at all these diverse places and times.
- File:سيد حسين يعقوبی قائنی.jpg
- File:سيد حسين يعقوبی قائنی در حال مطالعه.jpg
- File:پيام سيد حسين يعقوبی قائنی به مناسبت فوت محی الدين حائری شيرازی.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 1.jpg
- File:قبر آیت الله یعقوبی واقع در حجره شهید مفتح صحن عتیق حرم فاطمه معصومه در قم.jpg
- File:حضور عبدالقائم شوشتری در مراسم تشیع آیت الله یعقوبی قائنی.jpg
- File:تشییع پیکر آیت الله یعقوبی در قم.jpg
- File:تشییع پیکر آیت الله یعقوبی در قم 2.jpg
- File:آیت الله یعقوبی هنگام زیارت در حرم رضوی.jpg
- File:آیت الله یعقوبی قائنی هنگام زیارت حرم رضوی.jpg
- File:آیت الله یعقوبی قائنی هنگام زیارت حرم رضوی 2.jpg
- File:آیت الله یعقوبی قائنی هنگام بستری در بیمارستان چندی قبل از وفات.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 12.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 14.jpg
- File:Tashii 1.jpg
- File:Namaz meyt.jpg
- File:Ahangaran sare khak.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 19.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 10.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 11.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 7.jpg
- File:Yaghubi and abdolghaem.jpg
- File:غشلاعذه 9.jpg
- File:Yaghubi 8.jpg
- File:Yaghubi and ahangaran.jpg
- File:Yaghubi and haeri.jpg
- File:A part of seyed hosein yaghibi ghaeni's will.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 09:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Vulgarity. The text at the beginning of this video in Polish means literally fuck admins. The file was used to vandalise this article and nothing else. Pozdrawiam (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit should read: David Parry/PA Wire, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit should read: David Parry/PA Wire, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:29, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:49, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:30, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:50, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:50, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 18:55, 31 October 2022 UTC: No license since 18 September 2022 --Krdbot 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:CUR Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This just a sample of the 150 dollars paper money 202.75.83.59 —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Question A sample banknote is not copyrighted? --A1Cafel (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali und Senegal Haster2 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please avoid personal attacks, otherwise you may be blocked despite all the respectable photographic contribution you've made. Thanks --A.Savin 09:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Senegal. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Túrelio. --A.Savin 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Burkina Faso. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Túrelio. --A.Savin 09:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Kayes n'est pas au Burkina Faso mais au Mali !!!
- Si vous voulez contribuer utilement à ce projet, ne méprisez pas la géographie mais faites l'effort minimum pour apporter quelque chose de nouveau et correct à la communauté.
- Cette photo a été faite par moi même en novembre 2005 et aucune interdiction n'était en vigueur à cette époque.
- Elle est publiée sur Wikipédia depuis février 2009 Jacques Taberlet (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- IMO standard construction, not reaching COM:TOO. Sitarail logo o.k. per COM:de minimis. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali und Senegal Haster2 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali Haster2 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Mali Haster2 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- IMO standard construction, not reaching COM:TOO. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste Haster2 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung Haster2 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Depicted content below COM:TOO, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung Haster2 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not clear if this image is really under a CC license. Stratokumulus ☁️ | Talk 14:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
C-SPAN is only public domain on the senate or house floor, not a committee meeting. Star Garnet (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's very odd. It would be good to link a reference to this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per their copyright page, "retransmission of the C-SPAN networks' video coverage of any event not in the public domain, live or recorded, may not be posted under any circumstances without a license." The only events in the public domain: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." Non-congressional chamber C-SPAN images are repeatedly deleted, and the only times they aren't are when nobody knowledgeable took part in the conversation. Star Garnet (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Very weird, but OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per their copyright page, "retransmission of the C-SPAN networks' video coverage of any event not in the public domain, live or recorded, may not be posted under any circumstances without a license." The only events in the public domain: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." Non-congressional chamber C-SPAN images are repeatedly deleted, and the only times they aren't are when nobody knowledgeable took part in the conversation. Star Garnet (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily to have this picture K.Mohanalingam (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily to have this picture K.Mohanalingam (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Watermark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily to have this picture K.Mohanalingam (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Watermark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily to have this picture K.Mohanalingam (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Question Because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I originally wanted to copy the file en:File:Unstructured_peer-to-peer_network_diagram.png to Commons, so I could use it on the Indonesian Wikipedia. I used magog.toolforge.org after reading en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons. Unfortunately only a wikitext page was created (without images), and I could not add images to the page. So I uploaded an image with the title File:Unstructured_peer-to-peer_network_diagrams.png (with an extra 's'). I want to delete this page, so that File:Unstructured_peer-to-peer_network_diagrams.png can be renamed to this page. Kekavigi (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsschutz nicht abgelaufen. Haster2 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Fictional flag, out of scope. Xunks (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo credit should read: Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- It does read Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments. -Chien (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: not work of FCDO. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
In July, I deleted an earlier file uploaded under this file name by the same user, as a clear COM:NETCOPYVIO, along with some other files uploaded by this user that had been nominated for deletion. Now this file is uploaded as an "own work" from today. But it does not look at all like own work. It looks like some badly photoshopped crop of some other file or video screenshot. With a size of just 45 kB for 603 × 1.278 pixels, it's also suspiciously small for an own photograph, which typically would have at least several hundred kB, if not several MB. So I think this file should be deleted as a likely copyvio per the precautionary principle. If this really is the uploader's own work, we should have a verified COM:VRT permission. And preferably a better image than this. Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
looks like some sort of corporate advertisement, not a self-made work rubin16 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo credit should read: Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments, not works of FCDO A1Cafel (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Paintings by anonymous painters are not "own work" of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
User did not create the sculpture depicted and at the size of the image and the quality, unsure of that either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
low quality image (43 kb), internet meme, unlikely to be own work Strakhov (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Greenland/Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Estonia A1Cafel (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lithuania A1Cafel (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Photograph of a painting taken at an exhibition. Painting is unlikely to be uploader's own work, and the "own work" claim most likely applies only to the photograph itself. Chiolite (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Artwork without obvious educational use. The figure in the image is too abstract to be recognisable as a robot, and even though the captions claim so, the file contents have no obvious connection to surgery. Commons is not a repository for all abstract amauteur art. Chiolite (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above; no evident usefulness, OOS -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 양념파닭 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It's company logo. not made self. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright concerns aside, it's out of scope as an unused logo of a non-notable entity. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Now seems to be in use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought OgreBot galleries weren't sufficient to make something count as "in use" for scope purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Now seems to be in use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Maintainance galeries are not COM:INUSE. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Senegal und Mali. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Freedom-of-panorama is completely irrelevant here, as nothing copyrightable is shown in this image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eine Brücke ist in dem Land, aus dem ich komme (und eigentlich überall in der Welt) ein Bauwerk. Ein Bauwerk, welches ein Architekt entwirft. Bitte rede nur mit, wenn Du überhaupt weißt, wovon Du da redest. Haster2 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Even if a bridge like this is copyrightable (which is extremely dubious), the amount shown would certainly be de minimis. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Подложная лицензия. Гордиенко Иван Карпович уволился в запас в 1961 году в возрасте 38 лет. Фото явно того времени. Jim Hokins (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obviously false license. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Photography came from unknown source origins 202.75.83.59 (talk)
- If you find the location where you takes this photo, keep it. Otherwise, delete
- Comment Geocoordinates are given. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- But the fact may isn’t true -- Hmtvie
- Question What's your reason for suspecting the given geocoordinates are incorrect? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, photo is an iPhone picture with valid EXIF. Nominating IP and Hmtvie have both since been blocked for socking. --Belbury (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
copyright vio 223.197.163.125 08:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Not the claiming author's own work, dowloaded from here (the official website of the Bangladesh Navy) when the man was vice admiral. 119.30.45.139 14:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete; Not own work. Downloaded from the official website of the Bangladesh Navy when the person was serving as navy chief as vice admiral, he was appointed as the navy chief in the rank of vice admiral first (in July 18, 2020), see this; he was promoted to full admiral in September, 2020, see here. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.30.39.225 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete per nomination. It is clearly understood that this photo is not the claiming person's own work, it is obviously the official military portrait of Bangladesh Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.30.38.15 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Similar to this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.30.35.9 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Obviously downloaded from Bangladesh Navy's website. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.67.156.179 (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.67.156.44 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Not own work.
- Delete, per nomination, not own work, downloaded from Bangladesh navy's official website when the man was vice admiral, very similar to this photo. 103.67.158.149 04:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. 116.58.201.21 13:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not own work, cant' be own work, the claiming person is not the photographer. 43.245.121.218 06:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete per nomination. Photo was captured when the man became Bangladeshi naval chief in the rank of vice admiral. 103.253.44.174 07:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, downloaded from Bangladesh navy's official site. 119.30.47.177 05:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Of course not own work; downloaded from here (Bangladesh Navy's official website), very imilar to this photo when the man was vice admiral and also see this news and also this to know that this man was appointed as navy chief of Bangladesh in the rank of vice admiral first. 139.5.133.8 13:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. 119.30.39.100 13:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Two things, 1) freedom of panorama is currently in the Copyright Amendment Bill of 2018 that has been passed by both houses of parliament and is now just awaiting gazetting into law. So South Africa will soon have FoP. 2) The reproductions in this photograph are copyright exempt as it is a) not a faithful reproduction of the posters in question and b) Fair Dealing exemptions in South African law mean that it is exempt. Discott (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably, the freedom of panorama that is to be passed into law will not include temporary displays such as posters. Any appeal to fair dealing provisions would impact reuse of the photo and is not permitted on Commons; see COM:Fair Use for details. Felix QW (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- also file:NTV-Logo-White.png
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio. The logo is not copyvio, because it is textlogo and ineligible for copyright. But educational value is not shown. Maybe the logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Подложная лицензия. Это фото давно есть в сети, например, тут: https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/acter/w/sov/3008/foto/ Jim Hokins (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Wardrobe malfunction is shown in the photo. Thyj (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Mariamie-8-12-21032013-12-17-095100.jpg is from https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/divine-liturgy-in-the-mariamite-cathedral-in-damascus/188/ . I suspect copyright infringement for other files also. File:Antoun Saadeh.jpg is old file, not own work
- File:Mount Lebanon Orthodox Choir in Concert.jpg
- File:Five Patriarchs of Antioch.jpg
- File:Mariamie-8-12-21032013-12-17-095100.jpg
- File:Zawba3a tare5.jpg
- File:Antoun Saadeh.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Greenland/Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Nope. Original version to hide by admin. Matlin (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --A.Savin 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not a usable illustration this way. --A.Savin 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete agreed to A.Savin. Workaround by censoring resulted in an inferior and unusable photo. Now out of COM:SCOPE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per A.Savin and JWilz12345 --Lukas Beck (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Wrong file name. Is improvement from Bardowick St. Nikolai 002 2022 05 31. F. Riedelio • talk 10:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrong file name is not a reason for deletion. Please request the file be renamed instead. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: Rename is not possible because this is the same file as the version "12:15, 20. Sep. 2022" of Bardowick St. Nikolai 002 2022 05 31. -- F. Riedelio • talk 08:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)- @IronGargoyle: cf. Special:Diff/726800364. Did you forget to close this discussion? Also, I get the impression the proposer (who is also the uploader and photographer) has very distinct ideas about naming schemes, derivative works, etc. so there may be a reasonable request here, hidden in the terse rationale. There's a nearly identical image at File:Bardowick St. Nikolai 002 2022 05 31.jpg so nothing much would be lost if this file was deleted. --Xover (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I closed the discussion by accident. I reverted the close immediately but forgot to replace the deletion template on the image. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be fixed now. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In that case... @F. Riedelio: I don't understand your rationale in this deletion proposal. Could you elaborate on why you think this image should be deleted? Xover (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can only repeat myself: The file name is wrong (was uploaded by mistake). The photo is an improvement (new version) of Bardowick St. Nikolai 002 2022 05 31. F. Riedelio • 💬 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In that case... @F. Riedelio: I don't understand your rationale in this deletion proposal. Could you elaborate on why you think this image should be deleted? Xover (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I closed the discussion by accident. I reverted the close immediately but forgot to replace the deletion template on the image. Thanks for pointing that out. It should be fixed now. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. The uploader re-uploaded this a few minutes later as the second file version of File:Bardowick St. Nikolai 002 2022 05 31.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. This calligraphy was first written by Mao Zedong in 1958 for Hongqi magazine, and was adopted in the same year by the marque Hongqi as their text logo. Mao died in 1976. According to the Chinese copyright rule, this calligraphy will not be in PD until 2027. Please put this file in Category:Undelete in 2027. 痛 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
There are two problems with this image. One, the image is a screenshot of iOS, and while it may be ineligible for copyright, I believe the screenshot with its blurred background and various icons in this composure may be above the threshold of originality. The second is its purpose - this image does not serve any use with any of the mentioned articles, since eSIM and dual sim is best shown by ejecting the SIM tray or taking an X-ray of the phone. Given this, I don't think this image should be kept on Commons.
Note, even if the image is kept, the previous revisions contain non-free elements incompatible with Commons license. Aasim (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the image(s) meet the "threshold of originality". Like also other images don't in or outsude the USA: T-Mobile: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutsche_Telekom_2022.svg Apple logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_logo_black.svg But they "may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions". For the comment on the use of dual sim...it shows how the two sim cards are or can be displayed on a phone. Both with the signal strength and name of the operator. The image is beeing used in several articles and has not been removed. So apparantly other people think it is a good addition to the article. --FlippyFlink (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this image meets the threshold of originality and should be deleted. I believe the blurred background adds a detailed level of depth to the image and isn’t simple enough to be considered as being below the threshold of originality. I also believe there is a better way to illustrate an eSIM, like showing an actual eSIM in the article. This image would be fine if it’s background was completely black, but not in this state. Newfiebluejay (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Although I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright law, one thing is certain: that image adds no value to the eSIM article. Some here have said the blur adds some originality to the image; that I don't know. I just hope to ignite this discussion and get this image out of that article. — Python Drink (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Python Drink: What image to use in an article on enWP should be addressed through discussion on its talk page, not through a deletion discussion on Commons. Xover (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The design of the Control Center UI on iOS is most definitely eligible for copyright, making this a copyvio. The other arguments for deletion seem to be more about internal enWP matters and are not, to me, persuasive. --Xover (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The template is used to tag images that comes from Sputnik Kyrgyzstan that are supposedly licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
However, Sputnik Kyrgyzstan's main page clearly stated "© 2022 Sputnik. Бардык укуктар корголгон." (© 2022 Sputnik. All rights reserved.), while the website's Terms of Use mentioned no reference of CC licensing, even at it's earlier versions. Rather, the website's owner asserts their all-rights-reserved copyright, and only allows linking with attribution.
As a result, there is no such permission given by Sputnik Kyrgyzstan. The template is not only without proper permission, but also likely to be a hoax. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no evidence sputnik.kg offers its content under a compatible license, neither now nor on 12 June 2022 when the template was made. --Xover (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Blurry, unused, better quality alternatives are available. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 06:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
This comes from a clip compilation, and is still of a recording of Robinson speaking at a city council meeting. The Youtube channel is not run by the city council, so this is a probable copyright violation. Indy beetle (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. cf. also File:Mark Robinson (cropped).png. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This comes from a clip compilation, and is still of a recording of Robinson speaking at a city council meeting. The Youtube channel is not run by the city council, so this is a probable copyright violation. Indy beetle (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. cf. also File:Mark Robinson.png. --Xover (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in United Arab Emirates and the photo violates the ferris wheel architect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Amusement rides are functional, engineered objects (like a car) not architectural works (like a building). Freedom of panorama is not necessary to reproduce them. They are generally protected by patent, not copyright (see also this article). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I am usually extremely hesitant to wave "exempt from copyright" wands over things, but in this case the "functional object" argument made by IronGargoyle has merit. Had the thing had pretty colours, blinking lights, streamers... anything that suggested a creative input beyond that dictated by its function (spinning people around without killing them), I might have been more inclined to lean the other way. But here there's really nothing to base even a conservative argument on. --Xover (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
unused, invalid data about the file Estopedist1 (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:SCOPE. --Xover (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Burkina Faso. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- According to fr:Gare_de_Bobo-Dioulasso#Historique the station was built in 1933, hardly still copyrighted, if at all. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Túrelio, in der Elfenbeinküste gilt 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Künstlers Gemeinfreiheit. Das Datum der Erstellung des Kunstwerks ist egal. Wann starb der Architekt? Haster2 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I have looked at a lot of sources which discuss the railway station. I have not seen a single one that discusses the architect. I think it is fair to say that this is an anonymous work and consequently {{PD-Burkina Faso}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I find IronGargoyle's argument persuasive (and by that I also imply that I haven't done any parallel research beyond the very rudimentary, just so I'm clear). --Xover (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in der Elfenbeinküste. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Strong doubt whether this building reaches threshold of originality. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Das erzähle mal dem Architekten. Ansonsten: Wir reden von Recht der Elfenbeinküste, nicht von dem deines Wohnortes. Haster2 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. While sympathetic to Túrelio's argument, I still land on a COM:PRP-informed delete. Unless someone does the research and can come up with similar factors as those that obtain in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bahnhof Bobo-Dioulasso.jpg. --Xover (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Keine Panoramafreiheit in Burkina Faso. Urheberrechtsverletzung. 95.90.243.48 09:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- en:Bobo-Dioulasso#Transportation states "The Bobo Dioulasso railway station, built during the colonial era in the Sudano-Sahelian style". So, the question is whether it is still in copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nicht die koloniale Ära ist entscheidend. Was ist denn das für ein eurozentrischer Unsinn? Das Sterbedatum des Architekten gilt. 70 Jahre. Wann starb der Architekt? Haster2 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I have looked at a lot of sources which discuss the railway station. I have not seen a single one that discusses the architect. I think it is fair to say that this is an anonymous work and consequently {{PD-Burkina Faso}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I find IronGargoyle's argument persuasive (and by that I also imply that I haven't done any parallel research beyond the very rudimentary, just so I'm clear). --Xover (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Neither Google nor WP can get me a "malongo virus". Can someone with a MD degree confirm that this is not a hoax? Enyavar (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. No trace of this on Google, so it seems a likely hoax or similar. --Xover (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If the book was published in 2017, I don't see how this image can be retained. The Ottawa City Archives copy is dated 1935. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ellin...Specifically regarding the book, the hardcopy was first published in 1983 and then reprinted, exactly as before, in 2017. However, the Britannia Village Community Association provided me with access to the electronic copy of the book and that's where I got the photos for the Wikipedia article. The book provides the source of each photo and the City of Ottawa Archives reference number if there was one. The particular image that you are referring to is clearly in the public domain in Canada and the USA, and has the appropriate licensing template and tags, I believe.
- Regards
- Bob Reichert 184.144.68.150 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- * Comment @184.144.68.150: @Robert Neustadter: That may be so. However please provide better information show the original image can be shown to be free licensed/PD. It certainly is not a photo from 2022 released under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license as the image description page currently shows. Maybe start with - how is it known to be PD in Canada, country of origin? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Image lacks necessary information to determine copyright status with sufficient certainty. The provided date is after the pub. 95 cutoff (1927), and without information on when and where it was first published we cannot determine whether a pma. term also applies. --Xover (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No progess in esbalishing free licensed status and accurate information on image page after 4 months. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Torpes of Pisa is not Apostel Trophim IOIOI (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Torpes of Pisa is not Apostel Trophim IOIOI (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Redirect deleted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://sunnson.blogspot.com/2015/05/10.html
In use and unclear age of painting. Achim55 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Objects to removal, the portrait is apparently as common as other portraits of Mongol emperors on Mongolian websites, freely disseminated, no explicit author claims copyright, and the portraits of ancient figures are not for commercial use, in line with Creative Commons norms 38.54.101.246 09:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. "no explicit author claims copyright" does not mean free licensed by copyright holder. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This SVG image is a fabrication based on blurry image of a George IV tie pin worn by Charles at his proclamation, widely misinterpreted by the media. The source image has been altered to remove the stem of the G and the numeral VI. There are no official sources that show Charles's cypher, and no design has been unveiled. See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11199729/King-Charles-III-wore-royal-cypher-time-proclamation.html?ito=link_share_article-image-share#i-28ab2307e5a98c51 for a clear image of the tie pin, where the letters "G VI R" are clearly visible. Viseman (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: closed below by User:Infrogmation as No consensus to delete.. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Viseman as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: See above delete the blurred older version istead of the whole work Orange-kun (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Request removing only of the old file version from the server, instead of requesting to remove the whole work. I have uploaded it just for reference.
- 2. Replace it with the proper version of the Cypher when it'll be available for public (for example CR could be changed for CIIIR).
- And after all, it's not a speedy candidate at all.--Orange-kun (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete as stated by the original nominee, the tie pin worn by King Charles III is clearly a royal heirloom. When you zoom on the image, it is very clear the pin shows 'G VI R' to depict King George VI (Charles' grandfather). All the royals had been wearing pieces of jewellery and tie pins that belonged to past monarchs. The official Charles III cypher will not be known until closer to the coronation (sometime in 2023). Whoever created this "fake" cypher, did so in haste and without official sourcing. Perhaps it is best to wait for official confirmation via the Royal Household of what the new cypher will look like, before cresting one based off media speculation. Wes Wolf 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
To further add to my comment, it is clear that the original file uploaded by Orange-kun has been doctored from the official source using some form of photo-editing software in order to create an alternative version. This is a clear violation of Wikimedia copyright violation policies on doctoring images to create false information. Wes Wolf 23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the newer versions that depict the officially confirmed Royal Cypher. But DELETE the six older versions that were created falsely. Wes Wolf 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete on the context of a speculative design being presented as if it was real - the design is far too speculative to be confident that the file is a teaser for the next royal cypher. There is a good chance that it might be something completely different. --Minoa (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I update my recommendation to partially delete the first six revisions on the context of those speculative designs being presented as if it was real. --Minoa (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete for the reason that this cypher is incorrect. Also, I would like to comment that I created an image of the correct cypher that was unveiled today here: File:Royal cypher of Charles III of the United Kingdom.svg. This should be used in place of the incorrect one. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As I said before, delete the ancient version instead of the whole file, since the current file is completely different.--Orange-kun (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Officially confirmed version is here, so no need to delete.--Orange-kun (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep the current file, uploaded by Sodacan today. This is indeed the design for Charles III's royal cypher: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63034255. Ham II (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep Now that the official cypher has been revealed. Fry1989 eh? 13:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is it a free-to-use image though? Hogweard (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep It is now the correct design of the ci(y)pher unveiled today. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Offical Design released by Buckingham Palaces matches with Offical Design. Request for deletion is frivolous (see article from the Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/26/king-charles-iiis-official-monogram-design-released-by-palace. Minor edits could be made to align with the actual design. The shape of gems on the crown should be updated thought to correctly represent the new design; specifically, the blue gem in the middle should be a diamond shape also, and the three tips of the ermine spots should be facing to the right. Also, pearls on the two side arches should be nine instead of seven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfugger (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is the correct design as confirmed by the College of Arms - https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/205-royal-cypher - Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep This is a perfectly correct digital copy of the offical cypher that has been released. It would be ridiculous to delete it and I'd like to thank the author for creating it! Mhapperger (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The current version is the accurate digital representation of the cypher. The previous versions can be discarded. Keivan.fTalk 22:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep Offical monogram should be kept. Snake bgd (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, but only the official design. The unofficial designs should be deleted as fictitious cyphers having no encyclopedic value. Eyesnore (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep https://www.royal.uk/his-majesty-kings-cypher - TheGlobetrotter (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep This is the official cypher that has been released.SethWhales talk 12:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think the restrictions are independent of copyright status. Effort has been made to balance between specifications and copyright limitations. My recommendation stands that we should delete only the first six (speculative) versions in the context of them being presented as if they were real. --Minoa (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- According to The National Archives: "The Royal Arms and its constituent parts are protected by perpetual Crown copyright, and may only be re-used by His Majesty the King, members of the Royal Family, government departments and official holders of the Royal Warrant. The Royal Arms are Royal ‘devices’ and as such are protected by law from commercial misuse." Assuming the cypher is a Royal device, this sounds to me like it's protected by copyright. Adam9007 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- The above looks like a copyright restriction to me, but it's not very clear. Adam9007 (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is an interesting point. However, I can't immediately find the basis for the NA claims in the copyright act, so it must be regulated somewhere else. It would presumably be similar to the King James Bible and Peter Pan, but the details would matter a lot. For example, the text about the arms as a "device" refers to trademark law, and would be a non-copyright restriction (which is noted on the description page but doesn't merit deletion). Someone better able to navigate UK law will have to do the research to find where this is regulated though. Maybe ask at COM:VP/C? Xover (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a duplicate file. A better version has been added. Wikimanedit98 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment No link to "better version" seen. Where is it? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The duplicate is at File:Antel.svg and File:Antel Logo.jpg. The former was uploaded by the same person that uploaded File:Antel logotipo.png, and who is also the numinator here. --Xover (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Does it matter that the deletion request was made within the seven day range of COM:CSD#G7? It wouldn't really be a speedy deletion right now, but that's not really Wikimanedit98's fault. TilmannR (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it does. The the nom didn't know about the right deletion template to use is a mere technicality. Speedy (in that it shortcircuits the need for discussion) even if not timely (due to the massive backlog at COM:DR). Xover (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then I'm in favor of a Speedy delete, despite Antel Logo.jpg being a poor replacement for Antel logotipo.png due to compression artifacts. TilmannR (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then I'm in favor of a
- I think it does. The the nom didn't know about the right deletion template to use is a mere technicality. Speedy (in that it shortcircuits the need for discussion) even if not timely (due to the massive backlog at COM:DR). Xover (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is certainly not the uploader's "own work" from 2013 as claimed. It's actually a ca. 1920 photo from the en:Hulton Archive, compare [5]. No author is named, but that does not necessarily mean it is "anonymous" in a legal sense, and it could still be protected in Germany. Since the Hulton Archive contains a large number of images that were not published until recently, it's probably also still protected in the US. And since no author is named, the term of protection would be 120 years from creation per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. So unless someone finds evidence of contemporary publication, the file should be deleted; it can be restored in 2046 (to accomodate the "ca.") with {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Rosenzweig τ 06:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as "PD-EU-no author disclosure" the image from 1920 makes no mention of never being being made public in the version scanned by Getty. The Getty version makes no mention of a photographer, which does make it anonymous in a "legal sense" by our own rules. Our version has no Getty watermark, which means it has been in circulation from other sources. All due diligence was performed in searching for a named creator. We do have cases where the original photographic negatives were donated by a photographer to an archive, and and may never have been seen by the public, for instance the Bain Collection is considered unpublished until proved published, because the website says the images are scans of the original glass negatives. --RAN (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. A though one this, but I land on delete per COM:PRP. I think the strongest argument in favour of retention is that the Hutton archive stems mostly from individual newspapers' archives and so a large number of them will have been published. But those archives are also very likely to include information about the photographer (meaning they're not anonymous, it's just we can't get at the information), and a large portion of those archives were not published. I'd give 50:50 odds on whether this would be PD or not if we had all extant information, and as such COM:PRP decides for me. --Xover (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- If there was any information on the photographer, it would appear in the Getty catalog, which I linked to. Getty has a copy of the image. No photographer is named. COM:PRP actually reads: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." The concept that photographer can be known if we just look harder, is not significant doubt, the same can be said of any image in the anonymous category. We have reverse image searching against over 1 billion images, and even though it found multiple copies of this image, not one names a photographer. That is how we define "anonymous". There is always a theoretical possibility that the author of an image might be found in the future, which is why most jurisdictions have a claw back clause, restoring the rights of the creator, if they are found. Every anonymous image in the category of over 5,000 images, has the same theoretical possibility. COM:PRP doesn't allow deletion based on theoretical speculation. --RAN (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm. What's your basis for saying that if the archive contained information about the photographer that information would have been surfaced on gettyimages.com? Is it just an assumption or is there specific information to this effect somewhere? At a quick scan it doesn't appear Getty shows more specific information than the archive for this kind of photo, and possibly whether the photo was taken by staff or a stringer. I see no particular reason to assume Getty would show all the information available in the archive, beyond their own chosen metadata fields and level of detail. --Xover (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't like assuming an image is OK, especially when we have a suitable replacement. Also deleted the cropped version of the file. —howcheng {chat} 22:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC).
_NSDAP_Politiker_Sturmabteilung_SA-Oberfuehrer_(Nazi_party_uniform_Senior_leader)_National_Archives_NARA_(Misc_Photos_1919-1934)_Unrestricted_No_known_copyright.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:CUR Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- That seems to only apply to notes. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. My natural inclination is delete for this, but COM:CUR Hong Kong not only specifically talks about paper money, it references the criminal code rather than the copyright act. In other words, it's not a copyright issue, but an anti-counterfeiting issue. And since coins are not generally susceptible to counterfeiting through high-resolution printing it is not unlikely that the original regulation is limited to paper money. I therefore conclude that per COM:CUR Hong Kong as it stands today, we don't have a rationale to delete this. I think there is a non-zero chance the criminal code actually does cover coins as well, but someone else will have to do that research. --Xover (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:CUR Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- That seems to only apply to notes. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, I can only let you know that the file picture containing image of a 5 Dollar coin of Hong Kong is not a reproduction/counterfeit/fake; it is an original coin, which I've purchased as part of my deeds to enlarge my own numismatic collection. Thank you so much :) —Billjones94
- Keep. My natural inclination is delete for this, but COM:CUR Hong Kong not only specifically talks about paper money, it references the criminal code rather than the copyright act. In other words, it's not a copyright issue, but an anti-counterfeiting issue. And since coins are not generally susceptible to counterfeiting through high-resolution printing it is not unlikely that the original regulation is limited to paper money. I therefore conclude that per COM:CUR Hong Kong as it stands today, we don't have a rationale to delete this. I think there is a non-zero chance the criminal code actually does cover coins as well, but someone else will have to do that research. --Xover (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Estonia A1Cafel (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the painter Guido van Helten in the hope that he agrees to give his permission. The question then is: how would he do this? LucSaffre (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @LucSaffre: Answer: Guido, please send an email to <permissions-et@wikimedia.org> where you confirm that you are the author of the mural painting on the photo and that Wikipedia may share this photo under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license (which means that your name must be mentioned together with the photo and that others must share it under the same license). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucSaffre (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Can be restored / reuploaded if the copyright owner goes through
COM:PRPCOM:VRT. @LucSaffre: If you have an update, now would be the time to share it... --Xover (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)- I think you meant COM:VRT, but yes. :) TilmannR (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- blush Thanks. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to say that there is no update. Thanks for notifying me here! LucSaffre (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think you meant COM:VRT, but yes. :) TilmannR (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
While the video is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution licence, the image in question is not taken by "TV SEI", but rather is part of a montage. Its author is not TV SEI itself. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Genehmigung der abgebildeten Personen liegt nicht vor; Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung Haster2 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Issue potentially relevant for the truck driver and possibly for the blueshirted man facing the driver. Wrt to the legal situation, we seem to have no information about that issue for Senegal. The only country of Africa for which information is available on Commons, is South Africa, where "Photographing a person without their consent in an area where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is permitted as a general rule."
- With this incomplete state of knowledge the easiest solution might be to crop-away the truck and the 3 men. --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A few anonymous (even if potentially identifiable) people, as a part of a crowd, in a very much public place, does not trigger particular personality rights precautions for me. It's a reasonable concern to assess, but I don't see it as particularly relevant here. --Xover (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 13:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung Haster2 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hardly above COM:TOO; the part with part of the logo on the right could be cut away. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Hmm. The parts that potentially rise above TOO I'm easy calling de minimis. Whether it has an real educational purpose is a different matter. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Not deleted. 181.43.3.236 14:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Krd: Is this a case of Category:Deletion error/T244567? TilmannR (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: technical: deleted the file page that was not deleted earlier. --Rosenzweig τ 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich jedoch um ein Werk des verstorbenen Künstlers Jo Stolz Lutheraner (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ich, Eva-Katrin Stolz, bin Tochter und rechtmäßige Erbin des Künstlers Jo Stolz und verwalte seinen Nachlass. Es ist mein erster Versuch, einen Artikel hier anzulegen, und ich wusste nicht, wie ich es anders deklarieren sollte, da mein Vater verstorben ist. Ich freue mich aber sehr über Hilfe, wie ich es besser machen kann. Vielen Dank EvaKatrinStolz (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @EvaKatrinStolz: Falls du als Erbin des Künstlers auch die Urheberrechte geerbt hast, kannst du per E-Mail eine Genehmigung schicken, dass das Bild des Gemäldes hier unter einer freien Lizenz gezeigt werden darf. Siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 12:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The uploader, a new user to Wikimedia wikis, asked for help at Commons:Help_desk#How do I correctly upload & license paintings by my deceased father? but never responded. It is possible that they simply never saw the replies pointing at COM:VRT. I have now posted a message on their talk page about it, in the hopes they have email notifications enabled. It would probably not be a bad idea to leave this discussion open for another couple of weeks in the hopes that they'll go through VRT. --Xover (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Qədir Quliyev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Qədir Quliyev (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work, some kind of logos and Derivative Works.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz I created these as a reward Qədir Quliyev (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Qədir Quliyev: You have to provide sources for the images you borrowed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz How can I show the source of the photo I made? Qədir Quliyev (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- photo belongs to me Qədir Quliyev (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz please return the template you added File:Qraf.orden.gif and File:Qraf.ulduz.gif -- Qədir Quliyev (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- photo belongs to me Qədir Quliyev (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz How can I show the source of the photo I made? Qədir Quliyev (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Added links of original files' which I used for their creation. File:Qraf.ulduz.gif, File:Qraf.orden.gif Qədir Quliyev (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Extremely low-quality COM:DW without sufficient attribution (and hence copyright status) of originals. Only File:Barnstar Hires White.png and File:Golden Barnstar.svg are acknowledged and these clearly incorporate several other source images. Their purpose relative to COM:SCOPE is also debatable. --Xover (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe this license is correct. The person who scans it is not the copyright holder. It was written in 1985 by Ramaswamy Venkataraman. India only declares limited government works to be in the public domain; a letter is not one of them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- The letter was sent to the family from the Govt. of India, while the Govt. was celebrating centenary year of the birth of Theerthagiriyar. A statue during this event was opened by R. Venkatraman (please see https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/தீர்த்தகிரியார்#/media/படிமம்:Theerthagiriyar_statue.png). A copy of this letter was published in newspapers and others. Also, this letter was already in public domain (e.g. https://senguntharmudaliarhistory.blogspot.com/2020/10/Dn%20theerthagiri%20mudaliar%20kaikolar.html). I do not see any countering argument from the Govt. of India or anyone to claim copyright or ownership. This is a public letter. Tkbgandhi (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader asserts copyright ownership of a letter written by a government official, a claim which requires COM:VRT since it is implausible on the face of it. No credible argument has been provided why this would fall under a PD-IndiaGov type exception. --Xover (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete Not the work of the uploader. Logo is property of the school. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The paw print is simple enough to be below COM:TOO. License can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not that it matters, but I've changed to weak delete. I acknowledge the keep !votes here as entirely reasonable, and when I land on the other side it's not with particularly strong conviction. --Xover (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep clearly below TOO in US. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Stylized text tends to be below TOO in the US (e.g. Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg). Then the question is: Is a pawprint above TOO? I'd say it's a naturally occurring shape without noticeable stylization and therefore not an original work. Composing two non-copyrighted things into one logo also doesn't deserve copyright (e.g. Avenue of the Saints logo.svg). TilmannR (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per TilmannR. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete Not the work of the uploader, but that of the school it represents. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The diamond shape is simple enough to be below COM:TOO. License can be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Just barely falls within TOO for me (due to the diamond being composed of purely geometric shapes). --Xover (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
PDF version of File:Flag of the Iraqi Turkmen Front.svg having a extremely poor quality. Achim55 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Low quality duplicate in an inherently unsuitable format. --Xover (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This Italian photograph said to be from ca. 1938 is certainly not the uploader's own work, so the CC0 license tag is invalid. It's also not from an "unknown" author as claimed, but from a photographer or studio called Petri in Milan, and it is a carefully posed studio work. As an "intellectual work with creative characteristics", it is not eligible for the {{PD-Italy}} tag with a term of 20 years, but is protected for 70 years pma (after the author's death). Since we don't know when the author died, the photo is probably still protected in Italy and also in the US as it was still protected in Italy on the URAA date. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle and can be restored in 2059 with {{PD-old-assumed}} (unless someone can find the actual year of death of the photographer). Rosenzweig τ 07:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Simple studio photograph. Not sufficient creativity for it to be considered artistic. {{PD-Italy}} should apply. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The "simple photographs" clause of PD-Italy (badly named template if ever there was one) is an additional category of protection for photographic works that fail the threshold of originality (think "purely mechanical reproduction", cf. {{PD-scan}}, and go from there). It is combined with a somewhat higher threshold for originality in Italian jurisprudence. But it is still the case that photographs are normally protected for pma. 70, it's just that images created through a photography-like process that fall below the threshold of originality are given an additional protection that lasts for 20 years from creation. Viewed in that context, it becomes untenable to claim that a studio portrait—where the photographer has carefully composed the shot, set the lighting, arranged the subjects, directed their expressions, etc.; all the criteria used to assess TOO for a photograph in other words—should fail to rise above the TOO. Or put another way: PD-Italy is not a magic wand that makes pma. 70 for photographs disappear. --Xover (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is the same sort of photography that school yearbook photographs are made of. It fits within the standard of "images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process". A studio like this was not focused on creative art or intellectual expression with these sort of images. They were focused on selling people reproductions of what they and their families looked like. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing its artistic merits. I'm saying that in legal terms, "simple photograph" is more akin to "mechanical reproduction" (note: akin to, not identical with, just so we don't fall down that rabbithole). The fact that the photographer posed the subjects, lit them, framed the shot, timed the shot, etc. means that it is creative for copyright purposes, no matter how pedestrian it is in artistic terms. "Artistic" in context of PD-Italy is an unfortunate translation because it leads one to think "Picasso!" (well, or Dalí Atomicus, I guess): it's about "creative expression" analogous to the way that concept functions in US copyright. Xover (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion this is the same sort of photography that school yearbook photographs are made of. It fits within the standard of "images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process". A studio like this was not focused on creative art or intellectual expression with these sort of images. They were focused on selling people reproductions of what they and their families looked like. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Info:
- If this file is deleted, then we should probably delete Savoia-00-.jpg (which also has a "Petri milano" signature) and revisit the three kept images in Category:PD_Italy_(20_years_after_creation)_related_deletion_requests.
- Commons:Italy#General rules says "However, which kinds of photographs are considered "simple photographs" is rather vague; this rule is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should be used on Commons very carefully."
- There is a high resolution version on Alamy, which makes it easier to read the text at the bottom. TilmannR (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per Xover. On the PD-Italy template it is stated Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death. Everybody who has ever printed an analogue photo will know what effort and creativity it will take to print such a complex image as this photo. Look at the subtle shading at the edges. Imho it is protected by copyright until 70 years pma. It can be undeleted safely in 1938+121 years which will be 2059. --Ellywa (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Подложная лицензия. Фото явно времён Великой Отечественной войны (1941-1945). Jim Hokins (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks all information necessary to determine copyright status, so delete per COM:PRP. --Xover (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
and File:LX12DGF-Ilford-P1630866.jpg
Commons:Derivative works from advertisement. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Pretty clearly de minimis in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. These photos were not made to reproduce the advertisement, but to show the bus, which would be impossible otherwise. I added a de minimis template to the file pages. --Ellywa (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Whpq as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: photo of copyrighted text. Is the text long enough to meet COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per (original) nom. The text is sufficient to rise above TOO. --Xover (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per comment. In addition, it is text only and therefore out of COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pbrks as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- It may lay under free license. The logo is public, just like any other brand. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: What do you mean by "the logo is public, just like any other brand"? – Pbrks (t • c) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- It can be found online, we can refference it. If needed I can vectorize it also. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: The image existing online does not affect its copyright. Please familiarize yourself with Commons copyright rules; info can be found at Commons:Licensing. Moreover, copyrighted images should not be vectorized by anyone but the copright holder; see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Multiple restrictions. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ive said before that im the owner of the logo. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: The image existing online does not affect its copyright. Please familiarize yourself with Commons copyright rules; info can be found at Commons:Licensing. Moreover, copyrighted images should not be vectorized by anyone but the copright holder; see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content#Multiple restrictions. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- It can be found online, we can refference it. If needed I can vectorize it also. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: What do you mean by "the logo is public, just like any other brand"? – Pbrks (t • c) 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The logo is owned by a Costa Rican company. Unless we know the TOO rules for this country, the image should be deleted per COM:PCP. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Im the team manager, i created the logo and i uploaded the information to have the most updated info for the club and the esports division. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, for example.. File:Escudo del Club Sport Herediano.svg is the team shield for our main soccer division. It was vetorized by TicoTico. He does not own the logo but still is published and stays without problem. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: As the owner of the logo, it is a little odd that you are so willing to relinquish your copyright of the image. If this is still something you would like to do, you should fill out the form at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you would like to maintain your copyright of the image and still use it on the appropriate page, you should upload it locally under fair use at https://es.wikipedia.org/. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pbrks the uploading of fair use material in Spanish Wikipedia is not allowed for local uploading at all, making use only of media on Commons. Is it possible to leave it as ~~This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights. See our general disclaimer. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.~~ ?? Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: While I do not believe that the image falls below the threshold of originality for Costa Rica, other users may disagree, so I can't say whether or not it will stay the way it is. However, if you want to ensure that it does, you can follow the steps found at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pbrks the uploading of fair use material in Spanish Wikipedia is not allowed for local uploading at all, making use only of media on Commons. Is it possible to leave it as ~~This work includes material that may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions. If you want to use it, you have to ensure that you have the legal right to do so and that you do not infringe any trademark rights. See our general disclaimer. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.~~ ?? Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Luispadillazumbado: As the owner of the logo, it is a little odd that you are so willing to relinquish your copyright of the image. If this is still something you would like to do, you should fill out the form at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you would like to maintain your copyright of the image and still use it on the appropriate page, you should upload it locally under fair use at https://es.wikipedia.org/. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, for example.. File:Escudo del Club Sport Herediano.svg is the team shield for our main soccer division. It was vetorized by TicoTico. He does not own the logo but still is published and stays without problem. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Im the team manager, i created the logo and i uploaded the information to have the most updated info for the club and the esports division. Luispadillazumbado (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Needs COM:VRT to verify uploader is authorized to license the logo under the relevant license. Otherwise it needs to go per COM:PRP. --Xover (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Dear User:Luispadillazumbado, please closely follow the procedure of VRT. If succesful, the logo can be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bensci54 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is the logo of RISK-HUNT3R and appears to be taken from their website, which is copyrighted. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am working on the procedure to use the "Donating copyrighted materials" option related to this image. GiorgiaPlc (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @GiorgiaPlc: Any progress on this? Without verification through COM:VRT the image may be deleted. Xover (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now. In copyright terms the image should be covered by {{PD-textlogo}}. When I am hesitant it is due to SCOPE, because it was uploaded for use in w:Draft:RISK-HUNT3R which looks fairly promotional (even if for a non-scammy entity), but we can, if needed, nuke it later as unused if the draft is deleted at enWP. Both draft and image (and this discussion) appears to have been abandoned back in September so I think we can forget about VRT. --Xover (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The logo is from an EUfunded project, and in the EU there is no such thing as a Text-logo, as rules vary between countries. The procedure should be followed as outlined in VRT, which was not succesfull till today. --Ellywa (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Flickr user does not own the copyright of the original photograph. Author is clearly identified as en:Alfred Buckham, who died in 1956. Published 1937. It's going to be a while until this is out of copyright ... El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The magazine in question was published in the US, and to my great surprise there's no trace of a copyright notice anywhere. That makes the magazine and everything first published there before 1977 {{PD-US-no notice}}. That applies to everything in Category:Camera Craft and the scans that are available at IA.There may be articles or images that were published elsewhere prior to being published in Camera Craft, but we'd need to identify those prior publications before we could tell whether they apply and change the status. They'd have to be either post-1927 publications, with notice, and that were properly renewed in the 28th year; or they would have to have been first published outside the US more than 30 days before they appeared in Camera Craft. It's also possible they started adding copyright notices in later issues, but I checked all of vol. 44 (1937) and found none there. --Xover (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Xover Thanks for your input. I probably should have mentioned that "The Terror of the Desert" was taken around 1915 [6]. I wasn't able to figure out when and where exactly it was published first, but I struggle to believe that Buckham did not publish it for more than 20 years, only to pull it out of the archive to serve as a magazine cover. The more likely scenario is that he chose a collection of his best works to go along with the article he wrote about aerial photography for that issue (a very interesting read, btw: [7]). There are 4 more of his works in that article - do we really believe that they all were first published there? I've got my doubts about that. El Grafo (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if we have indications that something was published prior to appearing in the magazine we would obviously need to do some more research. But I don't think the amount of time between creation and appearing in the magazine in itself need be all that important. Photographs are often either kept unpublished, or are only given limited publication (through exhibition in a gallery etc.), so I'd want to see something more before being seriously concerned. An example might be if we found that Buckham commonly published photos in a different magazine that included copyright notices, or in non-US publications. If all we have are clear no-notice publications I would at most want to see some reasonable due diligence.And, yes, I was at least half checking this due to the articles and their potential to be transcribed at Wikisource. In doing research like this for books and magazines I've found it was fairly common practice to acknowledge explicitly prior publications (you'll often find "Copyright yyyy this and that magazine" for stuff published before elsewhere). Magazines admittedly less so than books. The lack of such here may be an indication that they are first publications (or it could just be that the publisher had no clue about copyright). Xover (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mmmh, you may have a point there: the "Skyscrapers" on page 161 does indeed have the note Courtesy, Fortune printed below. On the other hand, in this feature on the National Archives Scotland website, his grandsons seem to claim copyright on his works. That might well be some kind of misunderstanding on their part and the image in question doesn't seem to be among those pictured there. But it shows that this is not "orphaned" art and there are indeed heirs around that look after his legacy. So we should better make sure we're not getting caught up in wishful thinking here. On a personal note: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'd love to keep this. El Grafo (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've done some delving into references to Buckham on IA. It looks like he published some photos in Camera Craft, some in Country Life, etc.; but from the references it looks like he did quite a lot of exhibiting his photos in photography salons. There was one reference suggesting he may have sold prints of his photos, but I've found no evidence he actually did. I've found a single photo in a magazine where the photo itself had a copyright notice (a defective one, but that's beside the point).This leads me to the conclusion that some of his photos may have been first published in the UK (and may thus be subject to a UK pma. 70 copyright term), but that we cannot assume that is the case absent specific evidence. Most of the actual publications I found were in US magazines and lacked notice, and a lot of the references to him were textual descriptions of photos he had exhibited at salons (that is, they were limited publications, not general publications). From this evidence the majority of his images have a fairly high probability to be public domain, but each of them will have to be assessed individually.In particular—and this isn't unique to Buckham's works—a reasonably diligent search for when and where the first publication occurred must be performed. Complicating matters here is that he published multiple versions of the same photo (composite photo, since he made prints by combining multiple negatives). "Aerial View of Edinburgh" having also been published in a variant titled "Auld Reekie" etc. But if we look at one of his photos published in Camera Craft without apparent notice, and a search finds no prior publications, it would be reasonable to accept that as {{PD-US-no notice}} unless and until someone finds a prior publication. --Xover (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- So I guess the bottom line is that we'll never be 100% certain but there's not much reason to worry. I'll update the file description accordingly. That's all we as volunteers can do (i.e. what the uploader should have done from the beginning *cough*). If we're wrong about this, there's always DMCA. Thanks a lot for digging into this, really appreciate it. @admins: please consider this request withrawn. El Grafo (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- So I guess the bottom line is that we'll never be 100% certain but there's not much reason to worry. I'll update the file description accordingly. That's all we as volunteers can do (i.e. what the uploader should have done from the beginning *cough*). If we're wrong about this, there's always DMCA. Thanks a lot for digging into this, really appreciate it. @admins: please consider this request
- I've done some delving into references to Buckham on IA. It looks like he published some photos in Camera Craft, some in Country Life, etc.; but from the references it looks like he did quite a lot of exhibiting his photos in photography salons. There was one reference suggesting he may have sold prints of his photos, but I've found no evidence he actually did. I've found a single photo in a magazine where the photo itself had a copyright notice (a defective one, but that's beside the point).This leads me to the conclusion that some of his photos may have been first published in the UK (and may thus be subject to a UK pma. 70 copyright term), but that we cannot assume that is the case absent specific evidence. Most of the actual publications I found were in US magazines and lacked notice, and a lot of the references to him were textual descriptions of photos he had exhibited at salons (that is, they were limited publications, not general publications). From this evidence the majority of his images have a fairly high probability to be public domain, but each of them will have to be assessed individually.In particular—and this isn't unique to Buckham's works—a reasonably diligent search for when and where the first publication occurred must be performed. Complicating matters here is that he published multiple versions of the same photo (composite photo, since he made prints by combining multiple negatives). "Aerial View of Edinburgh" having also been published in a variant titled "Auld Reekie" etc. But if we look at one of his photos published in Camera Craft without apparent notice, and a search finds no prior publications, it would be reasonable to accept that as {{PD-US-no notice}} unless and until someone finds a prior publication. --Xover (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Mmmh, you may have a point there: the "Skyscrapers" on page 161 does indeed have the note Courtesy, Fortune printed below. On the other hand, in this feature on the National Archives Scotland website, his grandsons seem to claim copyright on his works. That might well be some kind of misunderstanding on their part and the image in question doesn't seem to be among those pictured there. But it shows that this is not "orphaned" art and there are indeed heirs around that look after his legacy. So we should better make sure we're not getting caught up in wishful thinking here. On a personal note: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'd love to keep this. El Grafo (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if we have indications that something was published prior to appearing in the magazine we would obviously need to do some more research. But I don't think the amount of time between creation and appearing in the magazine in itself need be all that important. Photographs are often either kept unpublished, or are only given limited publication (through exhibition in a gallery etc.), so I'd want to see something more before being seriously concerned. An example might be if we found that Buckham commonly published photos in a different magazine that included copyright notices, or in non-US publications. If all we have are clear no-notice publications I would at most want to see some reasonable due diligence.And, yes, I was at least half checking this due to the articles and their potential to be transcribed at Wikisource. In doing research like this for books and magazines I've found it was fairly common practice to acknowledge explicitly prior publications (you'll often find "Copyright yyyy this and that magazine" for stuff published before elsewhere). Magazines admittedly less so than books. The lack of such here may be an indication that they are first publications (or it could just be that the publisher had no clue about copyright). Xover (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Xover Thanks for your input. I probably should have mentioned that "The Terror of the Desert" was taken around 1915 [6]. I wasn't able to figure out when and where exactly it was published first, but I struggle to believe that Buckham did not publish it for more than 20 years, only to pull it out of the archive to serve as a magazine cover. The more likely scenario is that he chose a collection of his best works to go along with the article he wrote about aerial photography for that issue (a very interesting read, btw: [7]). There are 4 more of his works in that article - do we really believe that they all were first published there? I've got my doubts about that. El Grafo (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
