Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/05/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_18_—_Lazurit.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_torch_logo.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![231 File:Σπήλαιο "Καταφύκι" Κύθνος.jpg](#File:Σπήλαιο_"Καταφύκι"_Κύθνος.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
テスト用の画像ファイの為 Aki0313 (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
テスト用画像のため 159.28.68.18 04:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. In this image, is this building public domain or applied {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. this building is applied {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. So
I withdraw my nomination. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure) --Ox1997cow (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Mr.ちゅらさん (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request. Also a duplicate of File:Mos&Cafe Yaenosato.jpg. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Photo taken by the corresponding photographer from PA Media Assignments, as credited in the description and the EXIF data, not from the FCDO, permission from the agency is required.
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52362782212).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52362826312).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52362826537).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363077377).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363117152).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363391572).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363392067).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363392542).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363572261).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363719016).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363719256).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363762886).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363802768).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363884164).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363949658).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363949853).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363950503).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363993353).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52363993423).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364000768).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364029324).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364029774).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364053596).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364074089).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364081759).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364096344).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364142805).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364209265).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364241733).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364241898).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364325686).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364326246).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364326331).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364327241).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364327256).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364327351).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364328091).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364328651).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364434555).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364553618).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364553713).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364553968).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364555443).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364555528).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364555728).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364555833).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364556153).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364635144).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364635629).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364637554).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364637619).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364748170).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364749125).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364750420).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364750870).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364853772).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364883717).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364883887).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364949457).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52364999762).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365003087).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365022832).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365106067).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365106322).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365167042).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365347172).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365347492).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365347612).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365348647).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365357952).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365468462).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365468922).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365468987).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365469077).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365551957).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365552102).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365726621).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365778112).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365779207).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365791101).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365791201).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365791251).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365791431).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365821026).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365821161).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365832892).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365833162).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365886796).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365937586).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52365937811).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366018948).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366019158).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366045556).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366046076).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366046126).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366048068).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366069898).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366069958).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366070023).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366103064).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366125081).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366132029).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366151545).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366153594).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366164678).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366187903).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366199054).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366216905).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366217330).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366246710).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366247235).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366249279).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366249484).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366272509).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366272748).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366272793).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366273008).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366273073).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366285541).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366286326).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366286576).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366286671).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366298216).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366312530).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366312700).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366333478).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366333578).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366363000).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366363430).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366405011).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366405191).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366405511).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366435984).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366470440).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366470770).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366470880).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366514538).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366514928).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366515478).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366515688).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366530680).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366550400).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366598964).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366599079).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366599549).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366633558).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366633858).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366634168).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366710770).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366711270).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366711420).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366712245).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366717683).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366718131).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366718789).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366719024).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366719186).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366719466).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366719551).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366723560).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366723670).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366767471).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366803004).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366803104).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366831630).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366831815).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366918870).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366944193).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366944838).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52366993538).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367030449).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367031104).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367083779).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367141755).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367142015).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367854142).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367972287).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367972367).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367972387).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367972542).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367998812).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52367998832).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368358707).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368795336).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368795366).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368795461).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368795471).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368912536).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52368912651).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369028568).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369107679).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369107784).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369147263).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369147353).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369172214).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369172239).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369173283).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369209298).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369214575).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369214760).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369226029).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369226209).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369226309).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369226384).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369226429).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369252099).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369288399).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369298656).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369333445).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369394955).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369395005).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369395080).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369395130).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369395175).jpg
- File:BOOK OF CONDOLENCE (52369611499).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
May 2023
[edit]Post file re-uploads, another deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Temporary cat boc // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrechtskennzeichnung in den Exif-Daten ist nicht kompatibel mit Creative-Commons-Lizenz: "(c) Dr. Volkmar Rudolf Usage terms: Nur zur Ansicht, keine Vervielfältigung ohne vorherige Genehmigung" 2003:C0:8F41:2300:B88C:29BA:448F:2F56 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep that's not really a problem. The copyright holder can license an image multiple times. As long as one of these is free ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} in this case), it's fine with us. Multichill (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any indication that the uploader Tilman2007 is the copyright holder Volkmar Rudolf? --2003:C0:8F41:2300:9CF1:522A:66BD:C0C7 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nun mach mal nicht son Wind: File:Sennfeld-001.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Geht's auch 'ne Nummer freundlicher? War das aus dem Bild, um das es hier geht, in irgendeiner Weise zu ersehen? Steht es irgendwo auf seiner Benutzerseite? --2003:C0:8F41:2300:C8B0:F917:5A42:F297 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wenn jemand seit 16 Jahren dabei ist und über 400.000 edits hat, ist eine URV schon recht unwahrscheinlich. Gruß ins Hannöversche, hab ich auch mal gewohnt... Achim55 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Geht's auch 'ne Nummer freundlicher? War das aus dem Bild, um das es hier geht, in irgendeiner Weise zu ersehen? Steht es irgendwo auf seiner Benutzerseite? --2003:C0:8F41:2300:C8B0:F917:5A42:F297 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nun mach mal nicht son Wind: File:Sennfeld-001.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any indication that the uploader Tilman2007 is the copyright holder Volkmar Rudolf? --2003:C0:8F41:2300:9CF1:522A:66BD:C0C7 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Ich kann hier nirgendwo eine Möglichkeit finden, den Löschantrag zurückzuziehen oder für erledigt zu erklären. Also, hiermit formlos: Löschantrag in dem Fall natürlich hinfällig, da der Urheber offenbar selbst der Hochladende ist. --2003:C0:8F41:2300:C8B0:F917:5A42:F297 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Request withdrawn. --Achim55 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The presence of arrows to move to next/previous image, and the presence of an identical image in IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5611918/mediaviewer/rm2282456065?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_13) , make it seem unlikely that this is "own work" PamD (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy as copyvio. --DMacks (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded a version in image instead of a pdf version, so this file will not be used at all EPorto (WMB) (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-20230515183500-File:Wikidata_Lab_XXXVII_-_pt.png){kind=link}
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded a version in image instead of a pdf version, so this file will not be used at all EPorto (WMB) (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-20230515183500-File:Wikidata_Lab_XXXVII_-_en.png){kind=link}
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RobinRafan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal Photos, out of scope
- File:RobinRafan is driving Lamborghini.jpg
- File:RobinRafan is with Real Tiger.jpg
- File:RobinRafan with his IT team.jpg
- File:RobinRafan is Driving Water Car.jpg
- File:RobinRafan at Hotel Gevora UAE.jpg
- File:RobinRafan is Dubai Marina.jpg
- File:Robin with his wife Bristy.jpg
- File:RobinRafan Dad & Son.jpg
- File:RobinRafan.jpg
Afifa Afrin (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Factchecked17 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obvious Flickrwashing and maybe blacklist flickr account 198190770@N05
- File:Julie-Annes-healthy-glowing-skin-is-a-result-of-her-self-care-that-focuses-on-overall-health.jpg
- File:In Control The10th Anniversary Concert of Julie Anne San Jose.jpg
- File:Japs diamond.jpg
- File:Cast and crew still.jpg
- File:Julie anne san jose.jpg
Stemoc 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted: obvious Flickr washing and obvious copyvio. I have added the Flickr account to the list.. --BrightRaven (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This is private building and private area. No permission for publishing!! 178.215.194.175 11:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- In Poland there is freedom of panorama and it is clearly visible that the photo was taken from a public road (ul. Towarowa - Towarowa Street). So it's completely nonsense to report this photo. Gabriel trzy (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, obviously taken from public space. ~Cybularny Speak? 18:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This is private building and private area. No permission for publishing!! 178.215.200.150 14:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, obviously taken from public space. ~Cybularny Speak? 18:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
File:ДАКО 280-147-425. 1865. Об отказе в перечислении мещанина Ивана Коваленка в Будищское сельськое общество.pdf
[edit]Please delete this file. Copyright claim by user AlexusUkr Дєдуш О. В. Alexkrakovsky (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Оригінальні архівні документи, скани яких містяться у файлі, створені в 1865–1866 роках, тобто це вже суспільне надбання. Сучасна обкладинка зі штампом архіву — це тривіальне зображення, яке авторським правом не охороняється. Також потрібно враховувати, що ні сканування, ні факт оплати за сканування – не створюють нових авторських прав. Вважаю, що файл можна залишити з позначенням ліцензії PD. --AMY (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Шановні адміністратори, після роз'яснень я розумію, що оригінальні документи знаходяться в суспільному надбанні, тому немає більше підстав, що його видаляти. Прошу зняти з видалення. Дякую. Alexkrakovsky (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
No permission for publishing. This is private area. No permission!!!! 178.215.198.182 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Image taken from a public road, no permission needed. See Copyright rights in Poland § Freedom of Panorama for more information. :XxakixX (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to a zoomed version of this image. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~Cybularny Speak? 20:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
This is private building and private area. No permission for publishing!! 178.215.194.175 11:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This is private building and private area. No permission for publishing!! 178.215.200.150 14:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~Cybularny Speak? 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, You could have F10'd. --Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Personal file (class certificate) outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense JCFLastiri (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim55 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Image is the two parent compounds, but the title and description is the salt formed from them. We have File:Hydrazinium Chloride Structural Formula V.1.svg DMacks (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 22:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
personal joke? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
large watermark disproportionate to size of image. Plenty of alternatives exists so we don't need this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep That's no reason for deletion. -- AutomobilePassion (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Large obscuring watermark. We have alternative images, so we can do without this one. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep That's no reason for deletion. -- AutomobilePassion (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Exact same photo as File:Curved wall (14221558218).jpg, except processed with weird unnatural filter. No value over original. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Юрий Д.К 14:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This seems to be a fake document, becuase it is very strange. Even if we are not judging by the content, it is apparently bizzare (text alignment, margines, fonts used etc.). "the CIA" is the source and I could not find it elsewhere. HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - this is clearly not an official government document, and without a source this is plain-text content outside the scope of Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete -
By orders of the CIA. Per nom and Omphalographer. - ZLEA T\C 01:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photographs of a diploma with a photographs CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 179.251.202.154 23:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 179.251.202.154 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation 179.251.202.154 23:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation 179.251.202.154 23:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
License review failed: the photo on Unsplash was published on January 29, 2021, past the cut-off date of June 5, 2017. According to {{Unsplash}}: "On 5 June 2017, Unsplash switched the old sitewide license for all uploads from Creative Commons CC0 to a custom license arrangement which does not meet the free content licensing requirements for Commons. Therefore, media published on Unsplash from 5 June 2017 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on Unsplash is prior to 5 June 2017." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Violation of author's copyright. As there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, commercial license from the author of the depicted architecture, PT Sekawan Design Inc. Architectural firm, must be obtained, and they must send commercial license permission via COM:VRTS correspondence. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unfortuantely seems cannot be free licensed per Indonesia law (too bad, was in use). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Probably the same building as that of the deleted photo. Violation of architect's copyright, considering Indonesia does not provide freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Reupload by the same user. --Achim55 (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Architectural copyright violation. UAE does not provide freedom of panorama, and the photo focuses on copyrighted architectural artwork authored by Architect Adrian Smith. Prior deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly
Not OK Ox1997cow (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zurab Tsereteli patriarch01.jpg, copyrighted statue as the sculptor is not yet dead for more than 70 years. Commercial freedom of panorama is not permitted in Russia for non-architecture.
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (198).jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (239).jpg
- File:Monument to Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' Alexius II.JPG
- File:Patriarshaya Square, Yoshkar-Ola.jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (262).jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (263).jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (264).jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (266).jpg
- File:Yoshkar-Ola, Mari El Republic, Russia - panoramio (276).jpg
- File:Алексий II...( Alexius II )....jpg
- File:Двенадцать апостолов.tif
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
....jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Wrong data. Please remove Galahad1822 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
already available Didou 78780 (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Where is this file already available somehere else? M0tty (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- In the draft of my article, intitled "Huiles de graissage pour turbomachines d'aviation", there are several links to gas turbine engines, including one to turboprop, in French 'Tubopropulseurs". By clicking on this link, you have a prargraph "Principle" with exactly the same image I want to delete from my text. Consequently, this image is now redundant. Am I following the right procedure to remove the image? from the draft ? Thank you for your help. Didou 78780 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, obviously a misunderstanding. @Didou 78780: To remove a file from your draft at fr.wp, you edit this draft at fr.wp. Nominating the file for deletion here at Wikimedia Commons is not the right procedure. I have removed the file from your draft for you. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Rosenzweig. I still have a lot to learn ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didou 78780 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
the photographer is de:Renate von Mangoldt, 1999, see: https://www.literaturport.de/lexikon/sibylle-lewitscharoff/ Goesseln (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text content. Omphalographer (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition, there are several photos of unclear source and copyright status. Marbletan (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Non-free sculpture by France Gorše (d. 1986). TadejM (t/p) 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2057. --Rosenzweig τ 06:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Diploma, Usage of Commons as personnal storage space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also deleting quasi-duplicate File:CONCORSO INTERNAZIONALE CITTA DI STRESA.pdf. --Rosenzweig τ 06:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
out of com:ps personal file. Hanooz 10:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Tulsi 24x7 10:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
out of scope, probably another person's personal images (description says "Addison Rae's posterior")
- File:Snapinsta.app 118254638 687919348736220 6824963582413876844 n 1080.jpg
- File:Snapinsta.app 244455560 2773997912900935 7620111498860506868 n 1080.jpg
Nutshinou Talk! 10:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Tulsi 24x7 10:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zinfandel and (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal logos/icons, no educational value, out of scope (article deleted at fa,wp).
- File:نشان ملی سیاناسیاه.jpg
- File:پرچم سیاناسیاه.jpg
- File:نشان ملی.jpg
- File:پرچم فنتستیک اتوپیا.jpg
- File:پرچمی که فنتستیک اتوپیا برای استعمار سی لند طراحی کرد.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Tulsi 24x7 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence John Deacon has released this photo into the public domain or an otherwise reshareable free license, see source website link. Indy beetle (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Dubious claim of CC 2.0; source is a blog; image lacks COM:EVIDENCE. Muzilon (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Iran.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Metadata credits SABAN KILICCI Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
See https://www.wsop.com/players/profile/?playerid=347999, also metadata
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Derechos de autor 186.172.43.63 16:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Random penis photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not own works, some out of scope also
- File:591B72CE-A865-4546-9229-2AC51AA47vvvf.png
- File:19A7B32A-E03E-4D76-8F1E-6797342Fnnn.png
- File:CF79B654-75D0-48F5-80D6-8F5E5CD7ppppp.png
- File:21C53338-E04F-40C2-B109-0CA8A93Cd.jpg
- File:E69FC63F-2315-45D6-A533-DBDD40A0C.jpg
- File:33E73982-0EF5-4D76-92B5-70078DFC.jpg
- File:37C03EA8-EB59-4BDF-A326-D0797D165b.webp
- File:6245F97F-1D33-4457-8CA8-52B0A5CFCc.png
- File:B40233B2-2658-4BC8-9A81-C04A302Bc.jpg
- File:9FF3F7A8-4856-46DE-B70A-FC0676C0mmm.gif
- File:AA60E74B-66D2-457D-8824-51B722BCmm.jpg
- File:ED6A3FFA-5DE2-419A-81ED-26994DA2Mm.gif
- File:25973E6B-C659-4A83-87BB-1F9B8F71mm.jpg
- File:ADDC5550-61CA-486A-9BC6-C6287A7Cllll.jpg
- File:F28ECC0B-309A-43D8-8138-0F68C6C1´´.jpg
- File:2CEE1A0B-3B00-4EB7-9641-DF59329opp.jpg
- File:50733939-EFA9-4E51-A657-DB87A01nn.jpg
- File:ABDF9EED-A04E-48C6-8694-2CA04B17Lmml.jpg
- File:753A381A-C835-41E4-B93D-98516DF.jpg
- File:61779BF6-775B-4EF1-B8C5-287FE2D1jg.png
- File:FAF7B32E-1261-42CC-89E6-64DE25Ckj.png
- File:667D5999-2F23-4355-9C0C-F22D9C58hh.png
- File:CCCDA740-800A-4180-98C9-9AE1D001ff.jpg
- File:A22BC658-84A4-493D-B7DE-82D11A186ff.jpg
- File:FFB660BB-FBC6-441C-B466-58AAD30Avv.jpg
- File:5D89E951-81E7-4159-8462-998FACA71gg.jpg
- File:478B8E6A-E8AE-4195-ADBC-B39B068D9Ppp.jpg
- File:C7CB4E27-47D4-4E7D-980A-A50E8502ff.jpg
- File:3B20A2BF-34DE-47B9-B1F3-1D0854FEgg.jpg
- File:42B1FA3B-F77D-49D2-8C00-B9E7A0B54fgg.jpg
- File:AD980194-D588-4124-AEB6-CAE0E967.png
- File:0CE0FF2D-F42F-4A31-BD52-9B6156E.jpg
- File:C2435ACB-03C5-4DEF-8A40-2D10cc.jpg
- File:A921FB25-90B6-4E20-ADC0-5BCC7D5.jpg
- File:E5D0D22C-4E82-4999-82C6-5E00CD.jpg
- File:58B5CBB1-AB41-4345-9563-8D555efveve.jpg
- File:D0D5C7A2-B341-47EE-BA52-dkiekje.jpg
- File:Panneau photosynthétique.png
- File:Panneau solaire photosynthétique.png
- File:Essai nebd.jpg
- File:Anagene 1.png
- File:Scenecjce.png
Юрий Д.К 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Φωτογραφία χωρίς άδεια / Photo without permission Aggelos1357 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: haven't found an older version on the Internet. Ruthven (msg) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in greece. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted work. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted work. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted work. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted work. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted work. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photo used for a video on YouTube 6 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx1VNcDxdZE CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The name in the watermark on the picture is different from the uploader's CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://twitter.com/djPHROZE CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The name of the author in the metadata is not the same as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Gatro123 is likely the author - transferred from Commons by a bot. No reason to doubt this. --Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Unnamed person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, a search on the internet brings to another musician CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, heavily processed picture CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Not found on the internet CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Slef-published picture of what seems to be a tv show CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Unidentified building, Unlikely to be own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The name of the author in the metadata is different than the uploader's CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Election campaigns in Slovenia
[edit]Non-free election campaign posters.
- File:Predvolilni napisi 2. aprila 2022 09.jpg
- File:Predvolilni napisi 2. aprila 2022 10.jpg
- File:Predvolilni napisi 2. aprila 2022 11.jpg
- File:Predvolilni napisi 2. aprila 2022 12.jpg
TadejM (t/p) 19:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Not own work, nor is any other source provided. ɱ (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: might be old enough but needs more info to confirm. --Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Ad for a service CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Ad for a service CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Ad for a service CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, One of the many musicians using this name CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible ad for a wedding DJ according to the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Weak keep. Don't see anything too advert like. Has exif. --Gbawden (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Already on the internet in May 2022 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, The source indicates a copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture from Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.instagram.com/fablanda_official/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.instagram.com/favorvalentine/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: I found a lot of homonyms on the internet CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.instagram.com/f_marches/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: logo of an artist, No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: Unnamed person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover according to the descritpion, No proven notability https://www.facebook.com/Hajas.Music/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible ad for a music video CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/c/Sebasti%C3%A1nPR CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Magazin covers CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber CoffeeEngineer. Das Bild ist keine Kopie. Es ist von mir produziert und entsprechend hochgeladen worden. Das Bild zeigt die ersten vier Cover des Magazins. Ich habe für die gezeigte Gestaltung des Bildes alle Freigaben des Herausgebers, der GRANDIOS UG. Sollten Sie weitere Fragen haben, stehe ich Ihnen jederzeit sehr gerne zur verfügung. Herzliche gRüße, Ihre Flavia Liminski Flavia Liminski (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Liebe Flavia Liminski, danke für ihre Antwort. Für mich, ist es genug, aber es kann sein, dass Sie mehr Erklärung geben müssen. Sie können das Volunteer Response Team kontaktiren, um sicher zu sein. Das Link mit, wie Sie machen müssen ist: [1]. Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen, ob Sie weitere Fragen haben. Herzliche Grüße, Ihr CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs OTRS for each image. --Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.instagram.com/greta_ray_official/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use, Unrecognizable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The watermark on the picture is different from the uploader's name CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete again G. 186.174.22.212 14:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Not notable person, used for vandalism on dawiki KnudW (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://fr-fr.facebook.com/igorvskyofficial/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/c/IngaMfono CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBFSXKDcI-anF1aeS-NNTyA CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: Few info online CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, taken from FB. --Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: Few info online CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.facebook.com/IvanEComposer CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Already on the internet in 2017 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Probably out of scope, only uploaded for advertising.
Yann (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Unused Webp logo, should be SVG if useful, out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Unused JPEG logo, should be SVG if useful, out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- sorry are you saying it should be svg format instead of jpeg? 104.3.27.144 21:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. This is quite poor quality. Yann (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Happy to comply. 104.3.27.144 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. This is quite poor quality. Yann (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Probably not own work: [2]. Yann (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
A formal written permission is needed for promotional pictures. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to reverse image search webp files to find the true source, but the uploader has uploaded other Copyright images, and this was made by a professional photographer with close access to VIPs, almost surely not the users "own work". GreenC (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Tight crop, no exif, looks like a screenshot - unlikely to be own work as claimed. PCP Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 18:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyrighted covers; Commons does not accept fair use media files.
- File:تجريد الاعتقاد.jpg
- File:الإحتجاج.jpg
- File:بصائر الدرجات.jpg
- File:ثم اهتديت.jpg
- File:كليات في علم الرجال.jpg
- File:الارشاد.jpg
- File:رجال النجاشي.jpg
- File:رجال الكشي.jpg
- File:تفسير العياشي.jpg
- File:مقاتل الطالبيين.jpg
- File:كتاب معاني الأخبار.jpg
--Karim talk to me :)..! 07:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; can usually be uploaded to your local Wikipedia as fair use if an article exists (F1). --Alaa :)..! 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: OOS. --Alaa :)..! 18:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure with opaque background & colored atoms; incorrect depiction of a radical. Replaced by File:1,1-Dimethylallyl-radical-2D-structure.svg as high-quality alternative. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. In original image, there is a warning message not to upload files to Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Copied from a Flaunt Magazine photoshoot (https://archive.flaunt.com/content/noah-schnapp-first-time-offenders) where the author is stated as "Isaac Anthony". No evidence it has ever been published under a CC licence or that that the uploader had licencing rights Pontificalibus (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
SVG structures of melamine
[edit]We have three that appear to be the same (format, orientation, style choices), but with different sized margins and tagged with different SVG validation. Can we consolidate as one best one?
- File:Melamine.svg -- oldest
- File:Melamine2.svg -- large margins (therefore my least preferred)
- File:Structural formula of melamine.svg -- validated SVG
DMacks (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment Let me clear up some things first: As I work mainly on the German Wikipedia, we have a different drawing style for chemical structures than Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing, meaning other bond length, angles, and so on and so forth. That's why I often upload the chemical structure of the same compound twice. Structures drawn according to German Wikipedia style are often named by me with "File:Structural formula of ....svg", whereas structures drawn according to MOS guidelines of the English Wikipedia / Commons are named with "File:....-2D-structure.svg" or "File:....-2D-skeletal.svg". Concerning the three structures of melamine: File:Melamine.svg, the oldest also consists 7 SVG errors after a validation; File:Melamine2.svg has too large margins, I agree with that and File:Structural formula of melamine.svg is the only one who has proper margins and validated to be SVG error free. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Deletion of a file usually results in automatic deletion of the picture on the projects where it's used. Does consolidation automatically involves a replacement instead of just a removal? MarcoSwart (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because I don't know all the pros/cons of these individual images, I wanted to get this discussion started before actually doing the replacements. For example, I support Chem Sim 2001's position that different WP sites might have different standard styles, but I don't know by eye those subtlties. If indeed one or two are "poor" with no off-setting EDUSE, then the step is to replace and delete. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- CommonsDelinker is working on replacing Melamine and Melamine2 with Structural formula of melamine. DMacks (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete File:Melamine.svg as oldest and invalid SVG & File:Melamine2.svg because of too large margins. Both files were completely replaced by File:Structural formula of melamine.svg. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 25or6to4 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: A portion of this collage "Resaca de la Palma TPWD" was deleted previously as a copyright violation, thus this collage probably also has to go. Heavily in use, converting to DR to allow time to replace the image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: ok nobody replaces it so I delete it. --Sanandros (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Herzi Pinki (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
blurry cat image Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Not own work/ Copyvio. Cropped version of image found on https://ab-inbev.be/nl_BE/news/stella-artois-groeit-jaar-na-jaar-in-zuid-afrika-30-in-afgelopen-3-jaar# Henxter (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Found here before upload - https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr-Khrgts-S/?hl=en - no exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- very likely it is not owned by the user. There are more similar pics on the internet prior to upload date. DSP2092 (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, not useful. Source and subject of image are unclear. Filename suggests it was taken somewhere from the Internet. Description "Prince Neal of Belgium" is in indication of a hoax (there is no prince Neal of Belgium). It was uploaded for use on en.wikipedia.org's "Prince Neal of Belgium" which was speedily deleted on 2023-04-27. Henxter (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete Will Hurd's Twitter profile picture --Nutshinou Talk! 10:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
dissorted duplicate of File:Ayaz Mutalibov 1992.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
logo of private company Euro know (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as PD-Textlogo, file is in use (in scope). --Wdwd (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
These four pages from the Nidaros newspaper from 1985 is unlikely to be correctly licensed. I doubt The Trondheim municipal archives is the rights holder to the newspaper itself and any images contained within the articles. The files are not actually used anywhere either, so deleting them won't really be a loss.
- File:'Bydelsutvalgene har spilt fallitt' - 'Ungdommens bystyre' - 'Folkestyret et jubileum verd?' (1985) (30894130075).jpg
- File:'Formannskapet - anonym 150 åring for folk i byen' (1985) (30805878761).jpg
- File:'Huitfeldt-brygga kan rase på elva' - 'Flere statlige midler dersom kommunen overtar' (1985) (30262270404).jpg
- File:'Ludvigs eller De husarmes Legat selger tomt' - 'Evig pine for Dahl og Moxnes' - 'Kommunen får Møllebakken 39' (1985) (30858101386).jpg
_(30894130075).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(30805878761).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(30262270404).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(30858101386).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
TommyG (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing permission for shown text/graphics (newspaper). --Wdwd (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
logo of private hospital Euro know (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as PD-Textlogo, file is in use (in scope). --Wdwd (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Crop of a campaign photo: https://twitter.com/TreyFuccillo/status/1655547590992117760; though the tweet was published after the Commons upload, so not sure when the original date is. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution images missing full EXIF data, user's only uploads, also the filename appears to be a Facebook image, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution images missing full EXIF data, user's only uploads, also the initial filename appears to be a Facebook image, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from copyrighted app A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from non-free radar images A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
_18_%E2%80%94_Lazurit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_18_%E2%80%94_Lazurit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Belarus. Per w:en:List of tallest buildings by country, The Lazurit was completed in 2022. While the photo was taken in 2020, during the final stages of completion, the building already exhibits distinct architectural properties at this point. A commercial license permit from its architect is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
_18_—_Lazurit.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - although the image is freely licensed, the subject architecture is copyrighted in Belarus and does not allow for commercial use. Note, the image has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia as en:File:Lazurit Belarus.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
_18_—_Lazurit.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:BCEAO Tower (Bamako)
[edit]COM:FOP Mali: commercial freedom of panorama is not granted in Mali. According to w:fr:Tour de la BCEAO (Bamako), the building was completed in 1994 and authored by Raymond Thomas of FARAH Architecte dplg. A commercial license permission from Thomas or his heirs is required, if reforming the copyright law of Mali is not allowed.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Federal Land Tower
[edit]No freedom of pano in the Philippines. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama phil copy law doesnt allow non-fair use of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculpture in the phils. An architecture or sculpture is said to enter allowable commercial use of their photos if it has been 50 years after the death of the last surviving person architect engineer or designer or if 50 years after the completion if it is a work of joint companies in architecture. A recent bldg from 2017
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Still, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undeletion is possible, once FOP is introduced in the Philippines just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation for matters about FOP. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Federal Land Tower
[edit]Copyrighted work of architecture, in a country with no freedom of panorama.
- File:Bonifacio Global City - skyline (view from Pioneer) (Taguig and Makati)(2018-04-24) cropped~2.jpg
- File:Grand Hyatt Manila Night.jpg
_(Taguig_and_Makati)(2018-04-24)_cropped~2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Greece: there is no acceptable freedom of panorama in Greece. The architectural work was completed in 1971 and authored by Ioannis Vikelas. As he is still alive as of this writing, commercial license permit from him is required. Prior deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Athens Towers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Greece: there is no acceptable freedom of panorama in Greece. The architectural work was completed in 1971 and authored by Ioannis Vikelas. As he is still alive as of this writing, commercial license permit from him is required. Prior deletions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Athens Towers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Latvia: there is no commercial freedom of panorama in Latvia. The towers were completed in 2017 and authored by F.L.Tadao & Lukševics and Helmut Jahn (the latter architect died in 2021). A commercial license from F.L.Tadao & Lukševics architectural firm is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:AMPWC Tower
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama yet in the Philippines. The building architect is unlikely to be dead for more than 50 years for the architectural work to be dismissed as in public domain.
- File:AMPWC Tower 3.jpg
- File:AMPWC Tower April 16 2023.jpg
- File:AMPWC Tower Clouds.jpg
- File:AMPWC Tower January 2023.jpg
- File:AMPWC Tower Sunset One.jpg
- File:AMPWC Tower Sunset.jpg
- File:AMPWC Viewed From Alpha Angelicum Academy.jpg
- File:APMWC Tower 1.jpg
- File:APMWC Tower 2.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Romania (see COM:FOP Romania). As the building dates to 2012 per the category attached to the image, the architect is very unlikely to have died for more than 70 years for this work to be in public domain under Romanian copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:SM City Santa Rosa
[edit]Nominated photos show elaborate parts of exterior and interior architecture. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:SM Mall Santa Rosa.jpg.
- File:SM 6;00PM.jpg
- File:SM BDO And Parking Mid Rises.jpg
- File:SM Santa Rosa Bottom.jpg
- File:SM Santa Rosa Down.jpg
- File:SM Santa Rosa Expansion Wing Interior.jpg
- File:SM Santa Rosa Yuwh.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Info uploader B18IDH wants to rename File:SM 6;00PM.jpg to File:SM Santa Rosa 6;00PM.jpg, reasoning out as "So I Can Remove Every Deletion Nominations". Whatever the file mover's decision will be, the new file name must also be taken into account by the closing administrator. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)- Info their rename request declined. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SamuelJS1983 (talk · contribs)
[edit]It is not apparent how the uploader is connected to the company, but the source given is the company's website and there is no evidence of a free license. Maybe we need to contact to company...
- File:Von baer heathrow leather travel bag.jpg
- File:Von baer straight to business leather laptop bag.jpg
- File:Von baer milan leather travel bag classic.jpg
- File:Von baer milan leather travel bag.jpg
- File:Von Baer goldman wheeled leather travel bag.jpg
- File:Von Baer Magnate Leather Laptop Bag.jpg
- File:Pricing approaches infographic.jpg
Avron (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SamJones1989 (talk · contribs)
[edit]It is not apparent how the uploader is connected to the company, but the source given is the company's website and there is no evidence of a free license. Maybe we need to contact to company...
- File:Von-Baer-Leather-Laptop-Bags-Pricing-Infographic.jpg
- File:Von Baer Leather Laptop Bags Pricing Infographic.jpg
- File:Von-baer-bags-infographic1-1024x356.jpg
See also [3]
Avron (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lightweightbody (talk · contribs)
[edit]I'm not sure what the source is, but these don't seem like "Own Work",especially considering a very similar previous contribution was found to be stolen from https://www.welovenudes.net
Muhandes (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
out of com:ps
- File:مدرک سیستم بیولوژی (1).jpg
- File:مدرک طراحی دارو.jpg
- File:مدال همایس ملی تجهیزات پزشکی تولیدات دارویی وآزمایشگاهی تهران --- مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 139043 2011 j.jpg
- File:نشان عالی مدیر شایسته ملی 1395 خورشیدی 2016 (2)~1.jpg
- File:نشان عالی مدیر شایسته ملی 1395 خورشیدی 2016 (1)~1.jpg
- File:نشان الماس Baf (رتبه بندی مهارتی مدیران در تراز جهانی) تهران - مرکز همایش های صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 1396 خورشیدی 2017 (2)~1.jpg
- File:نشان الماس Baf (رتبه بندی مهارتی مدیران در تراز جهانی) تهران - مرکز همایش های صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 1396 خورشیدی 2017 (1)~1.jpg
- File:مدال همایس ملی تجهیزات پزشکی تولیدات دارویی وآزمایشگاهی تهران -- مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 139043 2011 j.jpg
- File:مدال همایس ملی تجهیزات پزشکی تولیدات دارویی وآزمایشگاهی تهران - مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 139043 2011 j.jpg
- File:مدال اولین گرد همایی مدیران برتر تهران مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیما 1391428 2012 july 18.jpg
- File:2مدال اولین گرد همایی مدیران برتر تهران مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیما 1391428 2012 july 18.jpg
- File:تندیس سمینار مدیریت دانش واقتصاد دانش بنیان تهران - مرکز همایش های سازملن اسناد وکتابخانه ملی ایران~2.jpg
- File:تندیس دوره پیشرفته راهبردی مدیریت کسب وکار (Post DBA) مشهد دانشگاه گام اندیشه 1397107 خرشیدی 2018 December (1)~1.jpg
- File:تندیس دوره پیشرفته راهبردی مدیریت کسب وکار (Post DBA) مشهد دانشگاه گام اندیشه 1397107 خرشیدی 2018 December (2)~1.jpg
- File:تندیس سمینار مدیریت دانش واقتصاد دانش بنیان تهران - مرکز همایش های سازملن اسناد وکتابخانه ملی ایران~1.jpg
- File:شان نوابغ مدیریت ایران1395 2016 (2)~2.jpg
- File:تندیس سمینار بین المللی مدیریت راهبردی کسب وکار MBA تهران بهمن 1391.jpg
- File:سردیس کنگره تجلیل ازشرکت های دانش بنیان کشور تهران مرکز همایش های صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 139510 خورشیدی 2016 Decem.jpg
- File:تندیس کنگره تجلیل از یکصد مدیر شایسته تهران - مرکز همایش های صدا وسیما 1395422 خورشیدی 2016 July 12.jpg
- File:تندیس کنگره بین المللی روز جهانی دیابت ایران - تهران -بیمارستان 502 ارتش 1391822 خورشیدی 2012 November.jpg
- File:تندیس شبکه 4 صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران به مناسبت شرکت در برنامه مستند راز موفقیت 13906 خورشیدی 2011 september.jpg
- File:تندیس چهره های ماندگار درمان وسلامت ایران ایران - تهران - مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران 13902 خورشیدی 201.jpg
- File:تندیس جشنواره نشان حمایت ملی تهران مرکز همایش های بین المللی صدا وسیما 13911125 2013 february 13.jpg
- File:تندیس جشنواره مدیران ماندگار ایران ایران مشهد 1395 خورشیدی 2016.jpg
- File:بنیاد اروپایی مدرک.jpg
- File:تندیس پزشک نمونه 1385-6-5 2006 August.jpg
- File:5 تندیس پزشک نمونه از طرف سازمان نظام پزشکی و دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان ایران - اصفهان 138565 خورشیدی ،August 2006.jpg
- File:4 تندیس داروساز نمونه سازمان تامین اجتماعی ایران - اصفهان 138165 شمسی خورشیدی Aguust 27 2002.jpg
- File:تاریخ ثبت اختراع 1379 شمسی ، 2000 میلادی.jpg
- File:پایان نامه پری سیما سعیدی.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86_-_%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%B2_%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7_%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86_1396_%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C_2017_(2)~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86_-_%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%B2_%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7_%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86_1396_%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C_2017_(1)~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF_%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87_%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B4%D9%87_1397107_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C_2018_December_(1)~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF_%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87_%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B4%D9%87_1397107_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C_2018_December_(2)~1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hanooz 10:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- なお、既にアップロード者には連絡済みで（ja:利用者‐会話:Doraemonplus#福井地震断層の地図の修正のお願い）、了解を得たうえで代替地図File:1948 Fukui Earthquake Fault on aerial photograph.pngを作成済み。--Peka (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. From the TV show Jeopardy, and copyrighted by ABC Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I realize it's not my own work but it clearly shows that it is ABC. Is o there a way to keep an image that only helps to promote the company and I thought it was a long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. Please advise. Regards. Mshare (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete First of all, this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Second, this is not a logo but copyrighted text. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Findeco House. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The upload dates to after January 1, 2023, past the date of allowable uploads of copyrighted works in publicc spaces from Vietnam as per COM:FOP Vietnam. Vietnamese freedom of panorama is non-commercial since that day, hence new uploads are no longer acceptable on Commons as violating the copyright law of Vietnam. A commercial license permit from the architect is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Not under an appropriate license, it's pulled from a random blogspot per description. Two editors have also claimed it's not who it claims to depict. A spanish description was added by a user, and an English note in the file history. 97.115.156.93 08:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- From the file history: [7] and [8] 97.115.156.93 08:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ignacio_Nacho_Anaya.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=542196151){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ignacio_Nacho_Anaya.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=392437309){kind=link}
- I corrected the license to PD-Mexico. Tineye finds the image to be "Don Ignacio Anaya Moreno" from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20150509204557/https://zetatijuana.com/noticias/los-donez/20973/don-ignacio-anaya-moreno found on Wayback. The version no longer displays, but Tineye captured a thumbnail, and it is the uncropped version. You can run the Tineye search yourself to verify the results. --RAN (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I do question the PD-Mexico tag though. Who is the author of the image and what's the confirmation they died before 1952? 97.115.156.93 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I started an entry for what appears to be the correct person: Ignacio Anaya Moreno. If we all agree, we can make the changes on the cropped version so it points to the correct person. See https://adanmedrano.com/original-nachos-recipe-ignacio-anaya/, where the website claims another image is of the inventor of nachos. --RAN (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-20230515162800-File:Ignacio_Nacho_Anaya.jpg){kind=link}
- I have no problem with that. I only noticed because the image on enwiki had changed and was obviously a different person then had been pictured previously. 97.115.156.93 22:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Credited elsewhere in the image watermark. Need OTRS to confirm uploader is the photographer Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful (Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.) SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment I don't know if there could be hypothetical potential education value in it showing a nude human, for example by adding to the large collection of photographs that show the diversity of human bodies and/or genitalia (or e.g. for potential usefulness in an article about humorous Internet porn etc). It's not "self-created" however, it was created by a Flickr user and then uploaded to here.
- In any case: the file description and the way it's included in the search engine results is a problem. It currently shows up (irrelevant, surprising, NSFW, distracting, useless) when searching for boomer for example and the description describes this meme instead of the picture, either or both of that should be changed at some point in some way.
- Prototyperspective (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion requester is registered in Wikipedia since 2013 but was only less than 50 total edits in all projects and only 8 edits in Commons, all made today.
- This has been discussed to death. 30 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology.
- Besides this dozens of dr all closed has kept, has been discussed to death (including the descriptions) in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev and there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.
- Ignoring willfully all this previous discussions to open another dr with the same old tired arguments is, at the simplest level, just plain wrong. Tm (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I searched for programming topics and got - basically porn. There is absolutely no educational value in these photographs. It's basically a handful of people promoting a niche subject of nude photography. Even wikimedia commons has a responsibility for young people. The main arguments brought forward to keep the pictures are: "Commons is not censored", (Why do we have delete requests at all then?), and "the file is part of a series" (which is not an argument at all if the entire series is useless and harmful as in this case). Arguments don't become better if they're repeated dozens of times! Besides, I don't ignore willfully previous discussions, I just can't afford reading it all but still care about my and other children who come across harmful content when they expect it least. SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, this is not porn. Second the descriptions have been debated to death. Third, 30 deletion requests and several discussions prove that your assertion that "There is absolutely no educational value in these photographs" is just that an argument several times rejected. Fourth "Commons is not censored" and deletion requests is not related with censorship.
- And you talking about children "basically a handful of people promoting a" world view and moral dogma. It is the classic "Think of the children logical fallacy" and "form of obsession over the concept of purity" coming from a puritan views and obsession with a that tries to appeal to emotions and not reason to make an moral panic.
- Also you also talk specifically of your children and as you are their parent it is your responsability to educate and care about them and not to try or pretend to try to unload them into others under false moralistic arguments (i.e. delete this file to "care about my and other children" under the false "Will someone please think of the children?" à la Helen Lovejoy). Tm (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- It absolutely very clearly is porn. It does not matter if it has been debated to death which I doubt, the descriptions are not describing the image. Concerning children, he stated "Even wikimedia commons has a responsibility for young people", and you did not address his concerns, instead you seem to say children don't use WMC and just name-call an unrelated fallacy (which he did not commit).
- There a very small group of organized people who see educational value in this series in its entirety and there are many often-inexperienced people coming here separately to make deletion requests for this images part of this series, usually failing to raise the realistic educational value policy. He did not make an appeal to emotion, he made a (multiple actually) reasonable point which you are in denial of. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I searched for programming topics and got - basically porn. There is absolutely no educational value in these photographs. It's basically a handful of people promoting a niche subject of nude photography. Even wikimedia commons has a responsibility for young people. The main arguments brought forward to keep the pictures are: "Commons is not censored", (Why do we have delete requests at all then?), and "the file is part of a series" (which is not an argument at all if the entire series is useless and harmful as in this case). Arguments don't become better if they're repeated dozens of times! Besides, I don't ignore willfully previous discussions, I just can't afford reading it all but still care about my and other children who come across harmful content when they expect it least. SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep with a vengeance. Not this crap again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.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}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not educationally useful (Self-created artwork without obvious educational use.) SaschaHolzhauer (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep There are over 100 images in the series, deleting one ad hoc, diminishes the value of the series. --RAN (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know if there could be hypothetical potential education value in it showing a nude human, for example by adding to the large collection of photographs that show the diversity of human bodies and/or breasts (or e.g. for potential usefulness in an article about humorous Internet porn etc).
- In any case: the file description and the way it's included in the search engine results is a problem. It currently shows up (irrelevant, surprising, NSFW, distracting, useless) when searching for PHP for example and the description describes this programming language instead of the picture. I'm not convinced by previous comment(s).
- Prototyperspective (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion requester is registered in Wikipedia since 2013 but was only less than 50 total edits in all projects and only 8 edits in Commons, all made today.
- This has been discussed to death. 30 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology.
- Besides this dozens of dr all closed has kept, has been discussed to death (including the descriptions) in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev and there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.
- Ignoring willfully all this previous discussions to open another dr with the same old tired arguments is, at the simplest level, just plain wrong. Tm (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep we need to open a discussion on banning new nominations of this series, which I personally hate by the way. Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – speedy. I don't understand the point of these images, but there is consensus that they should be kept (for artistic value? notability? at this point they indeed seem to be notable for the controversy around them) and the new requests take valuable time from our contributors. –LPfi (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- If there is consensus, it is not a robust one and does not mean it can't be challenged. It isn't even clear why they should be kept and why exactly they would meet WMC policies or why their descriptions and categorizations would meet WMC policies. Being a common subject of deletion discussion is not an argument for notability and inclusion, rather the exact opposite is the case: the high frequency of deletion requests including from long-standing Wikimedia projects contributors proves that many don't think they are within scope. It's just that all of these people come here individually in isolated ways and may in total even outnumber the persistent Keep voters who I constantly see failing in bringing up real arguments upon which decisions should be made, rather than plain-voting headcounts. The deletion requests have usually failed to cite the relevant WMC policies making their requests weak right from the start.
- Taking up valuable time from our contributors is, if anything, another good reason for why they either shouldn't be here or we should simply add a sentence to the COM:PORN policy that, like I suggested, asks the uploaders to themselves categorize their images into "Nude or partially nude people"-type categories (which one would expect they'd do anyway due to "what or whom does the file show? What is the main subject? What are the noteworthy features of the image?"). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the deletion requests are from SPA users, that as quick as appear dissapear.
- And 30 deletion requests kept, dozens of discussions in talkpages, administrators noticeboards, village pump all to the same said (including the last three you opened) are clearly of a robust consensus that are not what you want, as being reject on your attempt to change COM:PORN policy. Also your behaviour of removing valid categories was also noted as "Removing the category without a replacement is intentional disruptive". Enough said. Tm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Paintings by Dan Kitchener (still alive), permission from him is required A1Cafel (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Paintings by Dan Kitchener (still alive), permission from him is required A1Cafel (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work (https://www.milanuncios.com/organizacion-de-fiestas/cantante-femenina-para-eventos-485082896.htm) Brunnaiz (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Burkina Faso. Per w:en:List of tallest buildings by country, it was completed in 2009. Therefore, the artist or designer is most likely not yet dead for more than 70 years and the monumental work is still under his copyright.
- File:Memorial of the Martyrs-Ouagadougou-1.jpg
- File:Memorial of the Martyrs-Ouagadougou-2.jpg
- File:Memorial of the Martyrs-Ouagadougou-3.jpg
- File:Memorial of the Martyrs-Ouagadougou-4.jpg
- File:Memorial of the Martyrs-Ouagadougou-5.jpg
- File:Memorial ouaga2000 crop.jpg
- File:Memorial ouaga2000.jpg
- File:Monument des Héros Nationaux, Ouagadougou.jpg
- File:Monument des Martyres de Ouagadougou1.jpg
- File:Monument des martyrs 2013.jpg
- File:Monument des martyrs.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ali Nizari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Essentially all of the images uploaded by this user appear to have been manipulated in some fashion. Many of this user's other images have already been deleted as clear hoaxes and/or copyright violations, and these ones don't pass the sniff test either.
- File:The Map Of States within Gilgit Baltistan.jpg
- This is a modified copy of an image that appears elsewhere, e.g. at https://www.artstation.com/artwork/zAeKXQ
- File:Royal Fort Of Gahkuch in painting.jpg
- I'm not certain what the source of this image was, but the streaking and blurring in the lower right looks like crude image editing, not a painting.
- File:Royal Fort Of Gahkuch.jpg
- File:Royal Palace Of Aqa Shah at Ayshi Bala.jpg
- These look like filtered photos.
- File:His Excellency Lord Prince Sameer Shah in childhood.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Mayoon Shah.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Ismail Shah.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Amir Hussain Shah.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Mir Ali Shah.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Inayat Sultan Shah.jpg
- File:His Excellency Lord Aqa Sultan Akbar Shah.jpg
- These all look like a "charcoal sketch" filter was applied to a low-resolution JPEG image, possibly after compositing multiple images together. In every case, there are serious inconsistencies in detail - for instance, the fine detail on the chest in the first image is hard to reconcile with the blurry face and the "sketchy" lines on the coat.
- File:Coat Of Arms Of The Punial State ( Takht E Punial ).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Omphalographer (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Jordan: there is no freedom of panorama in Jordan. According to w:en:Amman Rotana, it was completed in 2016. Commercial license permission from Architecture-Studio, the author of the work, is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Jordan: there is no freedom of panorama in Jordan. According to w:en:Amman Rotana, it was completed in 2016. Commercial license permission from Architecture-Studio, the author of the work, is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- If commercial license permission from Architecture-Studio, the author of the work, is required, I don't have it. If there is objection without remedy we may delete it if required.̴̴̴̴--04:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Md iet (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Trabajo propio o captura de pantalla? 186.172.246.85 02:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unreliable uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Todos los derechos reservados. 186.172.246.85 02:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
use of Windows interface, which has copyright 2800:810:446:C84:5FC:16CF:D80D:1DDE 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
use of Windows interface, which has copyright 2800:810:446:C84:5FC:16CF:D80D:1DDE 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation see https://www.hola.com/us/royals/20221202339947/prince-william-jfk-grandson-jack-schlossberg-caroline-kennedy-photos-1/ GreenC (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Wrong license, certainly no "own work" of the uploader FordPrefect42 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The photograph is the enlargement of a section of an image, published in: Lohmeyer, Robert: Tropenphotographie (Deutsche Tropen-Bibliothek, Bd. 9). Thaden. Hamburg 1913. Photographer is unknown. Therfore, I consider this work free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. LuzernKöln2013 (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of File:Chief Rhambo.png Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Why is this being deleted when it’s artwork in Kingston? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23EE:1320:7B75:5F5:7B82:AA8D:DB9D (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles.--Ayratayrat (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: redundant to File:VYKOP 20220813 185456.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles.--Ayratayrat (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in scope of Category:Wooden formwork. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles.--Ayratayrat (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in scope of Category:Wooden formwork. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayratayrat (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: redundant to File:VYKOP 20220813 185459.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles.--Ayratayrat (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in scope of Category:Gravel textures. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
very little educational value. I got the impression that the user just decided to post his photos from the construction site. does not apply to articles.--Ayratayrat (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no context/location, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Image contains obscuring watermark. Many other Royal Enfield photographs exist. We can easily do without this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Watermark is usually not a valid reason for deletion, but I agree that we do have a lot of Royal Enfield photographs, what makes this one (with its prominent watermark) unlikely to be used. User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran, I belive this is your photograph. Can you upload a copy without a watermark? --Jarekt (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Image contains obscuring watermark. Many other Royal Enfield photographs exist. We can easily do without this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Image contains obscuring watermark. Many other Royal Enfield photographs exist. We can easily do without this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Image contains obscuring watermark. Many other Royal Enfield photographs exist. We can easily do without this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Image contains obscuring watermark. Many other Royal Enfield photographs exist. We can easily do without this one 10mmsocket (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
spam, not in use anymore
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Bilderling (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- используются WebSLON (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work Brunnaiz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, media image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work Brunnaiz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, media image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no source given for the formations presented here, which are then being used to perpetuate misinformation in articles. PeeJay (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This is the own work of Zotteteen1, he can make anything without asking your permission and you can't ask to delete it if you don't like it. Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability: not found between the homonyms on the internet CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
{{SD|G7}} TheJack185 (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded in 2013 and thereby does not qualify for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion: in scope, no personal info, etc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
{{SD|G7}} TheJack185 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded in 2013 and does not qualify for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion: in scope, no personal info, etc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
{{SD|G7}} TheJack185 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded in 2013 and does not qualify for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion: in scope, no personal info, etc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
{{SD|G7}} TheJack185 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded in 2013 and does not qualify for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion: in scope, no personal info, etc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
{{SD|G7}} TheJack185 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded in 2013 and does not qualify for G7-speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion: in scope, no personal info, etc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Canular : carte créée pour créer un canular sur WP.fr Supertoff (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio of Google Map. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Early 1950s photograph. If from 1953, it would not yet be public domain in Lithuania. Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Previously published at https://forgottendogsfoundation.org/board-of-directors, please provide source info to COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio from https://www.penfoldgolfusa.com/history. I didn't CSD this because maybe because the copyright may have expired on the design so it might be non-copyrightable. 69.125.48.91 22:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hello, could you please remove this image from here? The image has been removed from Flickr due to privacy matters. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathonmutig (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Reasons for deletion request Please delete this since the original image doesn't exist on Flickr any longer and it was removed due to privacy issues. Thank you! -Marathonmutig (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation and incorrect license. This image was taken from: https://www.ticketmaster.com/snoh-aalegra-tickets/artist/2409084. The original copyright for the image belongs to Germ/vzvisuals (Original image on the photographers website: https://vzvisuals.com/music/yel2ulc4h9ktlhf9n72brcgkgj0tz1) vistadan 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
kyrkan finns inte kvar i den byggnaden So9q (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Den var der tydeligvis da den blev fotograferet. Hjart (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 16:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
private logo of R&D company Euro know (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the threshold of originality in Israel appears to be fairly high. —holly {chat} 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
According to the watermark, this image was downloaded from https://weibo.com/1750692513/FjW622WcY , it is not in the public domain because it is modified by https://weibo.com/u/1750692513. Kcx36 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Not covered by FOP in Thailand. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
_torch_logo.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_torch_logo.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The logo is not in the public domain in Canada. It surpasses the Canadian threshold of originality, which is low. See COM:TOO Canada. FunnyMath (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
_torch_logo.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Appears to be above Canadian ToO. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
_torch_logo.svg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP Slovenia: the mosaic is by A. Bajec from 1990.[9] TadejM (t/p) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
author request, just uploaded, duplicate of File:Finep logo.png Bluerasberry (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted the PNG version instead because this one is more in use than the other. —holly {chat} 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2010. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor Володимир Цісарик. Микола Василечко (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, no FoP in Ukraine.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2013. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor В. Цісарик. Микола Василечко (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Янгол-охоронець України-пам'ятник на честь 2000-ліття Різдва Христового в Кіровограді.jpg
[edit]
and also
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2004. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor Анатолій Гончар. Микола Василечко (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built 1957. No Permission from the sculptor / architect І. Михайленко, В. Новиков, Д. Чорновол. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Costa Rica. According to w:en:List of tallest buildings by country, Leumi Business Center dates to 2021. Commercial licensing permission from the architect is required.
- File:LBC de de frente terminado.jpg
- File:LBC de lateral terminado.jpg
- File:Leumi Business Center en construcción abril 2021 lateral.jpg
- File:Leumi Business Center en construcción abril 2021.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Permiso
Yo solicite el permiso expreso para tomar y subir las fotos de dicho edificio a los encargados del mismo que es Grupo Colombiano Leumi, al menos el que se encargo de su diseño, construcción y financiamiento, el edificio posteriormente fue vendido por lo que es pertenece a muchas personas y empresas diferentes. JosephC5 (talk)
- @JosephC5: (feel free to translate this to Spanish) that permission from architects must be sent through email, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in accordance with COM:VRTS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Liberia: there is no freedom of panorama in Liberia. w:en:List of tallest buildings by country states it is from 2015. A commercial license clearance from the architect is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Logo of a gala CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; appears to be above COM:TOO Argentina. —holly {chat} 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: logo of a company CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no source country is given, so TOO cannot be evaluated. —holly {chat} 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: logo of a radio CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The logo is not in the public domain in Canada. It surpasses the Canadian threshold of originality, which is low. See COM:TOO Canada. FunnyMath (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Appears to be above the ToO in Canada. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free mosaic. TadejM (t/p) 15:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
![17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/05/15#c-Aggelos1357-20230515170600-File:Σπήλαιο_"Καταφύκι"_Κύθνος.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I don't think a cave can be copyrighted. The only man-made part is the staircase, which also cannot be copyrighted because it is a utilitarian object. —holly {chat} 17:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Google Lens turns up a higher resolution photograph at Pinterest. https://lens.google.com/search?p=AbrfA8oMC2Lhsd-SJyjd9uRf-SI5Lkf0HQNB0SMiY9zdL95T6tcSoeEXmHlkNELnF1HkBltzz2o7qNl916S7aWCO8T70mRlol99XftsCXhaspVdV1G-Rd0FVe2XfDRS-z61qWgW8o-bk-DmfBL--EUUWPZXY8nVBrYXpf7pEPeec_LA2cWcNd93YiLObH4Hi_-9LVTsxXb8inNkKPg%3D%3D&plm=ChAIDxIMCOuIkakGENj7iZYDChAIFxIMCOuIkakGEKj5j5YDChAIGBIMCOuIkakGEIijg64DChAILRIMCOuIkakGENivhK4DChAILhIMCOuIkakGEMiv2LMDChAIEBIMCOuIkakGELDqxLQDChAIGRIMCOuIkakGEKi6x7QDChAIGhIMCOuIkakGENiSz7QD#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR0l4WkRFNE1UQTFMV1V3WWprdE5EUmpOQzFoWkRRMUxXRmlOVFJpWkRRd05URmpNQklmV1ROZlltVTRTSGRHV0d0VmEwaDRiR3BST0hJemVEazBNV0pvWVhOU1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxbW251bGwsbnVsbCwiaXAtNiJdLFsiNTgwNWU1MjctNmY3MC00NDFjLWI5NTctNzBkNzlhY2EzOTc2Il1dLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW11dXQ==. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
![18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/05/15#c-Abzeronow-20231009182400-File:Σπήλαιο_"Καταφύκι"_Κύθνος.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Temporary cat boc
[edit]Marked by Sikander as speedy deletion, converting to regular deletion in order to discuss it better. Previous deletion request was made by A1Cafel, having the same problems as a more recent deletion request in which he apparently lied.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I know User talk:A1Cafel never emailed anybody over these images (or lied about that). Instead the deletion was based on the publicly visible EXIF data that said the author and source being PA Media Assignments, as opposed to an image like File:Book of Condolence (52364810252).jpg where the source is No 10 Downing Street. Is there any indication that this reasoning has changed or was wrong? Cakelot1 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Cakelot1, unless I am not seeing something, PA Media Assignments, just as Ian Jones in the previous DR, was hired to photograph the event. There is no indication that the rights to the images are theirs and were not transferred to the FCDO. Please correct me if I am wrong. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- I hate deletions and in fact I was the original uploader for all these images. My understanding of Commons and licensing verification is that we cannot assume permission and changing of rights when EXIF says otherwise. If EXIF did not mention PA Media Assignments, then all is good. However, all these images mention two different photographers from PA Media Assignments and permission cannot be assumed. // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Cakelot1, unless I am not seeing something, PA Media Assignments, just as Ian Jones in the previous DR, was hired to photograph the event. There is no indication that the rights to the images are theirs and were not transferred to the FCDO. Please correct me if I am wrong. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete all per G4. Previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:People signing condolence books for Elizabeth II. If you disagree with that, please start a request at COM:DRV. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, feel free to email PA Media Assignments. I will do it as well, so we will be able to compare both answers. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: I was told by Mdaniels to refrain from emailing photographers to avoid any misunderstanding due to my inaccurate wordings. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, feel free to email PA Media Assignments. I will do it as well, so we will be able to compare both answers. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - we keep going over this cause people don't seem to understand the difference between freelance and getty photographers, the UK govt only have their own photographers for selected departments, not all, the PM has his own set of photographers (10 Downing Street). The FCDO have their own but they also hire paid professional ones for major international events and they own the rights of the images and can choose to release them under whichever licenses they choose, As i have said before, all images owned by the UK Govt are firstly Crown Copyright and then they can choose another license to release those images under. The licence we can use is creative commons By which is what they chose to release those images under on flickr but at the same time, if anyone here even understands the OGL licence, they gave "attribution" to the photographer when releasing the rights of the images. This is the problem we have on this project, people don't understand individual licences thus why for years we had issues with OGL licensing cause the wording on some of the images exif made it less OGL and more NC-ND, not the case here, there are 2 photographer involved in this, one from the PM's office (Rory Arnold) and hired Photographer Jonathan Hordle, now since Rory is a Govt photographer, apart from crown Copyright, any images they take is released under "OGL" (unless specified) and since its released under a free licence by FCDO already on Flickr, that shouldn't be an issue and now Jonathan Hordle, now one of the major things about OGL licensing is that it attributed the author/creator. This photographer when releasing his images asked for "attribution" only and thus image is released under Crown Copyright (as its a work paid for by the UK Govt) and CC-BY. Anyone here even bothered to read the OGL?, i'll quote a section,
- "You must, where you do any of the above:
- acknowledge the source of the Information in your product or application by including or linking to any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence;
.jpg){kind=link}
Now FCDO has chosen to attribute the photographer in this case but sometimes photographers do request that they do not want their images commercialized so we have seen many cases on the FCDO and Number10's flickr pages where certain images are not released fully under cc-by but may carry a non-commercial licensing. This photographer has requested attribution only (CC-BY) per the "Photo credit should read: Jonathan Hordle/PA Media Assignments" an not words like @copyright PA Media Assignments etc and nothing in the exif of the images even mentions another licensing and thus FCDO has chosen to release the images under the specified free licence. This was an event organized by the FCDO, not the Royal family whose images are not just crown copyright but also nearly always not free (due to them carrying insignia/emblems like the crown which cannot be released under a free licence)....--Stemoc 07:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Now FCDO has chosen to attribute the photographer in this case The FCDO credits photographers anyway, not just in this case. Like with this image it's credited to "Rory Arnold / No 10 Downing Street." The question is why was "No 10 Downing Street" left out of the credit line for the images in the deletion request. The only reason I can think of is that they aren't credited to the FCDO or No 10 Downing Street and therefore they don't own the license to the images. Otherwise, I don't see why the wording in the credit line would be different. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep We generally assume that images released by governments have been vetted by their own lawyers to be released under the license of their choosing. Their lawyers tend to be more knowledgeable about copyright laws in their own countries than your average Wiki Commons editor. If they withdraw their license then we can delete the images. --RAN (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Although procedurally (or really in general) since the images should have been recreated through a request at COM:DRV instead of re-uploaded. I can almost guarantee that if this were the other way around people would be crying about how the proper process wasn't being followed. As to the question of copyright, the suggestion by @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): (you forgot to sign your comment BTW) that we just assume the copyright on images released by governments are corrects is clearly nonsense. I could point to multiple DRs where the files were deleted because the copyrighted was wrong to prove it, but I'm sort of busy right now and it should be on keep voters to provide evidence of the claims they are making anyway.
- In the meantime the copyright status of the images is obviously unclear, and IMO that's enough to justify deleting them. I don't see why the government would have credited PA Media Assignments and the two photographers if the images where the work of the government since as RodRabelo7 pointed out other images it clear that they were taken by No 10 Downing Street. The question is, why the obvious difference in wording and the only answer I can think of is that the No 10 Downing Street doesn't own the license to the images. Otherwise you'd have to argue that the media people at Downing Street are incompetent buffoons or something who don't know how to credit the proper people. All the more reason to delete the images if that's the case though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- If we start deleting stuff because people who run them are incompetent buffoons than we would have to delete a lot of USGovt related images as well cause during Trump's time as President, a lot of images were released with improper licensing on flickr. These images have been released under a free licence, they were a few photographers there hired by the UKGovt including their own, you really don't seem to be able to comprehend anything mate. The FCDO organized this event, had you bothered to look at all the images on the set, the Book of Condolences was not signed at the same day so they had 2 sets of photographers for the event. Do people even bother to read the dates? or is incompetency not just limited to UK Govt people? They hired a professional photographer for Day 1 (September 17th) and they hired one of their own for Day 2 (September 18th), remember Day 1 is where all the high dignitaries signed the BoC like Prime Ministers, Presidents, ( the images with the red background incase you still can't see it), Day 2 was mainly for lower level dignitaries like ambassadors...its unfortunate that I'm the only one on this project at this point that actually investigates every images added to commons.As has been mentioned many times, the UKGovt try to keep things professional so they will hire experienced freelance photographers and this was a major even involving the FCDO so they hired one as FCDO deals with FOREIGN LEADERS (incase you didn't know) ... and as Richard Arthur mentioned, they aren't that stupid to release images they don't hold the rights for under a free licence... Stemoc 03:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- You really don't seem to be able to comprehend anything mate. I think I made a pretty sound argument for why the copyright status of the images is unclear. It was at least more coherent then a lot of the rants you go on. I know your incapable of writing a message without making it personal somehow though. Regardless, like I've pointed out there's clearly a difference between images like this one where the credit line explicitly credits "No 10 Downing Street" and the images in the deletion request where they aren't credited. You can go on longwinded rants where you ignore that and chalk it up to ignorance on my part, but unless there's any evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume it's because No 10 Downing Street or the FCDO doesn't own the license to the images, Otherwise they would have just credited themselves like they do in essentially every other instance. And no accusing me of ignorance isn't evidence that the FCDO owns the copyright to the images. Plenty of governments release images under the wrong license sometimes. It happens. So try harder mate, or maybe just sit down and be quiet next time so people who actual know what they are talking about can have their opinions heard without your dumb personal comments soiling the discussion. No one cares about the constant diatribes about how great you are and how much everyone else on here sucks. We get it dude, your gods gift to the project and everyone else is just stupid and should be blocked. Whatever. Seriously, give it a rest already. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a Government Photographer and images taken by Government photographers are automatically OGL (unless specified), if you think images with that byline are not free, you might want to ask your pal A1Cafel to nominate all the images he downloaded from the Number10 flickr page for deletion then, as said in the other DR, that information regarding in the exif is not important unless the image is released on Flickr under a CC-BY licence and then that image is added to commons with the Photographer given a 'credit' here, it says "Credit/Provider Rory Arnold / No 10 Downing Street" and not "@Copyright Rory Arnold / No 10 Downing Street" cause as Govt photographers, they don't own the rights to the images, their employers do and they can release the image under any license they chose and since there is no OGL option of Flickr, the closest is Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 (CC-BY-2.0 as Flickr refuses to update its licensing to 4.0) cause again as above, OGL is pretty much the same as CC-BY licence barring the crown copyright and again when i reply to your nonsense, i'm not actually even talking to you, I'm talking to the other people who will read the comments here, you have shown time and time again that you understand nothing in regards to copyrights here, stick to postcards mate.. everytime you post in DR, you never make a single valid point, just more confusion on your part. The copyright status of those images are very clear, FCDO hired those photographers from PA Media, they were paid to take the photographs, then after the photographs were taken, the images were released to the FCDO and we know that because the images are in Original quality and not lower quality which FCDO can only have access too if it was given to them, thats enough proof of a transaction taking place. We don't need to constantly bother Photographers, these are professionals were are dealing with, not some rando with a camera posting images on Flickr, ..the only area of the UKGovt where images are questionable is the Military/MoD, thats all, their licencing is a bit more strict. Stemoc 04:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- You might want to ask your pal A1Cafel I think I've voted keep with DRs that were started by A1Cafel more then the opposite, but sure dude. I'm their pal because I voted deleted in a couple of their DRs. Whatever you say though. People on here sometimes. I swear to god!
- Thats a Government Photographer and images taken by Government photographers are automatically OGL (unless specified), if you think images with that byline are not free, you might want to ask your pal A1Cafel to nominate all the images he downloaded from the Number10 flickr page for deletion then, as said in the other DR, that information regarding in the exif is not important unless the image is released on Flickr under a CC-BY licence and then that image is added to commons with the Photographer given a 'credit' here, it says "Credit/Provider Rory Arnold / No 10 Downing Street" and not "@Copyright Rory Arnold / No 10 Downing Street" cause as Govt photographers, they don't own the rights to the images, their employers do and they can release the image under any license they chose and since there is no OGL option of Flickr, the closest is Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0 (CC-BY-2.0 as Flickr refuses to update its licensing to 4.0) cause again as above, OGL is pretty much the same as CC-BY licence barring the crown copyright and again when i reply to your nonsense, i'm not actually even talking to you, I'm talking to the other people who will read the comments here, you have shown time and time again that you understand nothing in regards to copyrights here, stick to postcards mate.. everytime you post in DR, you never make a single valid point, just more confusion on your part. The copyright status of those images are very clear, FCDO hired those photographers from PA Media, they were paid to take the photographs, then after the photographs were taken, the images were released to the FCDO and we know that because the images are in Original quality and not lower quality which FCDO can only have access too if it was given to them, thats enough proof of a transaction taking place. We don't need to constantly bother Photographers, these are professionals were are dealing with, not some rando with a camera posting images on Flickr, ..the only area of the UKGovt where images are questionable is the Military/MoD, thats all, their licencing is a bit more strict. Stemoc 04:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- You really don't seem to be able to comprehend anything mate. I think I made a pretty sound argument for why the copyright status of the images is unclear. It was at least more coherent then a lot of the rants you go on. I know your incapable of writing a message without making it personal somehow though. Regardless, like I've pointed out there's clearly a difference between images like this one where the credit line explicitly credits "No 10 Downing Street" and the images in the deletion request where they aren't credited. You can go on longwinded rants where you ignore that and chalk it up to ignorance on my part, but unless there's any evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume it's because No 10 Downing Street or the FCDO doesn't own the license to the images, Otherwise they would have just credited themselves like they do in essentially every other instance. And no accusing me of ignorance isn't evidence that the FCDO owns the copyright to the images. Plenty of governments release images under the wrong license sometimes. It happens. So try harder mate, or maybe just sit down and be quiet next time so people who actual know what they are talking about can have their opinions heard without your dumb personal comments soiling the discussion. No one cares about the constant diatribes about how great you are and how much everyone else on here sucks. We get it dude, your gods gift to the project and everyone else is just stupid and should be blocked. Whatever. Seriously, give it a rest already. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- If we start deleting stuff because people who run them are incompetent buffoons than we would have to delete a lot of USGovt related images as well cause during Trump's time as President, a lot of images were released with improper licensing on flickr. These images have been released under a free licence, they were a few photographers there hired by the UKGovt including their own, you really don't seem to be able to comprehend anything mate. The FCDO organized this event, had you bothered to look at all the images on the set, the Book of Condolences was not signed at the same day so they had 2 sets of photographers for the event. Do people even bother to read the dates? or is incompetency not just limited to UK Govt people? They hired a professional photographer for Day 1 (September 17th) and they hired one of their own for Day 2 (September 18th), remember Day 1 is where all the high dignitaries signed the BoC like Prime Ministers, Presidents, ( the images with the red background incase you still can't see it), Day 2 was mainly for lower level dignitaries like ambassadors...its unfortunate that I'm the only one on this project at this point that actually investigates every images added to commons.As has been mentioned many times, the UKGovt try to keep things professional so they will hire experienced freelance photographers and this was a major even involving the FCDO so they hired one as FCDO deals with FOREIGN LEADERS (incase you didn't know) ... and as Richard Arthur mentioned, they aren't that stupid to release images they don't hold the rights for under a free licence... Stemoc 03:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thats a Government Photographer and images taken by Government photographers are automatically OGL Exactly, and what would the opposite of that be? Maybe a non-government photographer like a private photography studio taking an image as part of a contract job that isn't automatically (or otherwise) OGL because they own the copyright to the images?
- Thats enough proof of a transaction taking place. I don't disagree that a transaction took place, but you'd have to agree that someone being paid to take a photograph is a completely different issue then who owns the copyright. Plenty of photography studios are paid by costumers to take photographs of them and still retain the copyright to the image regardless. It's no different for most governments. Most of the time if the photograph is taken by someone other then a government employee then they retain the copyright to the image, period. Sure there are rare exceptions, but there's zero evidence that this is an exception. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, I know this was started in response to User:A1Cafel's emails, but the photographer's email that he got in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with His Majesty King Charles III holds a reception for Heads of State and overseas visitors seems pretty clear that at least some photographers feel the FCDO has no right to mark them as they have. Or consider all the times the government posts copyright restricted images on gov.uk (eg: this and it's DR) without stating that fact despite it's website saying that "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated".
- @Stemoc, unfortunately if the account is run by "buffoons" who often don't get the proper permissions to release the content under the licence they do than we need to delete it per COM:PRP. Comparisons with the US are flawed since there is a much broader law that anything produced by a federal employee as part of there job is public domain, which obviously isn't the case here. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- thats the thing, A1Cafel emailed them and it has been proven here, he lies, so thats another set of images you linked whereby A1Cafel may have definitely lied and again, covered up by the same admin, this is actually becoming a joke now. If i was actually aware of this case, I would have definitely called for A1 to be banned/blocked cause he as i said in that other DR , is dangerous to the project. @Cakelot1, it seems like you are not aware of the other DR by him, I'd advise you to read that before replying to me.. its basically the same as this one but more dramatic.. lol..This user is also pestering photographers and possibly telling them lies and is protected by an admin, I trust neither of their words and he even gave a less than convincing acknowledgement....its pretty diabolical IMO.. Stemoc 07:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- it has been proven here, he lies. Going by the ANU complaint it seems like he was telling the truth. There's also zero evidence that he's pestering or lying to photographers BTW. You really should chill on the ad hominem attacks. It's never a good look when someone is criticizing another user for being dishonest while making false claims about the person in the process. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- and who was the one telling us he did not lie?. I believe he emailed them, I believe he got a reply but the issue isn't that, the issue is the question he asks these photographers cause time and time again he has proven he himself doesn't understand the copyrights of individual countries and government so he is not the right person to be talking to photographers, as someone said in the ANU, talking to photographers is a delicate process, and whoever messages the photographers needs to know the right words to use, he doesn't, infact he barely ever even replies to people's comments or talks in full sentences and even when he does certain DR, he sometimes copies other people's previous DR like we saw recently...say for example, Telling a photographer that his images were released by FCDO under the CC By 2.0 licenses isn't really providing much context to the photographer now is it? The right question that should be asked while providing context such as link to the images in question and using the correct and full term like "creative commons attribution license" instead and what those words mean instead of just saying its CC-BY which honestly no photographer might understand as most are professionals who always copyright their stuff unless they were paid to release it under a licence paid for by the buyer..A1 for one of his emails only provides us the reply and not the question he asked, the question is the important bit cause then we know if the photographer is fully aware of what the FCDO including why they used the CC-BY licence instead of the one they would normally use which is OGL. Asking the photographers the same question over and over again by different contributors is pestering and we do not want that so next time he sees something he isn't happy about, he should tag it with the no permission tag so that the uploader can verify the image and not contact the photographer themselves... Stemoc 09:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- and who was the one telling us he did not lie? You know the answer to that.
- and who was the one telling us he did not lie?. I believe he emailed them, I believe he got a reply but the issue isn't that, the issue is the question he asks these photographers cause time and time again he has proven he himself doesn't understand the copyrights of individual countries and government so he is not the right person to be talking to photographers, as someone said in the ANU, talking to photographers is a delicate process, and whoever messages the photographers needs to know the right words to use, he doesn't, infact he barely ever even replies to people's comments or talks in full sentences and even when he does certain DR, he sometimes copies other people's previous DR like we saw recently...say for example, Telling a photographer that his images were released by FCDO under the CC By 2.0 licenses isn't really providing much context to the photographer now is it? The right question that should be asked while providing context such as link to the images in question and using the correct and full term like "creative commons attribution license" instead and what those words mean instead of just saying its CC-BY which honestly no photographer might understand as most are professionals who always copyright their stuff unless they were paid to release it under a licence paid for by the buyer..A1 for one of his emails only provides us the reply and not the question he asked, the question is the important bit cause then we know if the photographer is fully aware of what the FCDO including why they used the CC-BY licence instead of the one they would normally use which is OGL. Asking the photographers the same question over and over again by different contributors is pestering and we do not want that so next time he sees something he isn't happy about, he should tag it with the no permission tag so that the uploader can verify the image and not contact the photographer themselves... Stemoc 09:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- it has been proven here, he lies. Going by the ANU complaint it seems like he was telling the truth. There's also zero evidence that he's pestering or lying to photographers BTW. You really should chill on the ad hominem attacks. It's never a good look when someone is criticizing another user for being dishonest while making false claims about the person in the process. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- thats the thing, A1Cafel emailed them and it has been proven here, he lies, so thats another set of images you linked whereby A1Cafel may have definitely lied and again, covered up by the same admin, this is actually becoming a joke now. If i was actually aware of this case, I would have definitely called for A1 to be banned/blocked cause he as i said in that other DR , is dangerous to the project. @Cakelot1, it seems like you are not aware of the other DR by him, I'd advise you to read that before replying to me.. its basically the same as this one but more dramatic.. lol..This user is also pestering photographers and possibly telling them lies and is protected by an admin, I trust neither of their words and he even gave a less than convincing acknowledgement....its pretty diabolical IMO.. Stemoc 07:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- the issue is the question he asks these photographers....he barely ever even replies to people's comments or talks in full sentences and even when he does certain DR.. I'm not sure how you can say that since no one has access to the emails he sent, but OK. is that you just have an axe to grind with anyone who nominates
- whoever messages the photographers needs to know the right words to use And let me guess, no one does right? Or if so who? I don't see anyone who thinks images should be kept emailing photographers. The one time I've seen where someone who thought an image should be kept emailed anyone it was a museum and the person held up the DR for two months just for the museum to give them a non-answer. So I don't think it matters. It's not like photographers can't deal with people who speak less then perfect English in the meantime either. That's just the cost of doing business. It's ridiculous how people like you infantilize uploaders/photographers and put them on a pedestal while dragging essentially everyone else through the mud constantly. Regardless, this is a volunteer project and unprofessionalism is just the cost of doing business here. If you don't like it, cool. Go use Flickr or something. Seriously though, what do you think the odds are that an uploader is going to contact a photographer on their own to verify the copyright status of an image? My guess is essentially none. There's no reason they would considering they are the ones who get the ding if the image is subsequently deleted as COPYVIO. You just want there to be a fait accompli situation where no one can nominate images for deletion if we haven't let the uploader contact the photographer first because you know no uploaders aren't going to do it. Also, the idea that uploaders are going to know the law better then a random nominator or write clearer emails then one is just laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have just sent an email to info (at) pa (dot) media. Once I get a response, good or bad, I will update you here. Feel free to email them as well if you want to. (Also, I did not know Sikander was the uploader of the files, so if we in fact have permission to keep them on Commons, I think his versions should be restored.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- 👍 Sounds good, thanks! Also, no concerns from my side in terms of which version gets restored because the files had the same names. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have not received any response from info (at) pa (dot) media. IMHO, those files should be deleted so a formal undeletion request may be opened. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: While I normally am of the opinion that we should trust the licensing statements given at official sources, there have been cases where the people running those accounts don't quite understand all the nuances of copyright law, and it appears there is significant doubt as to the proper licensing of these photos, so per RodRabelo7 I'm deleting them for now and if it's proven that PA Media has transferred the rights to the government, then we can do the undeletion. —holly {chat} 18:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Action figures
[edit]Per Commons:Derivative works. The figures are the main subject in the photos, not de minimis applies here.
Files affected:
- file:Cobra Commander 1983 ARAH.jpg
file:Ninja action figure.jpg- file:Stretch Armstrong toy.jpg
file:Super hero action figure.jpg- file:TylersartdecoEmmaFrostCustomActionFigure.jpg
- file:Action figure performs a Tory power stance.jpg
- file:Big Jim Actionfigur Old Shatterhand.jpg
- file:Big Jim Actionfigur Winnetou.png
- file:Big Jim prima serie.jpg
- file:Big Jim standard.jpg
Fma12 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:Super hero action figure.jpg is an AI generated image and doesn't actually depict a copyrighted character. Zaxxon0 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, the File:Super hero action figure.jpg is in the public domain because it is the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and has no human author to whom copyright belongs. The other files can be deleted. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Stretch Armstrong one at least, per the previous discussion. Keep also File:Super hero action figure.jpg because it's not a real action figure. Same goes for File:Ninja action figure.jpg, which is also AI-generated. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep For File:Super hero action figure.jpg and File:Ninja action figure.jpg--Trade (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination only for the File:Super hero action figure.jpg and File:Ninja action figure.jpg. Fma12 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except for the withdrawn items and the other one which was previously kept. —holly {chat} 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Possible derivative work of Minecraft Trade (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, it's a derivative work. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The Europa Tower is too prominent here nullifying the "cityscape theme" of the photo. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Lithuania; commercial license permission from Audrius Ambrasas Architects Company who authored this 2004 architectural work is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Europa Tower is very prominent in this photo. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Lithuania; commercial license permission from Audrius Ambrasas Architects Company who authored this 2004 architectural work is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:FOP Maldives: freedom of panorama does not exist in Maldives. Per w:en:List of tallest buildings by country, the building was completed in 2018. Commercial license permission from the architect is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Same building as that nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male' Tower 1.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Luxembourg: there is no freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. None of the depicted architecture are incidental to the nominated photos. The complex consists of several buildings by several named architects:
- Ancien Palais, by Jean Paul Consemius in cooperation with François Jamagne and Michel Vande Elst;
- Erasmus, Thomas More, and Annex C buildings (circa 1978–94), by Bohadan Paczowski, Jean Herr, Gilbert Huyberecht, and Paul Fritsch, with Isabelle van Driessche as an added author of Annex C building;
- Anneau building and Towers A and B (circa 2008), by Dominique Perrault who is still alive as of this writing; and
- Tower C, inaugurated in 2019 and also authored by Architect Perrault.
For each photos, relevant commercial license permissions from an involved architect or his heirs is required for image retention, as Luxembourg does not grant commercial FOP.
- File:CJCE-ECT twin tower 1 (3515801783).jpg
- File:CJEU 63.JPG
- File:CJEU towers from behind European Investment Bank, October 2019.jpg
- File:Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg City.jpg
- File:EU Court of Justice overview.jpg
- File:European Court of Justice (2782758261).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice (2782759657).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice (2782760193).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice (2783612522).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice 0016 (1675265644).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice 1231 (4897879248).jpg
- File:European Court of Justice in Luxembourg - Construction site - May 2012 cropped.jpg
- File:European Court of Justice in Luxembourg - Construction site - May 2012.jpg
- File:European Court of Justice.jpg
- File:Luksemburgo (2015) 108.jpg
- File:Luksemburgo (2015) 109.jpg
- File:Luksemburgo (2015) 111.jpg
- File:Luksemburgo (2015) 113.jpg
- File:Luksemburgo (2015) 114.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 001 2016.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 002 2016 - Court of Justice.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 003 2016 - Court of Justice.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 005 2016.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 010 2016 - Court of Justice.jpg
- File:LUX Luxembourg Kirchberg 011 2016 - Court of Justice.jpg
- File:Luxembourg Europäischer Gerichtshof 1.JPG
- File:Luxembourg Europäischer Gerichtshof 2.JPG
- File:Luxembourg-Kirchberg-02ASD.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Annex C, Thomas More, Erasmus, the Anneau, Ancien Palais and Tower A.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 forecourt.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Sign and Towers B and C.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Towers A, B and C, the Anneau building.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Towers A,B and C as seen from rue Alcide de Gasperi.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Towers, A,B and C, and the Anneau & Ancien Palais 1.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU July 2021 Towers, A,B and C, and the Anneau & Ancien Palais 2.jpg
- File:Palais de la Cour de Justice CJEU March 2023 Sign, Towers C,B and A and the Anneau buiding.jpg
- File:Quartier Européen Nord, Kirchberg (2846812066).jpg
- File:Sign in front of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (now the Court of Justice of the European Union), November 2006.jpg
- File:Stad Lëtzebuerg 04.jpg
- File:Stad Lëtzebuerg 05.jpg
- File:Stad Lëtzebuerg 09.jpg
- File:Stad Lëtzebuerg 13.jpg
- File:Towers of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after fifth extension, January 2020.jpg
- File:View from the atop the Gallery building of the Palais of the Court of Justice of the European Union, January 2015.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_108.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_109.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_111.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_113.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_114.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_November_2006.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_after_fifth_extension,_January_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm the maker of EU Court of Justice overview.jpg. I was not aware that there is no FOP in Luxemburg. I do think that there should be FOP - in this case perhaps even more so since this building has been paid for by taxpayers' money, including mine.;) But I will have to bow to the force of the law, I suppose. So, agree with removal, though not without some irritation. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @MartinD we have nothing to do but to abide by the law of the architectural work's country of origin, which only gives incidental exception, like photos that only depict general cityscapes, road views, or skylines. Focus on a building is prohibited without author's license. I don't know if there is some initiative in Luxembourg to remove "incidental" restriction. But if there is, expect some resistance from artists of works there though. My stereotype of Luxembourg in relation to restricted FOP is that their attitude leans to French FOP attitude, not German/Belgian FOP attitude. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- I quite understand.;) So, a general cityscape (i.e. a panoramic of the entire Plateau de Kirchberg) would be OK? Note to self: should I visit Luxemburg, give it another try. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @MartinD yes. That may seem restrictive for Wikimedians since no copyrighted architecture or public art is in intended focus (de minimis), but that is what the restrictive Luxembourgish legal right dictates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- If that is the law, then so be it. I think, however, as MartinD has noted, the exceptional nature of the subject here (the complex housing the highest court on matters of EU law) and the clear interest to the public, warrants an attempt by the Wikimedia foundation to reach out to the copyright holders (such as Perrault) or even use this as a case in point to reach out to Luxembourg legislators on the need for FOP law reform - rather than just simply close this process. Luxofluxo (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: the responsibility of introducing FOP in Luxembourg falls on the local Wikimedia chapter or user group in Luxembourg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Noted. I still think when opening a case such as this, it would be good to tip them off. I've done some background searching myself, and found that Luxembourg law did indeed change as of 9 April 2022 as part of Luxembourg's transposition of the EU's 2019 Copyright Directive. One change, according to this analysis seems to be "the creation of new exceptions to the authors’ rights to promote, in particular, text and data mining under certain conditions (which is a set of automated techniques aiming at analysing texts and data in digital form in order to extract information) and the digital use of the works, exclusively for purposes of illustration in the context of teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose pursued;" I'm unsure to what extent this would cover the appearance of these images on Wikimedia Commons. It would be interesting to have a lawyer weigh in. Have the FOP guides on this site for Luxembourg been amended in light of this change last year? Has anyone assessed it? Edit: I've seen that the latest guidance on Commons indeed does not reflect the 2022 changes, only mentioning the last change in 2015. Luxofluxo (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo there is no need for mention because the FOP clause in the 2022 version is still the same wording. Article 10(°7)...Lorsque l'œuvre, autre qu’une base de données, a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l'auteur ne peut interdire:...7°la reproduction et la communication d'œuvres situées dans un lieu accessible au public, lorsque ces œuvres ne constituent pas le sujet principal de la reproduction ou de la communication. Very same restricted FOP for de minimis (incidental or trivial inclusion only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's not "incidental or trivial inclusion only", it's the same as in Finland: as long as it is not the main subject of the "communication". –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LPfi there should be no debate on de minimis. Whatever "trivial" or "not-the-main-subject" concept a country may use, both are essentially the same in the eyes of Wikimedia world: no acceptable FOP. For FOP to be acceptable there should be no restriction to commercial uses and "main/intentional subject" depictions must not be restricted. Luxembourgish FOP is not OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- The difference is indeed there. The "no acceptable FoP" is a simplification. What we care about is whether a specific file is free enough. If you crop the image or otherwise change the main subject, it is up to you to check the legality of the new image. In Finland, and apparently in Luxemburg, you can intensionally include copyrighted works in a photo, as an important part of it, as long as the main subject is something else. There is e.g. no problem in taking a portrait photo of somebody in front of an artwork they like (in Finland: as long as it is published). I've understood you cannot do that in the USA, where you'd need to have de minimis as defence. –LPfi (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LPfi I don't think Luxembourg can follow EU standards on such "not-main-subject" exception. Perhaps they can lean towards French standard of "incidental / accessory" concept, as they have both rich artistic culture as French one. I don't except Luxembourg will follow Finnish exception. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- The wording you quoted above is very close to the wording in the Finnish law. I don't know why Luxemburg couldn't have a similar law as Finland – to my knowledge Finland has not asked EU for any exception regarding copyright law. –LPfi (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LPfi: the exception I mentioned is the "not-the-main-subject" exception that exists in the law itself. Which is not FOP strictly. Sounds like Finnish standard of de minimis that the copyright law pre-empted (unlike the US DM which the law did not anticipate and was set up by jurisprudences). One example at COM:DM#Examples do not even show Burj Khalifa trivially, but it is not a main subject since it is part of general skyline. So DM varies by countries' copyright laws or by countries' courts. US DM is narrower but Finnish or Cambodian DM is broader, IMO.
- Regarding the possibility of Luxembourg to not follow Finnish law, the orientation of the artists' groups and possible court decisions will lean towards French jurisprudences. Luxembourg is in a different world in contrast to Finland which I think will lean towards Nordic countries or the Baltic states like Estonia. Not only the language of law that matters but also the tendency of the camp of artists or architects to dictate Luxembourgish courts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- OK. –LPfi (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- On this topic of "not the main subject", would files in the nomination, such as this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palais_de_la_Cour_de_Justice_CJEU_March_2023_Sign,_Towers_C,B_and_A_and_the_Anneau_buiding.jpg, be permissable, if the main subject is the black CJEU sign in the foreground, in front of the building complex, rather than the complex itself. I understand that there's a degree of subjectivity in what is a "main subject".Luxofluxo (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: in my opinion, the buildings still comprise the main subject, framed together with the sign. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: interesting, though someone might say otherwise. How much of the frame, in your view should the sign take up for it to be the main subject and thus make the image acceptable for use on wikimedia? Luxofluxo (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo it should be centered in my opinion, unlike the file right now, in which the buildings at the background are centered in position and the sign becomes a secondary or accessory object. If you wish you can crop the buildings away and upload the cropped version as a new file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: interesting, though someone might say otherwise. How much of the frame, in your view should the sign take up for it to be the main subject and thus make the image acceptable for use on wikimedia? Luxofluxo (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: Let me know what you think of the following: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sign_in_front_of_the_CJEU_complex_March_2023.png Luxofluxo (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: that is now OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Does that mean that I can now use this image instead of the panoramic that is about to be deleted (or maybe already deleted) with the caption "Sign at the entrance of the buildings of the Court", without creating legal problems? MartinD (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- If it's the Court's logo that we're looking for: my wife was given a powerbank as a souvenir of a visit to the EU Court (she's a judge) that has the Court's logo on it. I can upload a picture of it, if this helps. MartinD (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MartinD wait, are you implying that the cropped out-version photo by @Luxofluxo: may not be OK (due to the potentially-copyrighted logo)? I'm not sure if the logo is in public domain or if it does not meet threshold of originality for it to be PD-ineligible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warning, I will refrain from using a picture of this powerbank, or any picture related to this Court and/or its buildings, until this matter is cleared up. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Does that mean that I can now use this image instead of the panoramic that is about to be deleted (or maybe already deleted) with the caption "Sign at the entrance of the buildings of the Court", without creating legal problems? MartinD (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: that is now OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: in my opinion, the buildings still comprise the main subject, framed together with the sign. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- The wording you quoted above is very close to the wording in the Finnish law. I don't know why Luxemburg couldn't have a similar law as Finland – to my knowledge Finland has not asked EU for any exception regarding copyright law. –LPfi (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LPfi I don't think Luxembourg can follow EU standards on such "not-main-subject" exception. Perhaps they can lean towards French standard of "incidental / accessory" concept, as they have both rich artistic culture as French one. I don't except Luxembourg will follow Finnish exception. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- The difference is indeed there. The "no acceptable FoP" is a simplification. What we care about is whether a specific file is free enough. If you crop the image or otherwise change the main subject, it is up to you to check the legality of the new image. In Finland, and apparently in Luxemburg, you can intensionally include copyrighted works in a photo, as an important part of it, as long as the main subject is something else. There is e.g. no problem in taking a portrait photo of somebody in front of an artwork they like (in Finland: as long as it is published). I've understood you cannot do that in the USA, where you'd need to have de minimis as defence. –LPfi (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @LPfi there should be no debate on de minimis. Whatever "trivial" or "not-the-main-subject" concept a country may use, both are essentially the same in the eyes of Wikimedia world: no acceptable FOP. For FOP to be acceptable there should be no restriction to commercial uses and "main/intentional subject" depictions must not be restricted. Luxembourgish FOP is not OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's not "incidental or trivial inclusion only", it's the same as in Finland: as long as it is not the main subject of the "communication". –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo there is no need for mention because the FOP clause in the 2022 version is still the same wording. Article 10(°7)...Lorsque l'œuvre, autre qu’une base de données, a été licitement rendue accessible au public, l'auteur ne peut interdire:...7°la reproduction et la communication d'œuvres situées dans un lieu accessible au public, lorsque ces œuvres ne constituent pas le sujet principal de la reproduction ou de la communication. Very same restricted FOP for de minimis (incidental or trivial inclusion only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Noted. I still think when opening a case such as this, it would be good to tip them off. I've done some background searching myself, and found that Luxembourg law did indeed change as of 9 April 2022 as part of Luxembourg's transposition of the EU's 2019 Copyright Directive. One change, according to this analysis seems to be "the creation of new exceptions to the authors’ rights to promote, in particular, text and data mining under certain conditions (which is a set of automated techniques aiming at analysing texts and data in digital form in order to extract information) and the digital use of the works, exclusively for purposes of illustration in the context of teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose pursued;" I'm unsure to what extent this would cover the appearance of these images on Wikimedia Commons. It would be interesting to have a lawyer weigh in. Have the FOP guides on this site for Luxembourg been amended in light of this change last year? Has anyone assessed it? Edit: I've seen that the latest guidance on Commons indeed does not reflect the 2022 changes, only mentioning the last change in 2015. Luxofluxo (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Luxofluxo: the responsibility of introducing FOP in Luxembourg falls on the local Wikimedia chapter or user group in Luxembourg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- If that is the law, then so be it. I think, however, as MartinD has noted, the exceptional nature of the subject here (the complex housing the highest court on matters of EU law) and the clear interest to the public, warrants an attempt by the Wikimedia foundation to reach out to the copyright holders (such as Perrault) or even use this as a case in point to reach out to Luxembourg legislators on the need for FOP law reform - rather than just simply close this process. Luxofluxo (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @MartinD yes. That may seem restrictive for Wikimedians since no copyrighted architecture or public art is in intended focus (de minimis), but that is what the restrictive Luxembourgish legal right dictates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- I quite understand.;) So, a general cityscape (i.e. a panoramic of the entire Plateau de Kirchberg) would be OK? Note to self: should I visit Luxemburg, give it another try. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- @MartinD we have nothing to do but to abide by the law of the architectural work's country of origin, which only gives incidental exception, like photos that only depict general cityscapes, road views, or skylines. Focus on a building is prohibited without author's license. I don't know if there is some initiative in Luxembourg to remove "incidental" restriction. But if there is, expect some resistance from artists of works there though. My stereotype of Luxembourg in relation to restricted FOP is that their attitude leans to French FOP attitude, not German/Belgian FOP attitude. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Fresco created in 1949 jointly by two painters –Migliolaro Galliano (Abano, 25 April 1896 – Montegrotto, 4 August 1963), Migliolaro Armando (1915-1999)– who both died less than 70 years ago. This work is still protected by copyright in Italy until 70 years have passed since Armando's death in 2070. Also applies to the cropped photograph. 81.41.175.237 23:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Vanuatu: there is no freedom of panorama in this South Pacific country. Per w:en:List of tallest buildings by country it dates to 1990s. Copyright of the architectural work lasts for 50 years after the architect's death; if anonymous, 50 years from publication. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense JCFLastiri (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Very likeable a copyvio. Taichi (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Was deleted by Polarlys. —holly {chat} 18:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sign and image on the sign. The building at the background is also copyrighted, but see COM:FOP Luxembourg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The content of the sign is {{PD-text}}, and the logo is de minimis. —holly {chat} 18:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng how about the image of the building on the sign? The file becomes a double derivative: of a copyrighted image as well as the copyrighted image showing the copyrighted building. Not DM in my opinion: COM:FOP Luxembourg states a work should be incidental for free use to be legal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't the sign transparent or something? You can clearly see the white portion of the building through it. —holly {chat} 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng semi-transparent. But look at the left part of the sign showing the image of the building illuminated at night. It is very different from the actual building which was taken at daytime. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- And wait, the actual building at that time was in construction, very different from the building shown on the sign. The image on the sign is likely a rendition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't the sign transparent or something? You can clearly see the white portion of the building through it. —holly {chat} 21:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng how about the image of the building on the sign? The file becomes a double derivative: of a copyrighted image as well as the copyrighted image showing the copyrighted building. Not DM in my opinion: COM:FOP Luxembourg states a work should be incidental for free use to be legal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: OK, there appears to be enough copyrighted material on the sign that FOP wouldn't apply. —holly {chat} 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The windmills depicted are claimed to be historic: why would they still be copyrighted? —holly {chat} 17:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see any evidence that the windmills are still in copyright. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This is a photograph of a courtyard. If any of the buildings are still copyrighted, de minimis should apply. —holly {chat} 17:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I agree with Holly, buildings are de minimis. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Fault maps of Japan with GSI map
[edit]- File:Fukui plain east fault.jpg
- File:Isehara fault 1.jpg
- File:Kannawa・kozu-matsuda fault 1.jpg
- File:Kanto Plain Northwestern Fault 2.jpg
- File:Kego faults.jpg
- File:Kita izu fault 2.jpg
- File:Miura Peninsula fault 2.jpg
- File:Rokko-Awaji fault-1.jpg
- File:Uozu fault 1.jpg
- File:上町断層帯2.jpg
- File:鴨川低地断層帯.jpg
- @Peka: The T&C page you linked to gives a list of things that do not require permission to use, 都市圏活断層図、浸水範囲概況図、デジタル標高地形図等 ("urban area active fault map, inundation area overview map, digital elevation topographic map, etc."). Are you sure that these maps don't fall into those categories? —holly {chat} 17:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- 11 files were published by 地震調査研究推進本部(the Earthquake Research Promotion Headquarters, HERP). It is different from 都市圏活断層図 and other GSI(Geospatial Information Authority of Japan)'s maps.
- Both the HERP's fault map and GSI's fault map use GSI's topographic map as base map. For example, File:Fukui plain east fault.jpg uses GSI's 1/200,000 electronic map(数値地図)（source: "福井平野東縁断層帯の長期評価（一部改訂） 平成21年12月18日(pdf file)"-report of Fukui fault zone in 2009, p.4）（「基図は国土地理院発行数値地図200000「金沢」「岐阜」を使用」と記載されている）. GSI's 1/200,000 electronic map also require permission to use[12].--Peka (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (I am taking Peka's word on this). —holly {chat} 16:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have the same question as in Commons:Deletion requests/Fault maps of Japan with GSI map. —holly {chat} 17:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: As in the other DR, I will defer to Peka's understanding of the site's T&C. —holly {chat} 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Non free file owned by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Logo with the simplified yet complex enough coat of arms was released in 2019. 180.191.192.142 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Philippines, probably above TOO, so should be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image shows copyrighted place. The photo has no rights of use and the CC0 is wrong. Apologize. Aggelos1357 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Aggelos1357: When was this building constructed? —holly {chat} 17:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll defer to an expert on Greece, but I'd guess the arch is from the 1970s. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination,uploader request. No Freedom of Panorama in Greece per COM:FOP Greece. --Ellywa (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyvio; contemp. artwork; no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Eine eventuelle versehentliche Urheberrechtsverletzung war von mir in keiner Weise beabsichtigt, deshalb bitte ich vorsorglich um Löschung der Datei. Mabit1 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Martin Sg.: You say this is "contemporary artwork". Do you know who the artist is? —holly {chat} 17:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Per COM:EVID evidence is missing this design is in Public domain in Germany. No Fop in churches in Germany. --Ellywa (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
