Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/06/09
 |
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}
_-_Flickr_-_dalbera.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
;_Canelones,_Uruguay.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_from_1948_to_2023.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
It should not be in Wikimedia Commons as free media Wikifreeeditors (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Deleted as copyright violation (surpasses thrreshold of originality). Taivo (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Marcus Cyron as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There's no hint, that images of the "Archivio Aziendale Piero Guidi" are published under a free license. Metadata says "Quest'immagineè stata scattata da Andrea Vitrano e proviene da Guidi Pierino Giuseppe. È rilasciata sotto la licenza Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)." so perhaps it is possible to get a formal permission from copyright holder. MGA73 (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly I have not seen this. My fault.-- Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
contenu pornographique explicite 82.120.229.176 08:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not a valid reason--Trade (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Pornographic content without educativ purpose 80.146.8.244 09:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Not a valid reason. Definitely educational (and we don't have many of these) --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
That's not educational. That's a porn movie, Commons is not a place for pornography. BZPN (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Did you notice it had been kept 3 times already? When will self-styled censors give up? Pornography can be educational, and it's a valid encyclopedic topic. We are not going to host any and all pornography, but as 1989 points out, this is COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 13:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it is totally blurry HuseynAZE99 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep i guess the fourth troll-account (with only few edits, but fast deletion requests) between few days. I no longer believe in coincidences after 3 incidents in this matter.
- 1. Pilotico72
- 2. Neau
- 3. Mikael1973
- 4. HuseynAZE99
---
- Yann blocked 1., 2. and 3. (see above)
- Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Flag is likely not real. Only image of flag can be found on Reddit. (https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/lge7w3/greenville_sc_flag_designs/) DiscoA340 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
pornography. innapropriate. 197.232.110.211 09:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
pornographie explicite 82.120.229.176 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not a valid reason--Trade (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No new reason for deletion offered since kept last month. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is unashamed pornography. Undoubtedly the previous requests are overlooked due to lack of detail and argumentation, despite how frankly obvious. This clip serves no educational purpose beyond the article. The videos length is unnecessary as the act is made clear after a few seconds. It is obvious these videos are shared for pleasure and not education. I do not see how any argumentation could be provided for the need of a video of this length and nature to be absolutely necessary to provide education. It is the responsibility of the contents producer to sensitively distribute such material within consenting circles and not the educational tool Wikipedia. There is plenty of pornography elsewhere. It is needless and irresponsible to propagate this material for one’s own pleasure. Children knowingly and unknowingly use this site as it is largely educational. AJ1001 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE and COM:CENSORSHIP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid, or even novel, reason for deletion Dronebogus (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This content serves no educational purpose. Bilksneath (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
explicit pornography 82.120.229.176 13:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, human sexuality is within project scope. From a quick look, seems properly lit and in focus (meaning better quality than many illustrations of sexuality submitted here). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It contains explicit sexual intercourse 2A02:2F05:671B:7800:526:6589:5CF7:1F86 09:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Explicit sexual intercourse is not a valid reason for deletion and Commons does not censor content to please someones "prude" tastes. Tm (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 13:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
explicit pornography 82.120.229.176 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous, human sexuality is within project scope, anon is simply attempting censorship on basis of prudery. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Dronebogus (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
No use, we're not a porn depository Fry1989 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tell you what Commons is: COM:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:NOTCENSORED. MKFI (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. Leyo 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely copvio, no EXIF-date (in contrast to other uploads) Yikrazuul (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Request to closing admin -- I am very disturbed by the comment pattern of this contributor. Many of this contributor's comments are identical to the above "as per nom", as in these examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The deletion discussions are not the venue for votes. Contributors have an obligation to give reason(s) for the deletion, or keep opinions they offer. For this reason I suggest the closing admin discount this contributor's votes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047198){kind=link}
![[2]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047215){kind=link}
![[3]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anal_3.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57047164){kind=link}
![[4]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Puppensex_1.jpg&diff=57047266&oldid=57042483){kind=link}
![[5]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Desnudo_masculino-1.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=57052193){kind=link}
Keep Proofs that this image is a copyright violation????? Also opening a deletion request on the same image 25 hours later of this same image being kepted (albeit for a diferent reason)??? Tm (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't noticed that there has been already a DR. But we have now an uploaded image of very poor quality (grabbed somewhere?) with no EXIF-data, whereas other pictures are provided with (very odd). And 2nd, taken all pictures of this uploader I doubt that he is interested in commons as educational platform, rather depositing his private stuff. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - out of scope - Jcb (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored - [6] -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Home-made pornographic material of low quality. It may also be a screenshot from an unknown pornographic movie that was not made by the uploader. This was previously deleted, but recently overturned. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I combined the 3 DRs into one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - These are our only images of sex dolls being used as sex aids, which is, after all, their intended purpose. That they are low quality images is therefore immaterial as they are within scope. Deleting these images would leave us with something similar to a category full of pens, but no pictures of them being used to write with. It would be ridiculous. Your statement that "It may also be a screenshot from an unknown pornographic movie that was not made by the uploader" was debunked at the UDEL - From what I was able to see of the images, it looks like it was taken out of a video webcam. This is not out of the ordinary for this user; every thing else that was uploaded by this user is a webcam shot from the same model. I know he has other images that are of a similar quality, so any issues of copyvios is moot, in my opinion (User:Zscout370). In summary: in scope, freely licensed. Therefore we keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No new information is provided for deletion. I do agree that there's much copyvio stuff happening, but i doubt that there's some sort of cabal that is working behind the scenes trying very hard to find "unknown pornographic movie" from which to upload images which are all too likely to have been created by the uploader. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's still not in the project's scope. And even if these were taken from some self-made webcam video, the Commons should not be keeping some exhibitionist's poor quality homemade porn. It should get some homemade porn with higher production quality. These "photos" were previously deleted until mattbuck sought to restore them. I should not need to come up with new reasons to get these photos redeleted when the old reasons are just as suitable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sex dolls are in scope, would you agree? They have an en.wp article. Now, what is the primary purpose of such a doll? So would it not make sense for us to have images of that? I'm sorry you find the quality substandard, perhaps you could make some yourself? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- They may be in scope, but there is no reason to keep these photos just because we have no other photos that depict the same thing. It should also not be up to the onus of the user requesting deletion to make a better version of a photo just because it is claimed to be of poor quality. The Commons does not need Xiri's homemade porn of any type.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You admit they may be in scope but you do not want to keep them? That is self-contradicting. Because of what do you not want to keep them? COM:NOTCENSORED if you still did not understand it. Your last sentence is not really appropriate and useful, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The subject is in scope, but these particular photos of said subject are not. And I stand by the fact that we should not be keeping the homemade pornography of people who have only ever contributed homemade pornography to the Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- You admit they may be in scope but you do not want to keep them? That is self-contradicting. Because of what do you not want to keep them? COM:NOTCENSORED if you still did not understand it. Your last sentence is not really appropriate and useful, too. --Saibo (Δ) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- They may be in scope, but there is no reason to keep these photos just because we have no other photos that depict the same thing. It should also not be up to the onus of the user requesting deletion to make a better version of a photo just because it is claimed to be of poor quality. The Commons does not need Xiri's homemade porn of any type.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sex dolls are in scope, would you agree? They have an en.wp article. Now, what is the primary purpose of such a doll? So would it not make sense for us to have images of that? I'm sorry you find the quality substandard, perhaps you could make some yourself? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As last time: likely copvio, no EXIF-date (in contrast to other uploads); and out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- See comment by Zscout at UDEL - no evidence of copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, educational, informative, and encyclopedic. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How are the photos those things, exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the whole thread before picking on a single vote. These images are the only ones of any use of sex dolls in any way. They definitely add value to the categories they are in, and removing them without providing an alternative does Commons a great disservice. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- How are the photos those things, exactly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Although it is low quality, it is not replaceable at the moment. Handcuffed (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept On the basis of arguments presented by mattbuck, Beta M and Handcuffed. I will say that all 3 images are perhaps not required, but I will leave that for discussion amongst Commonists in appropriate fora. russavia (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Obscenity Walther16 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous discussions. File is in use, no new reason for deletion offered, nominator seems simply to object to human sexuality related content existing on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
explicit pornography 82.120.229.176 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: Multiple previous keeps. No new reason for deletion offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the right place for this kind of pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muschio Di Quercia (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No use, we're not a porn depository Fry1989 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tell you what Commons is: COM:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Could be in scope, but likely copyvio (EXIF-data a joke, not own work): seems to be grabbed from internet or from a video. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE, very low quality Aude (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored - [7] -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Obscenity Walther16 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - It's in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason to delete and image is in scope. A new account and starts by searching nudity and sexuality related images because they are obscene? Either this is a sock of someone or a moral crusader that cant even understand the irony of someone that only sees one type of image and calls them obscene. Tm (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
explicit pornography 82.120.229.176 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous, no new reason offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake Olga Denyshchyk (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake Kj1595 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I have decided to not use this image. Please delete Laura Bingoto (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. This is a copyright violation due to the lack of a free Flickr license at source; <https://flickr.com/photos/15934963@N00/4346668369> is licensed under "All Rights Reserved". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
And again a copyvio by this user! All he did in the past 8 years was uploading copyvios. Why isn't he blocked??? 88.78.236.177 22:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 15:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I want to delete this by request of me Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. No deletion reason given for this historic advert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am the uploader, and i require deletion of this file Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, "This tag is obsolete, and files using it will be automatically nominated for deletion." @Ikan Kekek Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am the uploader, and i require deletion of this file Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- You can't just "require" deletion for no reason, simply because you uploaded it 16 years ago. I don't understand the issue with the tag. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Check Template:PD-Ireland Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- The template documentation says "This template is deprecated and should not be used. Files using it are automatically nominated for speedy deletion." @Ikan Kekek Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Check Template:PD-Ireland Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- It says deletion, not speedy deletion. But why? What is the problem? Are you claiming this 1919 advert is still under copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What template i will use that is not deprecated? @Ikan Kekek Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Nevermind, can you please close this as keep? @Ikan Kekek Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What template i will use that is not deprecated? @Ikan Kekek Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but you can withdraw the nomination if you like, by posting {{withdraw}}. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- It says deletion, not speedy deletion. But why? What is the problem? Are you claiming this 1919 advert is still under copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- You can't just "require" deletion for no reason, simply because you uploaded it 16 years ago. I don't understand the issue with the tag. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Notrealname1234 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep: user had whitdrawn their deletion request.--A09 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This is not the person that the filename indicates. Either it should be erased or it should be renamed Fnielsen (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oups, vous avez raison... Je modifie le nom du fichier ! Merci !!! Chetao (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion, file has been renamed. Next time, please use {{Rename}}.--A09 (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Bottomless lolicon. This image depicts a underaged children without the bottom piece of her school swimsuit (sukumizu). This is basically child pornography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No sexual activity, no pornography, no realistic reinterpretation of an actual child. Perfectly legal and no child porn at all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- delete as useless drawing Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see blue top and skin colour bikini bottom. What do you see? It illustrates a young girls Sukumizu with two parts. Seems to me she is even way past puberty. Honi soit qui mal y pense! --Paddy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with analysis by Niabot (talk · contribs). And also Paddy (talk · contribs) has it right — it's a skin-colour bikini bottom. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per lack of any encyclopedic value / COM:SCOPE - Alison ❤ 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per Alison --JN466 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of educational value, out of scope. Also, that it's hard to tell whether she's wearing bottoms or not suggests that the quality is poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep：Uh...I think it's not child pornography, and users could use it on "Hentai" or "Ecchi".The quality is poor because it is created by mouse...--KOKUYO (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps recoloring the bottom to something other than skin tone would solve part of the problem. Also, isn't the average sukumizu a one piece swimsuit? --Kramer Associates (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&page=File%3ASukumizu_Girl.jpg – KOKUYO is the image's creator, and KOKUYO has said, "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'." This means that the image is a bottomless lolicon; she isn't wearing a "skin-colored bottom" as claimed by Paddy and Cirt. Can the closing sysop please take note of this while weighing Paddy's and Cirt's !votes? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop this stupid play of word bending. There is no differentiation between hentai and ecchi in most Asian languages, including Japanese in the first place. Additionally it's usage is widely spread. It can mean anything from perverted to a very mild form of sexy, while other terms like R18 or Adult are more common to describe what we usually refer to as hentai. That ugly construction you made of is your faulty interpretation. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am appalled and disgusted at how Michaeldsuarez tells the closing sysop how to weigh Cirt's and my vote! --Paddy (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [8], [9]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL. Honi soit qui mal y pense! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez you are very good at telling people what to think and what to do. Maybe you should apply as dictator in some country? I am sure you would do a great job. --Paddy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know what both of them are, but you're denying the obvious. Here's some more of you denying the obvious: [8], [9]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm getting really annoyed by your inadequate and moronic comments. I would beg you to stop writing, until you have read and understand what ecchi and hentai really is, and why it would be a suitable illustration for both topics even if it isn't sexual in nature at all. Or didn't you still realize that KOKUYO isn't referring to the English meaning? *head->desk* -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the character really were wearing a "skin-colored bottom", then why did the image's creator suggest using the image on the "Hentai" or "Ecchi" articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Take a look at the lines at the bottom. If you have at least a little bit of skill in drawing, then you know that this lines would look very different if the bottom part was missing. You just see things that aren't there. Or better said you don't see things that are there. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong about the "skin colour bikini bottom"? Assumptions that turn out to be wrong, such as yours, should be weighed less. There isn't anything shocking about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: The "Users could use it on 'Hentai' or 'Ecchi'" comment is also an indication that the image's creator does indeed see a sexual use for the image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Viewed at 4x, it looks like bottomless is more likely than otherwise, but we could always ask KOKUYO what his intentions were. Wouldn't replacing this with a more refined version of something like this then revdeleting the original solve all problems with this image except for questions of scope? --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: If you want't to keep the recolored version you will need to keep the original as well. This is enforced by the GFDL license which requires that the file history must be kept intact. Otherwise it would be a copyright violation.- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [10] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.webcitation.org/65oZumlIT – Is this good enough? If it isn't enough, then it appears to me that GFDL doesn't do a good job at making content free (i.e. easy to share and modify). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How could we guarantee that it would stay there, as long we host the recolored version? I guess we can't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean that the original and the derivation must be hosted on the same website? I could import the history onto another wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL requires a complete version history and therefore you would have to include the original if you can't ensure that it would stay accessible for everyone. Thats kind of a hard rule. But it is a requirement. I nominated the recolored version as i did with other pictures. That isn't necessary, even if you would like to see it as that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- [10] – I see that you game the system in other to have things done your way. You also nominated the derivative to be a "quality image". I guess that you did that because you believe that Commons would never delete the original if the derivative were deemed a "quality image". Is there anything in GFDL that says that the original and the derivative must be hosted on the same website? Deleting the original from Commons doesn't mean that it won't be available elsewhere on the Internet. What if an external website were to host the original and your derivative on Commons were to link to it, would that satisfy the terms of GFDL? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- That alone wouldn't even be enough to comply to CC-BY-SA. The GFDL is even more restrictive. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK attribution is required, but "Author KOKUYO (original)" is probably enough. Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... and it uses exactly the same outlines at this part as the original. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Sukumizu_Girl_recolored.jpg – Niabot has made and uploaded a derivative that clearly includes a blue bottom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hentai_-_yuuree-redraw.jpg&diff=58424662&oldid=58422673){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anime_girl_at_beach.jpg&diff=67537639&oldid=67533962){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sukumizu_Girl.jpg&diff=67643732&oldid=67643667){kind=link}
- Thats exactly the reason why Wikipedia switched to CC-BY-SA (dual licensing). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GFDL_question_.E2.80.93_Must_Commons_host_the_original_in_order_to_host_the_derivative.3F – I'm seeking a third opinion in order to clarify the issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just read 4. MODIFICATIONS: »I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.« We can only ensure the history is preserved if it is kept on WM commons. --Paddy (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – We are obliged to keep the history, but we aren't obliged to keeps the code / bits that makes the JPEG itself. We can handle this the same way we move GFDL images from Wikipedia to Commons. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment：I only want to share my old work for everyone.......and "Hentai" or "Ecchi" is not same as "Lolicon". (P.S：English is too hard to read and write for me....)--KOKUYO (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [11], [12]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Michaeldsuarez yes from this discussion it seems to be the place where you prove your points. Your original accusation was that it is a lolicon. The author says it is not. The only difference between you and a god is: that a god knows everything but you seem to know everything better than anyone else including a god. --Paddy (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your jackassery comment. I was only telling KOKUYO that if this image is deleted, it won't be the end of world, since there are other websites that he or she can use to host and share these sorts of images. Sharing via Commons isn't necessary. Niabot, I recommend that you stick to using Commons in order to aid Wikimedia's encyclopedic and educational endeavors; I don't recommend using Commons for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the Man" or to anyone who disagrees with you. Commons isn't here to prove your points. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend to upload it at flickr.com licensed as CC-BY-SA, so that i can upload it at Commons because i think that it is a valuable addition for the content on Commons. Feel free to enjoy the irony. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of driving away new users i welcome KOKUYO and thank him for providing and sharing its content with all of us. You are welcome. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling people to go away. So nice of you :-( --Paddy (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there is one thing that i dislike, than it are comments on deletion requests as the first edit. But if you want to contribute media to commons, then you are welcome. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic. And keep your false and racist allegations to yourself. And yes I know the law and a I do not care about you or the FBI --Paddy (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it very well as educational. It shows children as they are. Everyone is born without clothes, you were born that way as well. There is nothing wrong with this picture, except that you imagine things that aren't part of this picture. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how many images of lolicons are needed on this project? There's already File:Kogaru1.jpg and some others. Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you consider this contribution -> File:Hmong-Kinder.jpg <- as educational? The uploader is another German dude. You teutonic guys in here sure like those little girls and boys. Probably the FBI department would be, as well, only too happy to give some people here a crash course in law! Damru Tespuru (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you people haven't considered telling him about the existence of Booru boards such as Safebooru or Danbooru which contain similar pictures, and therefore would be only too happy to receive his art? Damru Tespuru (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just started to read between the lines as you did and thanked him for his courage. So what? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- My comment about alternative hosting websites is there is aid KOKUYO in case this image is deleted; it isn't there to drive him out. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other photo-sharing websites that you can use instead: en:List_of_photo_sharing_websites, [11], [12]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- More accurate description says it all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thought that Hentai and Ecchi can be illustrated which adult cartoon girls, thus avoiding any problems? Damru Tespuru (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It could/can't/shouldn't be done that way, because #1 there aren't such alternatives, #2 it would be lie in the face of the reader since it is part of the style that even older women are depicted as young (kawaii). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I fail to see any pornography in this and besides en:Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States states that there are no issues whatsoever to host any illustrations on Commons as long as they are not obscene. It is also in scope since some of the derivatives are in use. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing but assumptions. Not very confirmative. And what do they say about assumptions? Assumption is the mother of all fuckups! --Paddy (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the license; it doesn't say what you claim. Not only that, the creators of the license have made their intents very clear, and have never made a fuss about not having all versions for GFDL (or the similar in this respect GPL); no one except archivists keeps all versions of Linux source around, and some old versions of GCC have apparently completely disappeared.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67759561&oldid=67757182 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- However, that doesn't affect the fact that it is in scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that you and Clindberg obviously have not read the license. Who is Clindberg anyway? Is he a lawyer? --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=67714662&oldid=67714383 – Commons doesn't need to host the original in order to host the derivative. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree with this very astute comment by Stefan4 (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep IDONTLIKEIT isn't counted as a reason for deletion. The image is not illegal. The image is free. The image's derivative works are used in articles, and this one also has a potential for that; thus it's in scope. The fact that image uploader has intended these to be used in encyclopaedic articles doesn't mean that we should disqualify any keep votes. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. But also any closing admin should consider that all the "it's not educational" votes hold little merit, due to the same comment of the original uploader. Interesting how you didn't request that yourself. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- ... which is word bending per excellence, as i explained above. Also that the bottom would be missing is a lie. It is there, because the lines are drawn that way. You would never draw lines that way if it would be the intention to show someone without a bottom part, especially younger characters. You see this two thick lines near the underline of the top part? This two lines would be absent. Additionally you would no continue the left bottom line as it was done. Please try to draw a person that isn't wearing a bottom part an look at the lines you would draw. This aren't the same. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that !votes should be discounted because they suggested articles which they could be used on; I said that certain !votes should be given less weight because their "skin-colored bottom" assumption was wrong. The suggested articles were simply evidence that I used to back up my statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I tell you what this is all about. It is about a sad character who needs attention namely Michaeldsuarez. He trolls about and sets out to delete images because his mind tells him it is Pr0n. He lacks in understanding the GFDL and even worse he does not have a clue of the human anatomy. He can not draw either. Do I need to say more? --Paddy (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you should stop trolling Bulwersator (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Niabot and Paddy ('s original "keep" votes). en:Ecchi says, "Works considered as ecchi don't show any sexual intercourse or primary sexual characteristics. Instead it's up to the imagination of the viewer." (my emphasis) Given the above discussion, this image would seem to be a fair example of that! [g] I am dumbfounded that anyone could see "bottomless" nudity in this picture... (And, BTW, strongly disagree with using the fact that there is a new version as an argument for deleting the original; IMO, this is a completely inappropriate argument, regardless of whether it's technically allowed.) - dcljr (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not used in any projects; educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I see a flesh-coloured bikini bottom, which while a bit risque is hardly child pornography. I agree the blue-bottom version is preferable, but that doesn't mean this one should be deleted. Those who are trying to make people leave or threatening them with FBI visits, please cease doing so. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Graphic detail and excess exposure of genitals, failing laws relating Child Pornography. Zeranima da proseticaio (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is this even here is a better question. Laurennial (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep because it's COM:INUSE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment it is also a sourcefile for file:Sukumizu Girl recolored.jpg. Arlo James Barnes 20:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep: File is in use.--A09 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio -- this image has been uploaded before, and deleted for the same reason. 1990'sguy (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete A09 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Too small to use as picture. Taichi (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Except that it's literally COM:INUSE. Always scroll down to check "File usage on other wikis" before offering this kind of reasoning. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Gnangarra. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio: Photo by Tom Ziora. 2003:C0:8F26:E00:11C7:2737:811B:4756 11:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of upload the photo was available under an irrevocable CC BY-SA licence (https://web.archive.org/web/20221214211408/https://inaturalist.nz/photos/246127978), which still holds. The iNaturalist user must have since made a global change to their photo licenses to All Rights Reserved, not realising this cannot replace a Creative Commons licence. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of upload the photo was available under an irrevocable CC BY-SA licence (https://web.archive.org/web/20221214215411/https://inaturalist.nz/photos/246127941), which still holds. The iNaturalist user must have since made a global change to their photo licenses to All Rights Reserved, not realising this cannot replace a Creative Commons licence. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't notice it was CC-BY-NC. I've reached out to the uploader on iNaturalist to see if they are happy to change it to CC-BY-SA. MycoMutant (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The author/uploader of this image is himself present in the image. The photo was taken by someone else, which violates the photographer's copyright. Permission missing from the original photographer. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023060910012194 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Has ticket. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
All these images are copyrighted and most of them are owned by ILNA and IRNA websites.
- File:Mostafa Gholami.jpg
- File:Kimia babaeian.jpg
- File:Javad khajavi.jpg
- File:شکیب شجره 1.jpg
- File:شکیب شجره 2.jpg
- File:شکیب شجره 3.jpg
- File:شکیب شجره در دورهمی.jpg
CaesarIran (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete @CaesarIran please use {{Copyvio}} next time A09 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo may be found in the internet - see https://v1.ru/text/culture/2023/04/02/72182519/ The authorship of the photo is attributed to a different person there. Ahasheni (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete @Ahasheni next time, please use {{Copyvio}} A09 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do Ahasheni (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It is PD, the author died in 1948 so PD-Brazil-URAA doesn't apply
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As author has died in 1948, his book should be already in the public domain (Brazil has 70y pma). So, why tagged as copyvio? -- Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No reason at all to delete it: I uploaded it as {{PD-Brazil-media}} (Life +70 years), not {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} (I don't know why Günther said that). This edition is also 104 years old, so it is PD in the US. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Günther Frager: why have you accused a tag (PD-Brazil-URAA) which isn't in the original upload? Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, looking at it now I realized I made a mistake. Initially when I saw the PD template used in the file it sounded off as it talked about audiovisual and photographic works and it was a book. When I looked at the PD templates for URAA template:PD-Brazil-URAA and template:PD-BR-URAAwriter all required authors died before 1936 and that was not the case. What I overlooked is that the book was published in 1918, so URAA never applied here as it was always in the PD in the United Stated. I learnt my lesson, never to require a speedy on potential URAA violations, and to look more carefully at publication dates. Günther Frager (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Günther Frager: all right! And being fair with you, the English language version PD-Brazil-media is quite odd: it only tells about the audiovisual media, while its original version is far more complete: "Artigo 41: Os direitos patrimoniais do autor perduram por setenta anos contados de 1° de janeiro do ano subseqüente ao de seu falecimento, obedecida a ordem sucessória da lei civil." (Article 41: The property rights of the author last for seventy years as of January 1st of the year subsequent to his death, obeying the succession order of the civil law.). Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the main lesson is to always check the template in its original language to look for any relevant differences. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- To avoid future issues, I have completed the template with all the same articles as the Portuguese version. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes in the template! Günther Frager (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes in the template! Günther Frager (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- To avoid future issues, I have completed the template with all the same articles as the Portuguese version. Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that the main lesson is to always check the template in its original language to look for any relevant differences. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Günther Frager: all right! And being fair with you, the English language version PD-Brazil-media is quite odd: it only tells about the audiovisual media, while its original version is far more complete: "Artigo 41: Os direitos patrimoniais do autor perduram por setenta anos contados de 1° de janeiro do ano subseqüente ao de seu falecimento, obedecida a ordem sucessória da lei civil." (Article 41: The property rights of the author last for seventy years as of January 1st of the year subsequent to his death, obeying the succession order of the civil law.). Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, looking at it now I realized I made a mistake. Initially when I saw the PD template used in the file it sounded off as it talked about audiovisual and photographic works and it was a book. When I looked at the PD templates for URAA template:PD-Brazil-URAA and template:PD-BR-URAAwriter all required authors died before 1936 and that was not the case. What I overlooked is that the book was published in 1918, so URAA never applied here as it was always in the PD in the United Stated. I learnt my lesson, never to require a speedy on potential URAA violations, and to look more carefully at publication dates. Günther Frager (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Günther Frager: why have you accused a tag (PD-Brazil-URAA) which isn't in the original upload? Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Albertoleoncio: you may want to see here. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as I made a mistake, and the works is both in Brazil and the United States public domains (see discussion above). Günther Frager (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, DR was basically withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 07:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Polarlys as no permission (No permission since 1 June 2023). TOO? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good catch. Below COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Polarlys as no permission (No permission since 1 June 2023). I agree that this is probably not available under CC BY-SA 4.0, but is it under the relevant threshold(s) of originality? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment We had a similar deletion request recently. This is a Liberian-owned company based in Miami, and I believe the logo is below COM:TOO US. If COM:TOO Liberia is relevant, there is no such active link on this Wiki, so we could only guess that their law might resemble American laws, but does anyone know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Below COM:TOO US, I think Liberia not relevant. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Polarlys as no permission (No permission since 1 June 2023). The original logo is almost certainly not available under a CC license, but is this under the relevant threshold of originality? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, surely PD-textlogo, considering COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grande mosquée de Toulouse
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
- File:Grande mosquée de Toulouse 01.jpg
- File:Grande mosquée de Toulouse 02.jpg
- File:Grande mosquée de Toulouse 03.jpg
- File:Grande mosquée de Toulouse 04.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grande mosquée de Toulouse
[edit]The mosque was built in 2018, so these images infringe on its copyright.
- File:Grande mosquée de Toulouse 05.jpg
- File:Toulouse Grande Mosquée Extérieure Dôme 1.jpg
- File:Toulouse Grande Mosquée Extérieure Dôme 2.jpg
- File:Toulouse Grande Mosquée Extérieure Facade.jpg
- File:Toulouse Grande Mosquée Extérieure Portails.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Info per enwiki, the author of the building was architect Christian Barthe. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Clearly a screenshot (see the 1/5 top right). Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
_-_Flickr_-_dalbera.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_dalbera.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in France. Artist Louise Bourgeois died in 2010 A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality, unlikely to be own work as claimed Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE. This image focus too much of the Address Downtown Dubai, not a general skyline view A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Poster own work 186.173.35.177 10:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under COM:F2 -- DaxServer (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - clearly a film poster, COM:F2 Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euronews building in Lyon
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 01.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 02.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 03.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 04.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 05.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 06.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 07.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 08.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 09.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 10.jpg
- File:Edificio de Euronews en Lyon 11.jpg
- File:Euronews (Lyon Confluence) (10749347076).jpg
- File:Euronews HQ ©euronews photo Stéphane Audras 2015.10.15 (169).JPG
- File:Euronews siège social avril 2021 depuis la rive droite de la Saône.jpg
- File:Euronews siège social avril 2021.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 01.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 02.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 03.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 04.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 05.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 06.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 07.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 08.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 09.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 10.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 11.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 12.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 13.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 14.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 15.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 16.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 17.jpg
- File:Lyon Quai Rambaud Euronews 18.jpg
- File:Siège d'Euronews.jpg
_(10749347076).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Very low quality, blurred / jpeg compression faults make it unusable MPF (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
;_Canelones,_Uruguay.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
;_Canelones,_Uruguay.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
;_Canelones,_Uruguay.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
;_Canelones,_Uruguay.jpg){kind=link}
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
When the photo was taken the uploader was present on the stage and this photo clicked by someone else, the uploader violates the photographer's copyright as well as permission missing from the original photographer. For reference, see this photo: File:Wikimedia Vibrance Panel Discussion at WCI 2023 Day-2 17.jpg Rocky Masum (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023061010007287 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Wikimedia Vibrance Panel Discussion at WCI 2023 Day-2 16.jpg” under ticket:2023061010007287. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The photographer has explicitly told the VRT that they have "transferred the whole ownership including the sole copyright of them to Wasiul Bahar (User:Wasiul Bahar). He has the full authority to take decision regarding these images.", and hence Keep. I decided to accept the permission. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The photographer has explicitly told the VRT that they have "transferred the whole ownership including the sole copyright of them to Wasiul Bahar (User:Wasiul Bahar). He has the full authority to take decision regarding these images.", and hence
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Biswanath121 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
- File:BiswanathDas.jpg
- File:RAHULDAS.jpg
- File:BISWANATH DAS.jpg
- File:BISWANATHDAASI.jpg
- File:BISWANATHDDAS.jpg
- File:BISWANATHDAAS.jpg
- File:BISWANATHDAS.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of the NSDAP (1920–1945).svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope inferior version of the flag of Japan with a distracting face in the middle. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, no potential educational purpose/out of scope. -M.nelson (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Japan.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep .png cannot be a duplicate of .svg A09 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete PNG is newer and colours are incorrect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of South Korea.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep .png cannot be duplicate of .svg A09 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete PNG is newer and colours are incorrect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of South Korea.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete duplicate of other png flags A09 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of South Korea.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete duplicate of other png flags A09 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of South Korea.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete duplicate of other png flags A09 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty likely this logo is above the threshold of originality due to the design and it's probably not the uploaders own work either. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
TinEye shows hits prior to upload to Commons including from Rick Mitson. https://www.slideshare.net/rjmitson/flat-glass-products-float-manufacture2007 Scribd has personal use only as part of their terms and conditions. Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A09 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted fictional character (Pepe the Frog) Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
-20230609164700-File:Zvychaynyy_khlopak_logo_youtube.jpg){kind=link}
- I support deleting the file, it was once used for an article that no longer exists, so it no longer has a use or some benefit. DOZ3145 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty likely this logo is above the threshold of originality due to the design and it's probably not the uploaders own work either. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Copivio and wrong location, picture is from a jigsaw puzzle and shows a location in the Alps Rupert Pupkin (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- look here... Rupert Pupkin (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Good work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Rupert A09 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's pretty likely this logo is above the threshold of originality due to the design and it's probably not the uploaders own work either. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Publicacije 186.172.244.28 17:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COM:POSTER A09 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Póster ? 186.172.244.28 17:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom A09 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
experiments, out of scope Gampe (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
experiments, out of scope Gampe (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. The only reference I can find to a "principality of Vishland" is a Facebook group. Omphalographer (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Also ‘’falg’’ 😂 A09 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: another fictitious flag. I was unable to find any online references to the supposed country besides this image itself. Omphalographer (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. Allegedly represents a constructed language which I can't even find any online references to. Omphalographer (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. (Created to represent a character from w:Despicable Me (film).) Omphalographer (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. I'll just quote the description: "This file is a flag of a made-up country." Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag representing an alliance which doesn't exist, and which would probably not be represented by this flag even if it did exist. Omphalographer (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. Unable to find any references for "North Karinif" or its alleged independence movement. Omphalographer (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag (description: "for Eastern union for a hypothetical world war 3"). Also possibly a DW copyvio; the Shadada looks like it has a stock image watermark on it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: yet another fictitious flag; description calls this "a flag for a hypothetical caliphate". Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag (per uploader's caption: "made-up flag"). Omphalographer (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: joke flag uploaded by a vandalism-only account on enwiki. Omphalographer (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: another obvious joke flag. Omphalographer (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag created for NationStates roleplay. Omphalographer (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Codc (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A09 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Low quality collage, unused, out of scope. 188.123.231.9 21:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete looks like hearts copyright should also be cleared. So COM:PRP and COM:OOS. A09 (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This image is from the Brazilian Ministry of Health and is part of the anti-smoking campaign. There is no evidence that the image is free to use. Minerva97 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COM:POSTER A09 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This image is from the Brazilian Ministry of Health and is part of the anti-smoking campaign. There is no evidence that the image is free to use. Minerva97 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COM:POSTER A09 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
(This is obviously not owned by the uploader, but that's not the point here.) The shooting star designs may pass the threshold of orginality. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Arragement of un-copyrightable elements is not copyrightable itself per COM:TOO USA. A09 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @A09: FYI, that's not true, "a combination of unprotectable elements may qualify for copyright protection. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton, 583 F.2d 448, 451 (9th Cir. 1978) (Kennedy, J.) ("[O]riginality may be found in taking the commonplace and making it into a new combination or arrangement.").". —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution .png image (537x403px). I suspect it is not self-photographed photo of Philippinia Boi (talk · contribs). Only contribution of the uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The building is unlikely to be made by an architect who died more than 50 years ago for it to be in public domain. Needs commercial license clearance from the building architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the 4th photo of Shulman this user has uploaded, 3 have previously been deleted as copyvios. PCP for this one - its unlikely to be own work and the exif indicates it has been photoshopped Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. Artist Livio Scarpella is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this is out of scope, but it's so small for 2023 that I'll bet it's a copyrighted thumbnail downloaded from somewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Joke image, was in the now deleted joke article de:Plunzenbär. --Rosenzweig τ 06:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplikat VSchagow (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted and redirected to File:Schlussstein Jahreszahl 1751 Schoessergasse 2011.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 06:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I doubt that an image of completely identical cockroaches fighting each other with lightsabers can be used for educational purposes. Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to being outside of COM:SCOPE, this animation is easily found on Youtube and elsewhere and this file was uploaded by an account blocked for vandalism. It's highly unlikely that the claim of "own work" is true. Marbletan (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio: Painting by ru:Ольшанский, Борис Михайлович who is still alive. Achim55 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:CSM, educational noticeboards/signs aren't allowed due to potential copyvio; image is available in original form at File:Hejaz Rail track laying near Tabuk 1906.jpg Tcr25 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The photograph was taken from this 1916 German publication (Bilder aus Palästina, Nord-Arabien und dem Sinai); the photographer was German orientalist de:Bernhard Moritz, who died in 1939. So no copyright problems in US and all 70 years pma countries, among them Germany. The text is below the threshold of originality. --Rosenzweig τ 06:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Initially tagged as no license, but are these ACF logos possibly under the relevant COM:TOO? They look quite simple to me.
- File:My project-4.png
- File:My project-3.png
- File:ACF election logo.png
- File:ACF red election logo.png
- File:ACF election symbol.png
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment They would be under COM:TOO US, which I think is relevant, but are they or were they actually used by ACF (by which I'm guessing you mean w:American Culinary Federation, https://www.acfchefs.org/), such that they would be in scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the looka.com source indicates that the uploader made these themselves, which lends credance to the student project theory. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Initially tagged as no license since 1 June 2023. These appear to be very simple logos, but are they under the relevant COM:TOO?
- File:My project-5.png
- File:My project-6.png
- File:FLB election symbol.png
- File:FLB election logo.png
- File:Federal Liberal Bloc Symbol.png
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I have no idea what country Federal Liberal Bloc is in, and the search results I got were not helpful. But my question would be the same as above: Is this just some student project, or are or were any of these logos actually used by the organization in question (whatever it is)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- That is a good question, but one I do not have the answer to. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the looka.com source indicates that the uploader made these themselves, which lends credance to the student project theory. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: joke / nonsense flag. Omphalographer (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: joke flag, also a derivative work. Omphalographer (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alex Kaplaux (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: a variety of original logos and designs created by the uploader, all unused.
- File:SALTOVKA COAT OF ARM SOYUZDESIGN.png
- File:SALTOVKA FLAG SOYUZDESIGN.png
- File:ADIDAS SNEAKERMATE XTZ.jpg
- File:ZHIGULI XTZ.jpg
- File:MONETA XTZ SOYUZDESIGN.gif
- File:MAGAZIN OKEAN XTZ SOYUZDESIGN.png
- File:DK XTZ SOYUZDESIGN.png
- File:XTZ FLAG.png
- File:XTZ COAT OF ARMS.png
- File:XTz Flag.png
Omphalographer (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Another sock puppet of this user uploaded File:ChestSurgery.png. That one was labeled as having been sourced from a web forum, pixiv. It's likely this image is copied as well. This is clearly not a serious contributor. I see no educational use of this image. Vera (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope, selfie picture. Taichi (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very low quality with bad over-saturation; out of Commons scope as no realistic use MPF (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Agreed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment We just have 10 (categorized) photos of Tangara fastuosa. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Fondation Louis Vuitton
[edit]No FOP in France.
- File:Centre Louis Vuitton, Paris.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 01.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 02.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 03.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 04.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 05.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 06.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 07.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 08.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 09.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 10.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 11.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 16.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 17.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 18.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 19.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 East 20.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 05.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 06.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 07.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 08.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 09.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 10.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 11.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 12.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 13.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 14.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 20.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 23.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 24.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 South 25.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 02.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 08.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 09.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 2 3711 01.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 2 3711 07.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 2 3711 14.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 24.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 25.jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton 20160413 West 26.jpg
- File:Paris - Fondation Louis Vuitton.jpg
Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fondation Louis Vuitton
[edit]No freedom of panorama in France. Architect Frank Gehry is still alive.
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50588298368).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50588299448).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50589046351).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50589046776).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50589048851).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50589165597).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton (50589169367).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50569020843).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50569774476).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50569776906).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50569906682).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50569909007).jpg
- File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50577213051).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50573915118).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50573915338).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574654036).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574654456).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574655111).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574789672).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574790757).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574791412).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574792162).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50574792502).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50580830453).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50580831778).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50580832608).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50581559081).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50581561121).jpg
- File:Fundação louis vuitton (50581685312).jpg
- File:Louis Vuitton Foundation, with peacocks.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){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) 10:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Fondation Louis Vuitton - Paris (50577213051).jpg, nothing copyrightable. Keep File:Louis Vuitton Foundation, with peacocks.jpg, cropped and now undoubtlessly de minimis. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all deleted except for the two identified by Rod. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, low-quality selfie by a non-contributor. I tagged it as F10, but that tag was removed (without explanation) while Krd was adding the VRT permission. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:World of Warcraft
[edit]photos of copyrighted artworks = com:dw.
- File:Games Convention 2006 - Blizzard (2672213198).jpg
- File:Group of Warcraft characters in TLP 2017 01.jpg
- File:Internet café run by lianjiang people.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
RZuo (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Dozens of this user's uploads were copied from vietnhangroup.vn without evidence of permission have already been deleted. These few additional file are very likely to have the some origin as well - COM:PCP applies.
Marbletan (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
All of the uploader's other files were easily found elsewhere on the web and falsely claimed as own work. They were consequenly speedily deleted. For this last one, I don't find a source, but it is likely a copyvio as well and should be deleted per COM:PCP. Marbletan (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by نار بتكويني (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo by non-wikipedian: out of project scope; no indication of notability.
--Karim talk to me :)..! 13:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Plus created by sockpuppet. --Karim talk to me :)..! 13:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Copyright holder John Vitollo©2022 Usage terms Written Agreement/Contract Only". MKFI (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
non free image copyrighted see metadata Online copyright statement http://www.micheldecock.com Copyright holder © 2020 Michel De Cock Hoyanova (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Low res dick pic Trade (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment May have some value as medical illustration of Hypospadias -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Infrogmation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Ikan Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As the owner of this property, I was never consulted, or gave my consent, for a picture of my property to be used in this way. I see this use as an invasion of my privacy as I am now constantly having people seeking my home to photograph and used in commercial products such as marketing of the village and local traders. 195.224.72.202 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Info: On Google maps/street view it's great to see. --Achim55 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm very sympathetic to you as the owner of the property, but - correct me if I'm wrong - I think the law allows photographs taken from public pavements to be used. Do you allege that the photographer was standing on your property while they took the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not to accuse the nominator of lying, but their whole story that people are constantly seeking out their home to photograph due to this image being on Commons is clearly hyperbolic nonsense. Plus it's not like it isn't already on geograph.org.uk anyway. So deleting it here wouldn't do jack to deter people from wanting to photograph their home. That is if it's actually something that's happening to begin with. I can't think of any other reason the image should be deleted in the meantime either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
We have File:Ali-akbar-shirodi.jpg with better quality. This file's aspect ratio is corrupted. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No need to keep this corrupted version when there is a higher quality equivalent. Marbletan (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Advertising track of Strawberry Prince
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Japan for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required.
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince in 2022.jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince in 2022 (cropped).jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince about 4th album in 2023 (01).jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince about 4th album in 2023 (03).jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince about 4th album in 2023 (02).jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince about 4th album in 2023 (03) (cropped).jpg
- File:Advertising track of Strawberry Prince about 4th album in 2023 (02) (cropped).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}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- (Very) weak keep, per Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting, itasha (Q1072568) is somewhat a foggy area on Commons, some sysops prefer Delete, they are copyrightd artworks, neither Japan and US consider FoP-suitable and some Keep, they are utilitarian objects, {{Useful-object-US}} applies, probably a broader consensus on this topic should be happened, ask via COM:VPC? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - the only reason why this specific truck was photographed was for the copyrighted artwork on the side of it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality penis photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Very low resolution French postcard. Could be public domain as 1920s could be an accurate date. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COM:OOS as too low reoslution A09 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1989 Gower (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1989 Gower (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1989 Gower (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1987 Gower (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This image actually was taken by a Trump staffer SecretName101 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Any source backing up your claims abour copyright infringment? A09 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- On page 14 of the indictment it says "One of the photographs NAUTA texted to Trump Employee 2 is depicted below..." and shows this photo. The event dated December 7, 2021. --Riley AJ (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
License not compatible for commons Notrealname1234 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosquée de Massy
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
- File:MosqueeMassy2020.jpg
- File:Mosquée de Massy le 2 août 2015 - 1.jpg
- File:Mosquée de Massy le 2 août 2015 - 2.jpg
- File:Mosquée de Massy le 2 août 2015 - 3.jpg
- File:Mosquée de Massy le 2 août 2015 - 4.jpg
- File:Mosquée de Massy le 2 août 2015 - 5.jpg
- File:Mosquée mai 2013*.JPG
- File:Mosquée mai 2013-.JPG
- File:Vue de la terrasse.JPG
- File:Vue entrée Avenue de Paris.jpg
- File:Vue entrée principale.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Seine musicale
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
- File:GraphyArchy - Wikipedia 00009.jpg
- File:La Seine Musicale (39405932014).jpg
- File:LA SEINE MUSICALE 2021.jpg
- File:La Seine Musicale façade.jpg
- File:La Seine Musicale.jpg
- File:Île Seguin - Passerelle Sud.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in France. Some construction photos already showed most of the permanent exterior architecture, and they are subject to copyright.
- File:131027 Velodrome.jpg
- File:140116 Velodrome-nuit.jpg
- File:Velodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.jpg
- File:Vélodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 2013 04.jpg
- File:Vélodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 2013 06.jpg
- File:Vélodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 2013 09.jpg
- File:Vélodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 2013 10.jpg
- File:Vélodrome de Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines 2013 17.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Ukraine.
- File:Church of the martyr Clement and Leontius. Univ Lavra.JPG
- File:Univ 25.jpg
- File:Univ 27.jpg
- File:Univ 29.jpg
- File:Univ 54.jpg
- File:Univ 55.jpg
- File:Univ-monastyr-03.JPG
- File:Univ-monastyr-06.JPG
- File:Унівський монастир-фортец 2.jpg
- File:Уневская лавра. Церковь Климентия и Леонтия..jpg
- File:Храм - Унів.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Ukraine.
- File:Hran na Porole-ASD-interjer.JPG
- File:Hran na Porole-ASD-kompleks 2006.JPG
- File:Hran na Porole-ASD-kompleks.JPG
- File:Hran na Porole-ASD-velykyj.JPG
- File:Київ. Лук'янівська вулиця.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:César Klein
[edit]César Klein died in 1954, so his works are not in the public domain in Germany yet. There is also no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2025.
- File:César klein, due vetrate, berlino 1919.jpg
- File:Renaissance-Theater, Berlin.JPG
- File:Renaissance-Theater-2.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 22:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope, selfie. Taichi (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The source is a 1976 document and the current license claims that there is no copyright notice. However, there appears to be a valid U.S. copyright notice on the left-hand side of the table of contents, with credits to several photographers being given. As such, I think that this should be deleted as a copyright violation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Southern Luzon State University logo
[edit]Not simple logos, passing the threshold of originality. Needs commercial license permission from the copyright holder of the logo for it to be hosted here.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair use is not allowed on commons and this cover from a book does not seem to be officially released as CC. Symac (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Flag (or possibly a map?) for a hoax that got the uploader blocked on eswiki. Omphalographer (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: joke flag. Omphalographer (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: flag of a non-notable online micronation. Omphalographer (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: false license claim not matching source. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: like the description says, "this is a fictitious flag". Omphalographer (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: per description, it's "the flag of the fictitious country". Omphalographer (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Image has low resolution and a watermark with a name that doesn't match with the uploader's one. Most likely not own work. 188.123.231.3 06:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Image has low resolution and a watermark with a name that doesn't match with the uploader's one. Most likely not own work. 188.123.231.3 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence this photograph, which belongs to the ALP, is in the public domain. Suggest requesting approval via the procedures detailed at Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Giacomanni as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Non è Enrico de Boccard. Immagine caricata per errore. I do not know, who is correct, so I allow discussion. In addition, even if depicted people are misidentified, maybe the photo has still educational value. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per above. If image title and description is inaccurate, file can be renamed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
_from_1948_to_2023.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_1948_to_2023.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work! 186.173.35.177 10:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
_from_1948_to_2023.png){kind=link}
- Keep Unless pictures used are copyvios, no rational reason is given to delete this file. A09 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The sources for the photos should be identified, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Collage of unsourced photos, no reason to think uploader has authority to license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
_from_1948_to_2023.png){kind=link}
No permission from Alissa Sherbatov A1Cafel (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Columbia NYC 2023 wildfire smoke 2.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2023062110002136. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Columbia NYC 2023 wildfire smoke 2.jpg” under ticket:2023062110002136. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kept per VRTS permission. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leonid1921 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unidentified flags, probably made up. No context in the file pages or uploader contributions to suggest what they're for. (Any guesses?)
Omphalographer (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work, company image: https://www.exotrail.com/blog/exotrail-secures-contract-with-aac-clyde-space MKFI (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello MKFI, this illustration was published on behalf of the company because I work for it: https://careers.exotrail.com/people/1474858-benjamin-auger Benjauger (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Benjauger: since the image has been published it is best that you send a VRT permission to verify copyright. You can use Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. MKFI (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @MKFI, thanks for this information, I've just requested a VRT permission. Benjauger (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Benjauger: since the image has been published it is best that you send a VRT permission to verify copyright. You can use Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. MKFI (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023062010007366 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep I have accepted permission per Ticket:2023062010007366. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 07:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork Gower (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. 1978 work of pl:Zygmunt Kaczor, who died in 1999. The file can be restored in 2074 (URAA). --Rosenzweig τ 06:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork Gower (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. 1978 work of pl:Zygmunt Kaczor, who died in 1999. The file can be restored in 2074 (URAA). --Rosenzweig τ 06:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is clearly a profesional photo, and an archived version of the source [13] doesn't point to a free license, and doesn't mention the photographer. If no evidence of a free license is found, we should delete it based on COM:PCP. Günther Frager (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence of claimed free license seen at source. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as below COM:TOO France and COM:TOO US. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Mdaniels5757. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as below COM:TOO France and COM:TOO US. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Mdaniels5757. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted leaflet A1Cafel (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep seems OK per French de minimis standard set by courts; secondary or accessory inclusion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No permission from Alissa Sherbatov A1Cafel (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, I do have her permission; I just don't know how to properly document it. How should I do this? BappleBusiness (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- You can ask Alissa Sherbatov to submit the permission to VRT via email. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above, still no evidence of permission from copyright holder. (Can be undeleted if proper permission is given.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:A1Cafel & User:Infrogmation, the copyright holder should have released the photos under the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE userpic of an individual without valid contributions. Gikü (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused personal photo by non-contributor. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
copyvio Fourmidable (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
not own work, see exif Gampe (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
copyvio from https://jm-lamaison.my.canva.site/ Culex (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
copyvio from https://jm-lamaison.my.canva.site/ Culex (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
copyvio from https://jm-lamaison.my.canva.site/ Culex (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- également copyvio de [14]https://www.larepubliquedespyrenees.fr/economie/immobilier-en-bearn/pau-la-facade-du-boulevard-des-pyrenees-a-100-ans-et-elle-est-enfin-finie-5496970.php Croquemort Nestor (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
copyvio from https://jm-lamaison.my.canva.site/ Culex (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Low quality copied thumbnail from the internet. Original is apparently this. Boylarva99 (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. I am the sole contributor to this file, want to take down this image now as per {{Personality rights}}. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Photos of women dancing at a wedding in shalwar kameezes in an organized way are not out of scope, and both of the photos with (01) in them are nice. It's OK for you to ask for courtesy deletions, but that's what these would be. I'd tend to favor keeping the "(01)" photos. What is the issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion and the image clearly serves an educational purpose in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per above. In scope; more than 7 years after uploading is far too long for courtesy deletion for no reason other than uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. I am the sole contributor to this file, want to take down this image now as per {{Personality rights}}. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion and the image clearly serves an educational purpose in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per comment & others in series. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. I am the sole contributor to this file, want to take down this image now as per {{Personality rights}}. Thanks for your understanding. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion and the image clearly serves an educational purpose in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per above and others in series. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not own work. Beshogur (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- What does that mean? The majority of Wikipedia consists of artworks created by various artists and uploaded by users. A few days ago, I uploaded and then deleted this particular artwork because I needed to verify its copyright status. Today I reuploaded it, but you subsequently removed it. My intention was to include the image for aesthetic purposes, as I believe it is a fitting addition. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to retain the non-image version.
- Best regards, cheers mate! Akatziri (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Akatziri if you already verified the copyright status, could you tell us which free license it has? with sources we can check, of course. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Akatziri, what "not own work" means is that you did not take this photograph. So why does it say "Own work" on the "Source" line, instead of specifying where you got the photo, and could you please rectify this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, of course, it's @Günther Frager. Apparently, the image is from a defunct Turkish magazine called "Ön Asya dergisi." It depicts the "Foundation myth of Oghuz Turks" portraying their departure from Ergenekon. The magazine was active from 1978 to 2002. I had initially uploaded it a few days ago but then hesitated and deleted it. However, I later discovered that it was sourced from the aforementioned defunct magazine and decided to reupload it.
- Shortly after, @Beshogur requested its deletion without discussing it with me. Although the image is now believed to be free of copyright restrictions, I appreciate their enthusiasm for adhering to the rules. I am willing to keep the non-image version. @Ikan Kekek As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm unfamiliar with the "own work" process and may have mistakenly uploaded it without clicking that button. Please understand that I never intended to harm Wikipedia or the magazine's owners. I want to read and learn more about the rules and usage of Wikipedia.
- Cheers, atque supra!
- https://www.nadirkitap.com/onasya-dergisi-sayi-15-16-17-23-24-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47-48-49-50-51-52-53-kolektif-dergi25631741.html
- https://yandex.com/images/search?cbir_id=3918175%2F1gIYAdlkLcLual55-yzZrA6466&cbir_page=similar&img_url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.nadirkitap.com%2Ffotograf%2F426908%2F25%2FKitap_202112111740184269087.jpg&lr=11508&pos=6&rpt=imageview&source=collections&url=https%3A%2F%2Favatars.mds.yandex.net%2Fget-images-cbir%2F3918175%2F1gIYAdlkLcLual55-yzZrA6466%2Forig Akatziri (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or in this case, the rules of Wikimedia Commons. And no, I didn't think you were being malicious. But why would this be free of copyright restrictions? Note that it would have to be free of them in Turkey and also in the U.S., where Wikimedia's servers are located. In any case, please note the actual author of the image on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Akatziri if you already verified the copyright status, could you tell us which free license it has? with sources we can check, of course. Thanks. Günther Frager (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just start by trying to be accurate and honest. Don't claim to be the author of things you didn't create. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false claims, false source, false license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, dubiouse license claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
no own work (scan) Dirk Lenke (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, protected artwork from 1981 Gower (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Quite innacurate as, according to the only working source out of the two presented here, the flag in question is no other than the already prexisting File:Flag of the Greek Orthodox Church.svg. As things stand this file should be deleted as false and replaced where necessary with the file that I mentionned earlier. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: A thread which will most probably remain forgotten. 😕🤷♂️ As for the file use we're talking in reality about only four articles that use this file something that can be fixed quite easily by manual replacement of this file with the right and accurate one. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Feel free to work on replacing it, and then come back. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:
Done for this one. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:
- Comment If it remains no longer in use, I have no opinion about whether to keep it or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Feel free to work on replacing it, and then come back. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above; unused, questionable accuracy. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Who is he? 181.43.4.96 20:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep seems like it’s COM:INUSE A09 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not real Wikipedian. Why do you not look good his edits? 181.43.4.96 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & anon comment; bogus personal image by user without actual contributions. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
no permission granted to use image KevinRobert432 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete COM:SCREENSHOT, looks like a picture of a picture/web search result A09 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Fake license Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Image link itself is too little data to judge about CC licenses. COM:PRP A09 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Choupisson (talk · contribs)
[edit]Works of an artist who died in 2021. So autorization needed. See Commons:OTRS/fr
- File:Sculpture 334.jpg
- File:Série géométrique 1-11.jpg
- File:Série géométrique 1-01.jpg
- File:La chaise musicale 5.jpg
- File:La merde en bouteille.jpg
- File:Par là.jpg
- File:Marameo a 6 dita.jpg
- File:Visage papillon.jpg
Shev123 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ces photographies font partie du fonds de l'artiste. Ses héritiers m'ont donné l'autorisation de les publier sur Wikipédia. Choupisson (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ces photographies d'oeuvres font partie du fonds d'archive de l'artiste. Ses héritiers m'ont donné l'autorisation de les publier sur Wikimédia et sur Wikipedia. Choupisson (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023061410010561 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep After some questions have been answered, we have a valid permission per Ticket:2023061310011598. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: files have a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT, logo of a non-notable website. Cookai🍪 (💬talk) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
no author no permission used for contentspamadvertising on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
no author no permission used for contentspamadvertising on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Strugglehouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]duplicate files. i put them nomination for delete instead marking for speedydeletion, because user stated that "they are not duplicate" in his user talk page. note: i put the images that are not in use and clear duplicate. so, if it is in use, i put the other duplicate(if its exist) or even older file. im gonna add additional info that shows which file is duplicate with other file.
- File:TheOdd1sOut at the 2022 "Creator Clash" Boxing Event (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:TheOdd1sOut at the 2022 "Creator Clash" Boxing Event (cropped).jpg
- File:Kurtis Conner (cropped).png, duplicate with: File:Kurtis Conner (cropped) 2.png
- File:Miley Cyrus (23585698670) (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Miley Cyrus (23585698670) (cropped).jpg (you can Weak keep this)
- File:Miley Cyrus at MMVA 2010 crop (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Miley Cyrus at MMVA 2010 crop (cropped).jpg
- File:Charli D'Amelio in Nov 2020 4 (cropped).jpg, duplicate with: File:Charli D'Amelio in Nov 2020 4 (cropped) 2.jpg
- File:Tom Scott, CIUK keynote (31706422316) (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Tom Scott, CIUK keynote (31706422316) (cropped).jpg
- File:Tom Scott at dConstruct (15151526895) (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:Tom Scott at dConstruct (15151526895) (cropped) 4.jpg
- File:Tom Scott at dConstruct (15151526895) (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Tom Scott at dConstruct (15151526895) (cropped) 4.jpg
- File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 4.jpg, duplicate with: File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 5.jpg
- File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 5.jpg
- File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Brent Rivera 2020 (cropped) 5.jpg
- File:Logan Paul (cropped) 2.png, duplicate with: File:Logan Paul (cropped).png
- File:Danny Gonzalez in 2023 (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:Danny Gonzalez in 2023 (cropped) 3.jpg
- File:Danny Gonzalez 2022 (cropped).png, duplicate with: File:Danny Gonzalez 2022 (cropped) 2.png
- File:Joey Graceffa (cropped).jpg, duplicate with: File:Joey Graceffa (cropped) 2.jpg
- File:JacksFilms (7486842272) (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:JacksFilms (7486842272) (cropped) 2.jpg
- File:MrBeast in 2021 (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:MrBeast in 2021 (cropped).jpg
- File:MrBeast in 2021 (cropped) 2.jpg, duplicate with: File:MrBeast in 2021 (cropped).jpg
- File:MrBeast in a YouTube Video in 2022 (cropped) 5.jpg, duplicate with: File:MrBeast in a YouTube Video in 2022 (cropped) 4.jpg
- File:MrBeast in a YouTube Video in 2022 (cropped) 3.jpg, duplicate with: File:MrBeast in a YouTube Video in 2022 (cropped).jpg
- File:James Rallison at Vidcon (cropped).jpg, duplicate with: File:James Rallison at Vidcon (cropped) 2.jpg
- File:Danny Gonzalez in 2023.jpg, duplicate with: File:Danny Gonzalez in 2023 (cropped).jpg ( i did mistake here, you can Delete "(cropped)" file. and Keep "2023" file. older upload should be Keep.)
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
_(cropped)_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_2.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped)_4.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped)_2.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Strugglehouse&oldid=772739444#duplicate_files ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I said they aren't duplicates because they aren't. "Duplicate" means something is an exact copy of something else. All my images are different. Some are similar (i.e. cropped differently) but none of them are exactly the same.
- I don't mind having some images deleted if they aren't in use, but I don't agree they are all copies of each other. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- yes, you are right @Strugglehouse , they are not duplicate, but they are actually COM:Redundant. so, still, very very similar 2 files shouldnt coexist. these files should be Delete.
- making slightly crops doesnt mean you have to create another file. please read: COM:CROP. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- yes, you are right @Strugglehouse , they are not duplicate, but they are actually COM:Redundant. so, still, very very similar 2 files shouldnt coexist. these files should be
- Delete Some of these are clearly "duplicates" like File:Joey Graceffa (cropped).jpg and File:Joey Graceffa (cropped) 2.jpg. Just because one of the images is slightly larger then the other doesn't mean it isn't essentially an identical image. As to the others, I feel like acting like they aren't duplicates is just arguing over semantics. Things like this are what happens when there's literally zero standards for when it's OK to upload duplicate images or not. Just because someone can "technically" upload multiple files of essentially the same image with a half centimeter "crop" being the only difference between them doesn't mean we should automatically keep the images "because they aren't duplicates" or some nonsense. The fact is that the images are extremely similar, if not essentially the same. Just because there's a barely noticeable difference between the images doesn't mean they aren't the same. Otherwise someone could insert random, microscopic pixels into an image thousands of times and mass upload them because technically they aren't duplicates. We clearly need to draw the line somewhere and I think images like File:Joey Graceffa (cropped).jpg and File:Joey Graceffa (cropped) 2.jpg clearly cross it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete We do not need four crops of Brent Rivera. These are excessive. SWinxy (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Strugglehouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Strugglehouse , COM:Redundant.
- File:Eddie Izzard comes to Crouch End (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Eddie Izzard comes to Crouch End.jpg
- File:Charli XCX & Addison Rae 2021 (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Charli XCX & Addison Rae 2021.jpg
- File:Miley Cyrus Wonder World concert at Auburn Hills 07 (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Miley Cyrus Wonder World concert at Auburn Hills 07.jpg
- File:Bella Poarch smiling (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Bella Poarch smiling.jpg
- File:Logan Paul (48086619418) (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Logan Paul (48086619418).jpg
- File:Jack Douglass at VidCon 2014 (cropped) 2.jpg, redundant with File:Jack Douglass at VidCon 2014 (cropped).jpg
- File:KSI August 2018 (cropped).png, redundant with File:KSI August 2018.png
- File:Logan Paul August 2018 (cropped).png, redundant with File:Logan Paul August 2018.png
- File:Danny Gonzalez (cropped).png, redundant with File:Danny Gonzalez.png
- File:Mark Rober 2020 (cropped) 4.jpg, redundant with File:Mark Rober 2020 (cropped) 3.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}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- these files is redundant from another users. so, i didnt see in first DR. im gonna also which file is redundant with other file. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- please add proper image to wikis before delete them. i cant do it all of it, it requires to be autoconfirmed. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- i changed files. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per my comment in the prior DR, which should be above this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Strugglehouse (talk · contribs)
[edit]per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Strugglehouse , COM:Redundant.
- File:Anthony Padilla (cropped).png, redundant with File:Anthony Padilla.png
- File:Beardymanparty (cropped).jpg, redundant with File:Beardymanparty.jpg
- File:Hank Green During His Cancer Diagnosis Announcement Video in 2023 (cropped) 2.jpg, redundant with File:Hank Green During His Cancer Diagnosis Announcement Video in 2023 (cropped).jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
profesional picture without any proof that the author is ok with its publication under a CC license. Symac (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Rathaus Spandau and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Rathaus Steglitz. The image has been accessed as a good image. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: Müsste nach der Logik der genannten Löschanträge nicht auch der Inhalt von Kategorien wie Category:Interior of Berlin Hauptbahnhof gelöscht werden? Meinhard von Gerkan is 2022 gestorben. Und am Flughafen in München war er im übrigen auch als Architekt beteiligt. Ich könnte sicherlich noch weitere Beispiele finden… Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ja, nach der Logik schon. Bei bisherigen Löschanträgen wurde auf ein fehlendes Höchstinstanzliches Urteil eines deutschen Gerichts dazu verwiesen. Da ein solches Urteil womöglich nie kommen wird (mangels Kläger?) muss Commons selber Farbe bekennen. Die bislang gelöschten Bilder waren keine "Good Pictures". C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Die Auszeichnung als "Qualitätsbild" kann in diesem speziellen Fall gerne ignoriert werden. Ich frage mich nur, was wir in all den Jahren übersehen haben. Ich bin kein Jurist, aber rein vom gesunden Menschenverstand her betrachtet scheinen mir diese Löschungen wenig Sinn zu machen. Ich gehe – wie immer – von guten Absichten aus, aber in diesem Fall glaube ich nicht, dass wir uns mit übereilten Löschungen einen Gefallen tun. Und mir tut es im übrigen auch leid für Beiträger wie Jcornelius, der hier auf eine Schlag womöglich alle Innenansichten von U-Bahnstationen verliert. Ich hab einfach mal ein paar Leute in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia angefragt, wie sie diesen Fall einschätzen. Ich hoffe (wobei mir dieses Bild zum einen relativ gleichgültig ist, ich aber gleichzeitig anmerke, dass es aus dem Außenbereich der Station aufgenommen wurde), dass wir eine grundsätzliche Einigung erzielen können. Danke für die schnelle Reaktion! Herzliche Grüße aus Kalifornien, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ja, nach der Logik schon. Bei bisherigen Löschanträgen wurde auf ein fehlendes Höchstinstanzliches Urteil eines deutschen Gerichts dazu verwiesen. Da ein solches Urteil womöglich nie kommen wird (mangels Kläger?) muss Commons selber Farbe bekennen. Die bislang gelöschten Bilder waren keine "Good Pictures". C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't quite get the rationale by C.Suthorn. "The image has been accessed as a good image"? What does it have to do with copyright matters? If a picture violates someone's copyright, it should be deleted even if it's Picture of the Year and being used in thousands of WP articles; while if it doesn't (and is otherwise in accordance with Commons' policies, too), it should be kept even if it has a resolution of as few as 300x200px.
- Regarding the FoP question, the picture probably shows what is to be seen as interior view. However, I'm really not sure if this part of the Museumsinsel station reaches the Originality threshold, as it actually contains nothing more than a couple of simple walls and floors, plus some light fixtures that are nothing more than a row of rectangular glass lamps, plus escalators which are just machines and not protected. --A.Savin 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Es ist höchst ungewöhnlich, einen Raum von den Seiten her zu beleuchten. Menschen sind von Geburt darauf konditioniert, dass Licht von oben kommt. Hier handelt es sich um Lichtkunst, die genauso viel Schöpfungshöhe hat wie Kandiskys Schwarzes Quadrat. Ich kenne die U-Bahn-Station bei meinem letzen Aufenthalt dort habe ich kein Foto gemacht, weil ich der Auffassung war, dass hier Schöpfungshöhe aber vermutlich kein FoP vorliegt und mit einem Fotografen gesprochen, der dort fotografiert hat, weil diese Gestaltung der Station ein Kunstwerk ist und dem FoP schnuppe sein konnte, weil er nicht für Wikipedia fotografiert. Wenn ich mich nicht irre, findet derzeit in den USA eine Einzelausstellung von Wikipedia-Bildern von Frank Schulenberg statt und ich finde, da sollte Wikipedia schon einen offiziellen Standpunkt dazu haben, ob ein möglicherweise öffentlich ausgestelltes Werk unter FoP ok ist, oder eine Permission benötigt. Im Falle des Bildes aus Wikipedia dass Boris dem Donald bei seinem Staatsbesuch geschenkt hat (die Signpost hat darüber berichtet), war das nicht der Fall. In Falle des Bildes mit Plakaten von der Berlinale, dass im WMDE-Newsletter verwendet wurde, ebenfalls nicht.
- Und dann sind da noch die Bilder einer Lichtkunst aus einer U-Bahn einer anderen deutschen Stadt, bei denen ich gern wüsste, ob ich sie hochladen kann, oder versuchen muss eine Permission zu bekommen. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you want your RfD to be closed as successful, you'll have to explain your reasoning understandable for anyone including the closing admin. --A.Savin 01:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Ich habe inzwischen die Meinung eines Juristen eingeholt und Tatsache ist einfach, dass Fälle dieser Art bislang umstritten sind. So lange kein abschließendes Urteil vorliegt, sehe ich solche Löschanträge (Spandau und Steglitz eingeschlossen) als rechtlich nicht gedeckt. / In the meantime, I have sought the opinion of a lawyer, and the simple fact is that cases of this kind have been discussed controversially so far. As long as there is no final verdict, all these deletion requests (Spandau and Steglitz included) lack legal justification. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Naja, solange die Rechtslage umstritten ist und wir kein klares Urteil für oder gegen solche Bilder haben, müssen wir uns auf das Vorbeugende Prinzip berufen. Commons ist keine Spielwiese um solche Unklarheiten auszureizen. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hast Du mal einen Beleg für die Aussage, dass "wir uns hier auf das Vorbeugende Prinzip berufen müssen"? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weil es so in unseren Richtlinien festgelegt ist, siehe dazu hier. Commons ist kein Ort für irgendwelche Experimente, keine Spielwiese um die Grenze des Urheberrechtsschutzes auszureizen. Wenn erheblicher Zweifel besteht, geht man auf Nummer sicher. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Genau. Da steht: "significant doubt". Hier liegt die Sache aber anders, weil es überhaupt keine klare Richtung gibt, in die die juristische Diskussion geht. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Das mag deine persönliche Auffassung sein. Diese Diskussion wird gerade an vielen Stellen geführt und es besteht durchaus ein Konsens des großen Fragezeichens. Es ist eben nicht eindeutig geklärt, ob U-Bahnhöfe als Innenräume gelten oder nicht. Und bis dahin besteht ein berechtigter Zweifel. Das ganze muss juristisch geklärt werden. Aber das ist nicht primär unsere Aufgabe. Wir müssen uns an bestehendes Recht halten, was eben auch heißt keine Risiken einzugehen. Genau dafür haben wir schließlich auch das "Vorbeugende Prinzip". Lukas Beck (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Danke für die sachliche Antwort. Mal aus Neugier: wessen Rechte könnten denn hier überhaupt verletzt werden? Ich nehme mal an, diejenigen von Max Dudler als dem Architekten – korrekt? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ja genau! Auch wenn ich bei diesem speziellen Bild eher auf der Seite von A.Savin stehe und das Erreichen der Schöpfungshöhe in Frage stellen würde. Doch würde es die gesamte Bahnsteighalle mit dem charakteristischen "Sternenhimmel" betreffen und je nach dem in welche Richtung die übrigen Löschanträge verlaufen werden, müssen wir uns auch auf die Löschung sämtlicher Bilder aus der Kategorie des U-Bahnhofes einstellen. Und ich persönlich stehe hinter den Löschanträgen, hoffe aber langfristig auf eine juristische Lösung zu Gunsten unseres Projektes. Gruß Lukas Beck (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Prima. Ich habe Max Dudler eben angeschrieben und ihn gefragt, ob er mit der Verwendung des Bildes in der Wikipedia einverstanden ist. Sobald ich eine Antwort bekomme, melde ich mich hier wieder. Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Als ich M. Halbouni wegen des Bus-Monuments angeschrieben habe, habe ich nach einer Permission für alle Bilder des Monuments angefragt. Das hat geklappt und heute gibt es Bilder des Monuments aus Dresden, Berlin und Amsterdam auf Commons (und perspektivisch von anderen künftigen Ausstellungsorten des Monuments). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Super! Das wäre natürlich sehr gut. Danke! Lukas Beck (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Prima. Ich habe Max Dudler eben angeschrieben und ihn gefragt, ob er mit der Verwendung des Bildes in der Wikipedia einverstanden ist. Sobald ich eine Antwort bekomme, melde ich mich hier wieder. Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ja genau! Auch wenn ich bei diesem speziellen Bild eher auf der Seite von A.Savin stehe und das Erreichen der Schöpfungshöhe in Frage stellen würde. Doch würde es die gesamte Bahnsteighalle mit dem charakteristischen "Sternenhimmel" betreffen und je nach dem in welche Richtung die übrigen Löschanträge verlaufen werden, müssen wir uns auch auf die Löschung sämtlicher Bilder aus der Kategorie des U-Bahnhofes einstellen. Und ich persönlich stehe hinter den Löschanträgen, hoffe aber langfristig auf eine juristische Lösung zu Gunsten unseres Projektes. Gruß Lukas Beck (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Danke für die sachliche Antwort. Mal aus Neugier: wessen Rechte könnten denn hier überhaupt verletzt werden? Ich nehme mal an, diejenigen von Max Dudler als dem Architekten – korrekt? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Das mag deine persönliche Auffassung sein. Diese Diskussion wird gerade an vielen Stellen geführt und es besteht durchaus ein Konsens des großen Fragezeichens. Es ist eben nicht eindeutig geklärt, ob U-Bahnhöfe als Innenräume gelten oder nicht. Und bis dahin besteht ein berechtigter Zweifel. Das ganze muss juristisch geklärt werden. Aber das ist nicht primär unsere Aufgabe. Wir müssen uns an bestehendes Recht halten, was eben auch heißt keine Risiken einzugehen. Genau dafür haben wir schließlich auch das "Vorbeugende Prinzip". Lukas Beck (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Genau. Da steht: "significant doubt". Hier liegt die Sache aber anders, weil es überhaupt keine klare Richtung gibt, in die die juristische Diskussion geht. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weil es so in unseren Richtlinien festgelegt ist, siehe dazu hier. Commons ist kein Ort für irgendwelche Experimente, keine Spielwiese um die Grenze des Urheberrechtsschutzes auszureizen. Wenn erheblicher Zweifel besteht, geht man auf Nummer sicher. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hast Du mal einen Beleg für die Aussage, dass "wir uns hier auf das Vorbeugende Prinzip berufen müssen"? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hier ist die Antwort (vom 16. Juni, war in meinem Spam-Ordner gelandet):
- Lieber Herr Schulenburg,
- vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht.
- Wir freuen uns über Ihr Interesse an Max Dudlers Werk und wir sind einverstanden, dass Ihr Bild von der U-Bahnstation Museumsinsel auf Wikipedia gezeigt wird.
- Gibt es etwas, das wir tun können, damit alle anderen Bilder die zu Max Dudlers Arbeiten auf Wikipedia gezeigt werden, nicht gelöscht werden?
- Viele Grüße aus Berlin
- <Name>
- <Max Dudler Presse>
- Lukas, magst Du den Löschantrag zurückziehen? Außerdem: wie sollen wir weiter mit Werken von Max Dudler vorgehen? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- 1. Muss die E-Mail natürlich noch verifiziert werden
- 2. Wenn die Antwort wirklich Wort für Wort so übernommen wurde, dann reicht diese Antwort nach meinem Verständnis nicht. Die Freihabe wurde für Wikipedia erteilt. Darüber hinaus wäre eine generelle Freigabe notwendig, weil Bilder auf Commons über die Wikipedia hinaus verwendet werden dürfen.
- 3. Ist dieser Löschantrag nicht von mir und wäre er es, hätte ich Ihn längst zurückgezogen, aber nicht wegen dieser Mail, sondern wegen fehlender Schöpfungshöhe.
- Gruß Lukas Beck (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Auf VRT gibt es eine Vorlage für eine gültige Permission. In diese kann statt eines einzelnen Bildes natürlich auch soetwas eingetragen werden wie "alle Bilder und Videos von Werken von Max Dudler in Berliner U-Bahnhöfen" (oder weiterreichende oder weniger weiterreichende Formulierungen). Eventuell macht der VRT-Agent dann eine Eintragung in der entsprechenden Kategorieseite. Siehe als Beispiel die Kategorie: Category:Monument by Manaf Halbouni in Berlin C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a sufficiently original interior to be copyrightable. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Wenn das ein architektonisches Werk ist, muss der abgebildete Teil des Innenraums Schöpfungshöhe erreichen. Daran fehlt es hier --Historiograf (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Historiograf: Da möchte ich dann doch einwenden, dass einem architektonischen Werk von Max Dudler, der für seinen Minimalismus bekannt ist, die Schöpfungshöhe nicht abgesprochen werden kann. Insbesondere gibt es hier eine bemerkenswert durchgehende Gestaltung von Lichtern (außen und innen), die sich durch den gesamten U-Bahnhof durchzieht. Ich denke, das Problem kann hier viel eleganter gelöst werden: @Frank Schulenburg: könntest Du bitte die Genehmigung an das Support-Team weiterleiten? Natürlich muss die Freigabe noch angepasst werden, aber das ist wahrscheinlich kein Problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Seit wann richtet sich die Zubilligung von Schöpfungshöhe nach der Prominenz des Künstlers? Weil es ungerecht wäre, Minimalisten zu benachteiligen, gelten die sonst üblichen Regeln nicht mehr? Historiograf (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Das hat mit der Prominenz des Künstlers nichts zu tun, das ist nur ein Indiz für diejenigen, die nicht auf Anhieb die Schöpfungshöhe hier zu erkennen vermögen. Die gesamte Lichtgestaltung des Raumes dieses U-Bahn-Zugangs ist ungewöhnlich. Da ist nichts dem Zufall überlassen. Minimalismus heisst nicht Trivialität, sondern ist eine Architektur, die sich nicht aufdrängt, den Passanten aber dennoch in besonderer Weise einfängt und willkommen heißt – ganz anders als in so vielen anderen rein zweckmäßig ausgerichteten Bauten. Dies in dieser Vollendung zu erreichen ist nicht selbstverständlich und zweifellos eine persönliche geistige Schöpfung entsprechend § 2 Abs. 2 UrhG. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Seit wann richtet sich die Zubilligung von Schöpfungshöhe nach der Prominenz des Künstlers? Weil es ungerecht wäre, Minimalisten zu benachteiligen, gelten die sonst üblichen Regeln nicht mehr? Historiograf (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Historiograf: Da möchte ich dann doch einwenden, dass einem architektonischen Werk von Max Dudler, der für seinen Minimalismus bekannt ist, die Schöpfungshöhe nicht abgesprochen werden kann. Insbesondere gibt es hier eine bemerkenswert durchgehende Gestaltung von Lichtern (außen und innen), die sich durch den gesamten U-Bahnhof durchzieht. Ich denke, das Problem kann hier viel eleganter gelöst werden: @Frank Schulenburg: könntest Du bitte die Genehmigung an das Support-Team weiterleiten? Natürlich muss die Freigabe noch angepasst werden, aber das ist wahrscheinlich kein Problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There seem to be no such flag, neither official neither unofficial. As a result, it should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- @Ikan Kekek: They're erroneously in use, as no such flag exists. Of course, there's always the need for fact checking before using such files in different articles, something which evidently didn't happen here in this specific case. 😕🤷♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure there's a role for fact-checking, but COM:DR is not the place for that. There is no "erroneous use" exception to COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Proceeded with the replacement of this specific problematic flag with the one in use by the official authorities in place: File:Flag of Crete Region.png. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 15:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If it remains no longer in use, I have no opinion about whether to keep it or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure there's a role for fact-checking, but COM:DR is not the place for that. There is no "erroneous use" exception to COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- this is sucha mess, my uploaded file got deleted. because this reason: "Historical map without sources. Not reliable, no educational value. Out of project scope.", DR. so, i think Weak delete. but at same time, it is in use.... so, maybe Weak keep? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- note: my uploaded file was in use too.... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please don’t use other deletion requests to express potential errors made by admins A09 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- note: my uploaded file was in use too.... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Candles in Christianity
[edit]Please see COM:PACKAGING and COM:DERIVATIVE. The artwork shown is some contemporary artist's reworking of a 1678 painting, The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables. Comparing this view of the candle art with the original painting, I noticed marked differences in the placement and poses of angels, most notably on the right-hand side.
- File:Religious candle with virgin Mary and angels and inscriptions (cropped).jpeg
- File:Religious candle with virgin Mary and angels and inscriptions.jpeg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Genericusername57 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
no permission granted to use image KevinRobert432 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:CSM, educational noticeboards/signs aren't allowed due to potential copyvio; image is available in original form at File:Medina Güterbahnhof und Werkstätten. LCCN2002714727.jpg Tcr25 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Text uses simple font and image is PD A09 (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Simple font would apply if it were a logo. In this case, the potential violation would be for the textual work (no FoP in Israel for text). —Tcr25 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ernst Stern
[edit]Ernst Stern died in 1954, so these drawings by him are not in the public domain yet in Germany (and all other 70 years pma countries), and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2025.
- File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776733665).jpg
- File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776772555).jpg
- File:Gerhart Hauptmann Festspiel in deutschen Reimen Einband 1913.jpg
- File:Images galantes et esprit de l'etranger- Berlin, Munich, Vienne, Turin, Londres (1905) (14589938088).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14589938088).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 22:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (Annette Koroll FOTOS) M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The metadata states it comes from https://fotos-berlin.net and its Impressum clearly states that photos are for personal and non-commercial usages. Günther Frager (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Now isn't this funny. She seems to be a popular photographer to steal from. Within a matter of days. Purely by coincidence? --2003:C0:8F26:E00:D138:1889:CED3:5A2A 22:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's another one by the same photographer. With a VRT ticket this time. Apparently based on "Genehmigung von Harald Mieg erteilt". Now how can that be when Harald Mieg is not the copyright holder? --2003:C0:8F1D:CD00:25EE:8C85:2221:47D 08:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enmanuelgac (talk · contribs)
[edit]Originally tagged as "no permission", but I think it's worth having a discussion around whether these are above or below COM:TOO USA.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd vote to Keep, based on the examples at COM:TOO US that are OK. I don't think the globe is likely to be original enough to exceed COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO US. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Own work! 186.173.35.177 10:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- ??請問什麼意思，已補交原作者來源 林非帶你飛 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and transcribe to wikitext A09 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- 很抱歉我還是看不太懂.....所以是維基共享資源不允許放圖表或說明圖片嗎?或是是否有相關方針可以讓我看呢? 林非帶你飛 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I don’t understand what’s on the poster itself I thought it was a part of encyclopedic-like text, which should be transcribed to normal text for usage on ie. Wikipedia. Please see COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content. A09 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 好的，我了解了，請讓我說明為何它必須是圖片。
- 這張圖片用來解釋"詞條"與"條目"的差異，並且被分享於推廣維基媒體運動的粉專與網誌。作為推廣與宣傳用途，圖片有更好的擴散與說明效果，而且因為我們沒有預算購買網站主機容量，所以必須依靠維基共享資源連結圖片。因此，請不要將它刪除。 林非帶你飛 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I don’t understand what’s on the poster itself I thought it was a part of encyclopedic-like text, which should be transcribed to normal text for usage on ie. Wikipedia. Please see COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content. A09 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 很抱歉我還是看不太懂.....所以是維基共享資源不允許放圖表或說明圖片嗎?或是是否有相關方針可以讓我看呢? 林非帶你飛 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:OOS--A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
We need evidence that the uploader, whose "own work" this is, actually is Ashish Kansara, whose work this is said to be. Hoary (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bedivere as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: undated, may be copyrighted
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as original image is likely in the public domain.-- Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The provided source is the National Library of Chile, which states it is free to use and reproduce. ("Este documento pertenece al patrimonio cultural común, por lo que puede ser utilizado y reproducido libremente.") —Tcr25 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it staying as long as licensing is corrected Bedivere (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- So, per COM:Chile, {{PD-Chile}} would apply. The question would be if there's a U.S. copyright issue that might exist. The palace was demolished in 1964 after suffering severe earthquake damage in 1960, so at the youngest, this image would be 69 years old assuming it had no visible earthquake damage from this angle. There's a Carlos Brandt postcard that, if it isn't using a version of this photo, it's a sketch based on the photo (the trees all line up perfectly). Brandt was active from 1878 to about 1909; making the picture at least 114 years old, but likely older since this is No. 25 in the series and likely produced closer to when the Concepción branch opened in the late 1880s. {{PD-1996}} would work for the U.S. license since the photographer is unknown. [I've gone ahead and changed the licenses on the page.] —Tcr25 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it staying as long as licensing is corrected Bedivere (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Giacomanni as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Non è Enrico de Boccard. Immagine caricata per errore. I do not know, who is correct, so I allow discussion. In addition, even if depicted people are misidentified, maybe the photo has still educational value. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No reason not to trust the uploader saying they made a mistake. Search finds the image is of Gian Carlo Fusco, not Enrico de Boccard. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- So keep and rename the file? Taivo (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd still say delete per COM:PRP. The place the uploader took it from mis-ID'd who it is and lacks any clear statement about copyright. Looking online, I find the same image (correctly labeled as Gian Carlo Fusco), but again without any clear indication as to when it was taken or by who. Fusco was born in 1915 and died in 1984. This film has a version of the photo at 13'45" or so that looks to be the same image. I can't follow the Italian, but just before that they're showing newspaper clips from 1956, so there's a a likely chance that the image is from sometime around then and thus unlikely to be public domain in the U.S. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: The license is correct. Italian film stills are protected with copyright 25 years from creation. 1956 film stills are copyrighted until 1981, before URAA date, so 95 years from creation is not required. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- The film I mentioned is a 2010 documentary that shows a version of this image juxtaposed with newspapers from 1956, which is why I'm assuming the image is from around then instead of from later in Fusco's life. If the 25 years from creation applies in this case, was still have to wait until 2035 if the license is based on the image being used in this film. If it is originally from an older film, that has yet to be determined (no clear source has been provided or found). —Tcr25 (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Actually publication is not important at all. Creation is important. This is circa 1970 photo, so irrespective of was it ever published or not, it is protected 25 years from creation, which has long passed. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'd still feel more comfortable with better sourcing as to where it was originally published and by who. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Actually publication is not important at all. Creation is important. This is circa 1970 photo, so irrespective of was it ever published or not, it is protected 25 years from creation, which has long passed. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- The film I mentioned is a 2010 documentary that shows a version of this image juxtaposed with newspapers from 1956, which is why I'm assuming the image is from around then instead of from later in Fusco's life. If the 25 years from creation applies in this case, was still have to wait until 2035 if the license is based on the image being used in this film. If it is originally from an older film, that has yet to be determined (no clear source has been provided or found). —Tcr25 (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: The license is correct. Italian film stills are protected with copyright 25 years from creation. 1956 film stills are copyrighted until 1981, before URAA date, so 95 years from creation is not required. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd still say delete per COM:PRP. The place the uploader took it from mis-ID'd who it is and lacks any clear statement about copyright. Looking online, I find the same image (correctly labeled as Gian Carlo Fusco), but again without any clear indication as to when it was taken or by who. Fusco was born in 1915 and died in 1984. This film has a version of the photo at 13'45" or so that looks to be the same image. I can't follow the Italian, but just before that they're showing newspaper clips from 1956, so there's a a likely chance that the image is from sometime around then and thus unlikely to be public domain in the U.S. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: And I will rename the image. —holly {chat} 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Giacomanni as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Non è Enrico de Boccard. Immagine caricata per errore. I do not know, who is correct, so I allow discussion. In addition, even if depicted people are misidentified, maybe the photo has still educational value. Taivo (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, that's not a speedy deletion reason and not really a great deletion reason. But can any of the people be identified? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Per IMDB, the one on the right is correctly identified as Helmut Griem. —holly {chat} 22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: We can rename misidentified people if necessary. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Forum des Halles
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in France.
- File:Paris Forum des Halles 2012 02.jpg
- File:Entrance to the Forum des Halles 2.jpg
- File:Entrance to the Forum des Halles.jpg
- File:Forum des Halles @ Paris (25605869723).jpg
- File:Forum des Halles @ Paris (25782252380).jpg
- File:Forum des Halles @ Paris (26182614926).jpg
- File:Forum des Halles @ Paris (33360079556).jpg
- File:Panorama outside the Forum des Halles.jpg
- File:Paris Les Halles 1.jpg
- File:Roof of the Forum des Halles 3.jpg
- File:Roof of the Forum des Halles 4.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}
A1Cafel (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think we can Keep File:Paris Forum des Halles 2012 02.jpg as de minimis. I'm not sure about File:Forum des Halles @ Paris (25605869723).jpg - is the building on the left considered original enough to be copyrighted, and is it emphasized enough for the photo to be unusable here? I'm guessing everything else would have to be deleted, though I'd love to be wrong about some of the photos that show only part of the roof or show part of the facade along with the path and people outside of Les Halles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all but 1, the one file being de minimis. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO China and {{PD-PRC-exempt}} does not apply. Wcam (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (fotografiert von Paula Tauber) M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs VRT from the photographer. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio, photo by Annette Koroll. 2003:C0:8F26:E00:D138:1889:CED3:5A2A 22:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Just fyi: 1, 2. --2003:C0:8F26:E00:D138:1889:CED3:5A2A 22:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs VRT permission from Annette Koroll. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
a post-1976 photo, inelegible under the PD-Italy/PD-1996 licence — danyele 23:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, 1980s photograph, public domain in Italy but not the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Eigenes Werk? Wirklich? GerritR (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In addition this image seems out of scope. Not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Es bestehen Zweifel, dass dieser Verein ernsthaft existiert, siehe https://www.facebook.com/AnimeRheinNeckar/, out of scope GerritR (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope, perhaps this verein exists or has existed, but the logo is of no educational value, not used on the projects and therefore out of scope. --Ellywa (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Eigenes Werk? Wirklich? GerritR (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, seems below TOO as it consists of simple elements in PD. In use on a wikidata item and therefore in Scope. --Ellywa (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
