Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/08/03
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article, totally blurry, nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Quirino Giancarlo Speri (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist when they saw the button. --Achim55 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Authors are Anthony Asquith (died in 1968) and A. V. Bramble (died in 1963). Not PD in UK yet. Yann (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
This is supposedly a screenshot. Although it's not clear of what or if the original source is freely licensed. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello
- I am the copyright holder of this photo. Yes, I can confirm that this is a screenshot. I didn't take any photos at the concert, only videos. So I paused it at a certain point and took a screenshot to get an image of Gradur :). I can send you the video if needed. (I also prefer to take screenshots because it removes a lot of exifs that I don't necessarily want to share publicly).
- Best regards and a nice weekend J24N (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @J24N: That's fine. Can you send the Volunteer Response Team evidence that you took the video that it's a screenshot from? Nothing will happen with this in the meantime. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I've just done it. I hope it works as I did, the video is too big to send. J24N (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @J24N: That's fine. Can you send the Volunteer Response Team evidence that you took the video that it's a screenshot from? Nothing will happen with this in the meantime. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ticket:2024080310003299 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 11:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
uploader request Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
per previous discussion, the license doesn't cover the administration's logo. 0x0a (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Not an administration's logo. 0x0a (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 14:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't play MihaiMet3aWi3ki123 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect copyright template: no evidence that the "unknown author" died more than 70 years ago. Maybe, PD for another reason, however. Ankry (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ankry, Belarusian religious publications usually took pictures from earlier foreign-language books, often from the 19th century. For example, in several such books you can see the works of Gustave Doré. I have not seen any drawings made specifically for Belarusian religious publications of that time. I would be glad if you could suggest some other popular artists who drew on biblical subjects in order to recognize the author. Unfortunately, the search by picture did not yield any results. Gleb Leo (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- If suddenly this is an original Belarusian illustration, it, as I understand it, fully falls under PD-anon-70-EU, because nothing is indicated about the author of the illustration and no third-party sources mention him. Gleb Leo (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gleb Leo: Shouldn't it be rather {{PD-anon-50}} + {{PD-1996}} if this is Belarussian publication? Definitely not {{PD-old}} for anonymous works. Ankry (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, just checked: published in Lithuania, so {{PD-anon-70}} + {{PD-1996}} (as Lithuania was 50pma in 1996) should be OK. Ankry (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- If suddenly this is an original Belarusian illustration, it, as I understand it, fully falls under PD-anon-70-EU, because nothing is indicated about the author of the illustration and no third-party sources mention him. Gleb Leo (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: license fixed; no valid reason for deletion. --Ankry (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I initially uploaded this file as a new file. But it was better to upload it as a new version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S-_und_U-Bahn-Linien_Berlin.svg, which I did now. Zear06 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
mizoram a ni em Vanlalziki (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
mizoram a ni em Vanlalziki (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
mizoram a ni em? watter mak Zothanpuii pautu (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Watter mak a awm lo. --Achim55 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Raged Pratihar as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Completely unreliable, as it mentions submittion of Amar Singh. It is a hoax and spreads misleading information, Moreover the publisher of this image id blocked on main wiki for sockpuppetry In use. Yann (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Bgdsvmourscnj (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already yesterday by Didym per copyvio. --Achim55 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 21:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
wrong license no evidence of being in the public domain possible copyvio Waqar💬 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Copyright violation McSly (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Brown Modern Effects of Eating Iftar Too Much Instagram Post (50.799 x 50.7 20240802 123137 0000.jpg
[edit]A crop of Andrea Mantegna's 15th century painting of the martyrdom of Saint Sebastian with the uploader's signature added in two places, and claimed as an own work "ceramic painting". This is not of any use to Commons. Belbury (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
copyvio https://www.sobotajachira.pl/zespol/jedrzej-jachira/ Malarz pl (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Txapisotegi (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Made a mistake meant to override not create a new listing LostplanetKD73 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Lo reemplacé por otro con mejor definición y ya no lo usaré más Pazerpa (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Lo reemplacé por otro con mejor definición y ya no lo usaré más Pazerpa (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Lo reemplacé por otro con mejor definición y ya no lo usaré más Pazerpa (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Barão de Itararé (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Copyright violation McSly (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination COM:DW without sources given. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Copyright violation McSly (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation from https://defencereviewasia.com/mbda-to-develop-the-next-generation-of-the-mica-missile/ McSly (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Uureg Nuur.jpg, all uses of the file have been replaced SHB2000 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. A09 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, duplicate. ToadetteEdit (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
no clear educational purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- also noting that this would also appear to be a derivative work where the underlying photograph is uncredited. 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
no clear educational purpose — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no context to make it of any use Nv8200p (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kangheelee777 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: FB code in EXIF data of one. And not notable, out of scope.
- File:박영실교수 퍼스널이미지브랜딩랩 & PSPA 대표, 숙명여자대학교 교육학부 겸임교수, 명지대학교 이미지코칭교육전공 겸임교수.jpg
- File:퍼스널이미지브랜딩랩 & PSPA 대표 박영실교수.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-free OS screenshot Thyj (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, I know this windows 11 screenshot is copyrighted. メイド理世 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK TSW 天水圍 Tin Shui Wai 屏山文物徑 Ping Shan Heritage Trail 聚星樓 Tsui Sing Lau Pagoda intro sign November 2023 R12S 02.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 SHUM YIP UpperHills LOFT UN 聯合書店 Bookstore mall 漂書處 November 2023 R12S 02.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in China. Solomon203 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 SHUM YIP UpperHills LOFT URBANUS mall November 2023 R12S 909.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted poster in China. Solomon203 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 UpperHills Shopping mall restaurant November 2023 R12S 35.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted screenshots in China. Solomon203 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Bad quality unused AI "art" (note: Was previously nominated in very broad bulk listing I closed as kept) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artwork; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please delete this file, because it's a photo of me, when I was experiencing mania, and I was really not rational. Otakar.salaj (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete out of courtesy. --Achim55 (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.
- But how do I delete the file? Can you help me please? Otakar.salaj (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was clearly uploaded for PROMO purposes per the long winded description and is probably COPYVIO anyway since it comes from Facebook. So it should be deleted OOS COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from FB. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The image comes from Facebook so it's likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The image comes from Facebook. So it's likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The image comes from Facebook. So it's likely COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The image comes from Instagram. So it's probably COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
According to the Exif information the original author of this image is Raynard StormComin Glass and there's no evidence they are also the uploader. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Jimbo Whales? 191.125.1.155 02:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:WEBHOST. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The image is likely to be COPYVIO since it lacks a source and comes from Facebook per the Exif information. Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot from a music video or something. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
cropped from the politician profile pic: https://x.com/renatasouzario/photo Paladinum2 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader and it comes from Facebook. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal/self-promotional image INeverCry 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The image was already deleted as OOS but seems to have been reuploaded since then. Plus it comes from Facebook. So it's probably also COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep (now blocked); no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by label; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 07:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
File:Brt-vn.png AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Brt.png AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 南京東路 Nanjing East Road 臺北捷運 松江南京站 Songjiang Nanjing Station morning March 2024 R12S 01.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: No metadata, one seems to be derivatives without appropriate attribution is copyrighted, the other seems to be an official photo taken from VN government's websites.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of these images. Therefore – due to lack of information like source, author, publication status and creation dates – these images must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
No permission from the source and author
- File:Trung tướng Phạm Thế Tùng.jpg
- File:To Lam and Hun Manet.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm đến chào Hoàng Thái hậu Norodom Monineath.jpg
- File:Mr. To Lam 2024.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm và Tổng Bí thư, Chủ tịch nước Lào Thongloun Sisoulith trao đổi tặng phẩm.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm với lãnh đạo Cục Kỹ thuật nghiệp vụ (Bộ Công an).jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm động viên với lực lượng tham gia bảo vệ ANTT ở cơ sở.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm tại Lễ kỷ niệm 99 năm Ngày Báo chí Cách mạng Việt Nam.png
A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Scaled-down dupe of File:To Lam June 2024.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 南京東路 Nanjing East Road 臺北捷運 松江南京站 Songjiang Nanjing Station morning March 2024 R12S 03.jpg
[edit]Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation - after researching where the image came from, I have found that it is from Pandora's interview called "Pandora Playback with rising star Flo Milli". I could not find an original video as it may be behind a paywall but I have a suspicion that the image is either a screenshot from the video or from another photography company without their permission. Cowboygilbert (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, likely not own work. Couldn't find something exact, but these shots from Getty Images are very similar. reppoptalk 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tranguyencl (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission from the source and author
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm phát biểu tại cuộc gặp bà con Việt Nam ở Lào.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm phát biểu Hội nghị bàn giao công tác theo chức năng, nhiệm vụ của Bộ trưởng Bộ Công an.jpg
- File:Đồng chí Nguyễn Phú Trọng gặp gỡ các đồng chí lãnh đạo chủ chốt.jpg
- File:Đại tướng Tô Lâm tiếp Trưởng Cơ quan Đại diện thương mại Hoa Kỳ (USTR).jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm dâng hương, dâng hoa tưởng niệm Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh tại Đền thờ Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh ở tỉnh Trà Vinh.jpg
- File:Chủ tịch nước Tô Lâm thăm gia đình ông Võ Văn Rẹt tại Trà Vinh.jpg
- File:Bộ trưởng Phan Văn Giang gặp Bộ trưởng Quốc phòng Singapore tại Đối thoại Shangri-La.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Copyrighted content is de minimis here. --Yann (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Swati097gupta (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep (see userpage); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
{{Rename}} Thecsbadgujar (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:WEBHOST. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:WEBHOST. --Yann (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bryan C. Herrera (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Speedrain90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside oldish rejected draft, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No parece trabajo propio. 200.39.139.26 16:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation, see source Xocolatl (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image with better resolution exists: File:Н.Жанторин.png Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Nicht eigenes Werk, aber Derivat. 186.174.71.131 19:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: Fictional maps of historical Kanem-Bornu Empire: Exaggerated and without source
Enyavar (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
See ANU and the uploaders talk page. The file was uploaded purely to troll users and continue drama. Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep In use. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Usage doesn't count when it's clearly being done in bad faith or as a form of trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 Please stop accusing me of trolling and bad faith actions. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly if you had any history in the area what-so-ever and hadn't posted about it on ANU then I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion or reported you. There's no other way to interpret your actions at this point though. Dronebogus was blocked like what a month ago and your still going off about it. Come on. You should have just dropped it and moved on. It's not on me that you decided to continue things in a clearly pointy way. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Usage doesn't count when it's clearly being done in bad faith or as a form of trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is as much a valid image as the others in that category (even though AI generated) and it's better quality than the one from Dronebogus that was previously in use. (On that basis I'd now support deleting that one.)
- The nomination seems to be much less about the content and more about some animosity from the nominator (an ANU posting likewise). We do not need that, and certainly not from an editor who is far too inclined to such things (ANU filing available on request, don't push it).
- It is also validly INUSE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your usual personal badgering aside the guidelines are pretty clear that usage done in bad faith doesn't count and that's clearly what this is. Otherwise Counterfeit Purses would have just uploaded the file and used it on Wikidata without commwnting about it in the ANU complaint. Its pretty clear they just did it to prove a point and continue the drama with Dronebogus though. Its to bad people like you are perfectly fine with handwaving obvious trolling just and pointy behavior just because I'm one who nominated the file for deletion though. Its not even an area that Counterfeit Purses works in normally. They clearly just uploaded it to prove a point. But hey "Adamant bad." So whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- In what way was this a "bad faith upload"? How was it "uploaded purely to troll users" or to "continue drama"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses has absolutely zero history editing in the area outside of their dispute with Dronebogus and specifically went out of their way to mention it in ANU complaint that clearly wasn't going anywhere just to continue things and be pointy. How is that good faithed or not continuing drama. Its pretty clear they uploaded the file purely because they didn't get their way in the ANU complaint. Not because they actually care about illustrating Wikidata items having to do with sex. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "We only have one poor image and so I'm going to make a better one" is not a bad faith action.
- You seem to be arguing for deletion, not from anything related to the image, but from some motive you've imagined (as you're certainly not psychic) for the uploader. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 The ANU discussion that I started about Dronebogus' self-made illustrations can be closed now, if anyone wants to do it. I have accepted that I was wrong and moved on. That's kind of the opposite of continuing something. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should have said that in the ANU complaint instead of just being like "hey guys check out this file uploaded that'd exactly the same as the ones I spent a month badgering Dronebogus over." You got to admit it at least looks like trolling even if that wasn't your intention. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 I started that ANU discussion on the 30th of July. That's less than a week ago. Please stop making accusations. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: Its a little pedantic but since your accusing "making accusations" whatever. You commented on the proposal by Dronebogus for in use files on July 13th and you were involved in the whole thing before that. So its been about a month that this has been going on and that you've been involved in it. Give or take a week maybe, but so what? That doesn't invalidate my point that it cames like trolling because your doing the exact same thing that you spent almost a month complaining about Dronebogus doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 I started that ANU discussion on the 30th of July. That's less than a week ago. Please stop making accusations. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should have said that in the ANU complaint instead of just being like "hey guys check out this file uploaded that'd exactly the same as the ones I spent a month badgering Dronebogus over." You got to admit it at least looks like trolling even if that wasn't your intention. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses has absolutely zero history editing in the area outside of their dispute with Dronebogus and specifically went out of their way to mention it in ANU complaint that clearly wasn't going anywhere just to continue things and be pointy. How is that good faithed or not continuing drama. Its pretty clear they uploaded the file purely because they didn't get their way in the ANU complaint. Not because they actually care about illustrating Wikidata items having to do with sex. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- In what way was this a "bad faith upload"? How was it "uploaded purely to troll users" or to "continue drama"? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your usual personal badgering aside the guidelines are pretty clear that usage done in bad faith doesn't count and that's clearly what this is. Otherwise Counterfeit Purses would have just uploaded the file and used it on Wikidata without commwnting about it in the ANU complaint. Its pretty clear they just did it to prove a point and continue the drama with Dronebogus though. Its to bad people like you are perfectly fine with handwaving obvious trolling just and pointy behavior just because I'm one who nominated the file for deletion though. Its not even an area that Counterfeit Purses works in normally. They clearly just uploaded it to prove a point. But hey "Adamant bad." So whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this is a useful good faith upload that clearly improves on my effort, even if it’s being used indirectly in a rather systen-gamey way in an attempt to delete my original image. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with it being kept if you think its helpful. I still think it was worth nominating for deletion and discussing purely because of the way Counterfeit Purses went about it though. But I'm more then willing to defer to you on it since it was uploaded as part of a dispute they were having with you to begin with. I don't think we should tollerate this kind of behavior more generally though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus I didn't nominate your image for deletion. Someone else did that without any involvement from me. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know you didn’t, and wasn’t accusing you Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: is this an original image or just an AI enhancement of my original image? Dronebogus (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Are you literally insane? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: That doesn’t answer my question and really just gives people more ammunition against you. Attacking people’s mental stability is a below-the-belt jab by any measure of W:WP:CIVIL Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Are you literally insane? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The best illustration of the reverse ekiben we have. However, I think the reverse position requires its own Wikidata object, but that's another discussion. -- LevandeMänniska (talk), 00:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep DR just creates drama. No need to not have two files for one subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this photograph of a 1933 statue by Pompeo Coppini (d. 1957) was taken in the USA, where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3D artworks. Coppini's copyright will not expire until 1 January 2028. There needs to be a copyright notice on the statue, and the copyright needs to be renewed. Yann (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image is my own work. While I am familiar with Pompeo Coppini and his work in San Antonio, Texas, I was unaware that the photographed statue was one his works, and I am not at all familiar with copyright rules / freedom of panorama in relation to the statue or any other 3D artwork. As such, while I can attest to the image being my own work, I cannot speak to the specific claim of Coppini's estate holding copyright to the statue until 1 January 2028. Brentsalter (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- (To be fair, I didn't know it was a Coppini work either until I saw it in category:Pompeo Coppini.) DS (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Coppini registered several works in the 1930s, but nothing that could describe this statue. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this photograph of a statue by Pompeo Coppini (d. 1957) was taken in the USA, where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3D artworks; Coppini's copyright will be in effect until January 1, 2028. There needs to be a copyright notice on the statue, and the copyright needs to be renewed. Yann (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Coppini registered several works in the 1930s, but nothing which could plausibly describe this statue. I might suggest a closer crop to ensure the background is de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
File:A life-size bronze statue of African-American civil-rights stalwart Rosa Parks, sitting on a bus bench, the focal point of a plaza at a Dallas Area Rapid Transit, or DART, station that was completed LCCN2014633014.tif
[edit]This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this photograph of a statue by living artist Erik Blome was taken in the USA, where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3D works There needs to be a copyright notice on the statue, and the copyright needs to be renewed. Yann (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is evidence the statue was moved from somewhere else. The description seems to imply that the statue was installed in 2009. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this photograph of a statue by living artist Erik Blome was taken in the USA, where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3D works There needs to be a copyright notice on the statue, and the copyright needs to be renewed. Yann (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is evidence the statue was moved from somewhere else. The description of this related file seems to imply that the statue was installed in 2009. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image taken from Forbes https://forbes.kz/articles/mr_serik_tolbasy_transfers_assets_to_reit_tspg Malik Nursultan B (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Copyright violation McSly (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Copyright violation McSly (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's an exact copy of File:Portraitofprincexavierdes hi.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
self promotional logo, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thedebnath (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ديكورات أرابيا (مجلة) (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by magazine; no usage, out of scope
- File:مجلة الديكور العربية - مجلة ديكورات أرابيا.jpg
- File:مجلة ديكورات أرابيا- مجلة الديكور العربية.jpg
- File:ديكورات أرابيا - مجلة العربية.jpg
- File:ديكورات أرابيا.jpg
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This was part of a series of uploaded personal photos such as File:Dale Yuzuki with his family in their backyard 2015.jpg, I assume this "replication of the Yuzuki's beloved dog Akiko" is because they didn't have any standalone photos of a late pet. Belbury (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Collages need source and license for every used image. In addition, there is no freedom of panorama in Estonia. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Published previously on https://www.facebook.com/david.w.edge.10/, so COM:VRT required. Achim55 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
most likely non-free image Timk70 (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
most likely non-free image Timk70 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chloejohal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deeptimishra14 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
no metadata low quality not own work copyvio Waqar💬 14:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and copied from FB. --Yann (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chrisdjonthebeat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Misspelling MihaiMet3aWi3ki123 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like vandalism + I can't see how this could be used in any Wikimedia project page. MiltonLibraryAssistant (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This photo is colorized, which gains its own copyright. See Commons:Help desk/Archive/2018/08#Does colorization of an old monochrome photo create a separate copyright?. It also appears possibly AI-enhanced, making it out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Then Delete it. From the Author. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have uploaded an uncolourised version as File:Mohamed Amin Didi.jpg. File:Amin Didi prime minister portrait.jpg and File:Ibrahim Mohammad Didi.jpg have similar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Which criteria of {{PD-Maldives}} does it meet? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Am I missing something, or aren't the originals of all of these still copyrighted under the URAA in the US anyway? Even Maldives copyright depends on whether the work is truly anonymous or not, and I don't see how we should ascertain that with such little provenance. Felix QW (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 23:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
personal image, no potential usage and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 20:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iranhonarvar (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal images. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 20:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader and it appears to be a screenshot from a music video. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original creator. Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- ok look I am the host of this music video if you look at the video itself you'll see it was distributed by my VEVO channel this is ME in MY music video why should it be deleted because I posted a screenshot of this scene like seriously I can see if someone else did this but if myself Jelani Kay did it what is your problem? its very confusing to hit me with COPYVIO when its MINE from jump Jelani kay (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader and it appears to be a screenshot from a music video. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original creator. Adamant1 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- ok look I am the host of this music video if you look at the video itself you'll see it was distributed by my VEVO channel this is ME in MY music video why should it be deleted because I posted a screenshot of this scene like seriously I can see if someone else did this but if myself Jelani Kay did it what is your problem? its very confusing to hit me with COPYVIO when its MINE from jump Jelani kay (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Admittedly copyright is kind of convoluted but just because are in the music video doesn't mean you'd own the copyright to it anymore then an actor would own the copyright to a movie their in. That's not really how it works. I'm not sure how it works with music videos specifically, but I assume whatever video production company made it would be the copyright holder in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Can't seem to find a source for it pre-upload. The only thing I can find is the one of the Ambazonia Defence Forces, which are part of the Ambazonia Governing Council. And even then, this isn't an exact copy of that, it's the INSIDE of it's seal.
I tried asking for a source but it seems Samhanin doesn't respond to talk page messages anymore, and when I tried to ask on said talk page, I got nothing back.
On the file itself too, there is no source for it. So I dunno where he would have ever gotten that this was the emblem of Ambazonia, but I guess he did, did this, and now, it seems people think it actually is even one of the emblems of Ambazonia, when in reality it seems to be nothing much at all other than the inside of the Ambazonian Defence Forces' seal. Not even a government. Just a militia, it seems.
Since this seems to have came out of nowhere, I am now nominating it for deletion. If you can somehow find a source for it in a crevice that I couldn't, and it's before the creation date of this (29th of January, 2022) then sure, I'll eat my words. But it doesn't seem like it exists. Kxeon (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Samhanin: Did you create this artwork? Is it based on some existing seal or emblem, and if so, what? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... on the Russian Wikipedia when searching for edits on the 29th and up relating to the emblem, I found they had switched it from the emblem of the Ambazonia Governing Council..
- But that seems to be the OLD emblem and not the current one. This file is closer to the current emblem, but is still pretty far off. Kxeon (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete If it is real modern emblem, unlikely that uploader is the creator with rights to grant license. No alternative reasons it might be free licensed offered. If it is not real emblem, it is out of scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on but he outright refuses to respond to any kind of messaging and has been doing this for the past year or so I think? NorthTension (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the author. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台北市 Taipei 大同區 Datong District 迪化街二段 Dihua Street 遊客中心 Visitor Centre March 2024 R12S 05.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 media history.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 23 history.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 HKSE history.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 79.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 78.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 77.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 75.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 76.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 68.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 67.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 66.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 65.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 64.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 63.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 36.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted screenshot in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 39.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 41.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 42.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
File:HK 上環 Sheung Wan 2 Bridges Street 香港新聞博覽館 Hong Kong News Expo museum December 2018 IX2 62.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted photos in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk · contribs)
[edit]User blocked for copyvios, not own works, no source, no permission.
- File:Navid5.jpg
- File:Navid 6.jpg
- File:Navid3.png
- File:Navid2.png
- File:Navid1.png
- File:Navid.png
- File:Twitter Navid Jamshidi.jpg
- File:نوید جمشیدی که در اوین ریش صورت را نتراشیده بود!.jpg
- File:نوید جمشیدی، ساعتی پس از آزادی.jpg
- File:جلوی-زندان-اوین.jpg
- File:تصویر-یکی-از-کیفرخواست-ها-بر-علیه-نوید-جمشیدی-توسط-قوه-قضاییه-جمهوری-اسلامی-به-دلیل-انجام-یک-مصاحبه-تلویزیونی.jpg
- File:در-مصاحبه-با-تلویزیون-افق-نمایشگاه-مطبوعات-ایران-۱۳۹۵.jpg
- File:در-دیدار-گری-لوییس-نماینده-وقت-سازمان-ملل-متحد-در-ایران-تحریریه-روزنامه-آسیا-تابستان-۱۳۹۵.jpg
- File:از-راست-به-چپ-محمد-نوریزاد-نوید-جمشیدی-و-صادق-زیباکلام-در-مصاحبه-تلویزیونی-با-جمشید-چالنگی-سال-۱۳۹۷.jpg
- File:امیر-عباس-عسگرزاده-مدیرعامل-بانک-حکمت-ایرانیان-در-دیدار-نوید-جمشیدی.jpg
- File:شمس-الواعظین.jpg
- File:مدرک-روزنامه-نگاری.jpg
- File:نوید-جمشیدی-نفر-وسط-در-مراسم-تقدیر-از-۱۰شخصیت-برتر-کسب-و-کار-ایران.jpg
- File:نوید-جمشیدی-و-محمدرضا-خاتمی-دبیرکل-جبهه-مشارکت-مشارکت-...ومجلس-ششم-اسلامی-در-غرفه-آسیا-در-نمایشگاه-مطبوعات-مصلای-تهران-سال-۱۳۹۵.jpg
- File:نوید-جمشیدی-و-مهران-مدیری-کارگردان-و-هنرپیشه-ایرانی-در-کتابفروشی-پروچیستا-سال-۱۳۸۵.jpg
- File:نوید-جمشیدی-به-همراه-عبدالرحیم-جعفری-مالک-و-بنیانگذار-انتشارات-امیرکبیر-در-منزل-ایشان-الهیه-تهران-سال-۱۳۸۳.jpg
- File:تصویر-جواز-عضویت-در-اتحادیه-ناشران-و-کتابفروشان-وقت.jpg
- File:نوید-جمشیدی-و-سیامک-پورزند-لابی-ساختمان-روزنامه-آسیا-سال-۱۳۸۴.jpg
Yann (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the author. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the uploader. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The person depicted in the image is also the author. So the file should be deleted as COPYVIO unless we can get permission to host the image from the original photographer. Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not used anywhere as well, not notable enough. --Jianhui67 T★C 06:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Shanghai Yaozao Soap 上海藥皂 Shanghai City 上海市 Yangpu District 楊浦路 2310號 楊浦路 Yangpu Road factory July 2024 R12S 02.jpg
[edit]COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
File:GD 廣東 ZS 中山市 Zhongshan 錦繡 海湾城 Hai Wan Cheng Vanguard Supermarket July 2024 R12S rice bags.jpg
[edit]COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Large metal chickens for sale at the Pottery Ranch pottery store in Marble Falls, Texas. Such chicken yard art is quite popular throughout Texas LCCN2014632908.tif
[edit]Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Mural in Austin, Texas, promoting an upcoming music festival that, presumably, would feature singer-songwriter Willie Nelson, since his image is prominant in the mural LCCN2014632491.tif
[edit]Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photo of a painting by living artist Li zijian (b. 1954). 0x0a (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The screen content may be copyrighted by the painter. 0x0a (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Very low quality; too small and blurred to be of any realistic use, thus out of Commons scope MPF (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jane.doe.0123456789 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Random penis photo, nothing special to be kept on Commons
- File:Castrated male 01.jpg
- File:Castrated male 03.jpg
- File:Castrated male 02.jpg
- File:Post castration penis.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep illustrates a male without testes; this certainly isn’t “just a random penis photo” Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah I misunderstand the word "castration". Men without testes is definitely special enough to be kept. I withdraw my nomination--A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" such as posters or murals in the United Kingdom
- File:Hughes and Khaled mural in Belfast 01.jpg
- File:Hughes and Khaled mural in Belfast 02.jpg
- File:Hughes and Khaled mural in Belfast 03.jpg
- File:Leila Khaled on International Wall.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Works on permanent public display is the exception generally applied in FoP in the United Kingdom.--Jove (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- However in UK, "graphic works" are excluded from FOP exception. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Commercial Court Mural, Belfast
[edit]No FoP for "graphic works" such as posters or murals in the United Kingdom
- File:Commercial Court mural, Belfast, July 2010 (01).JPG
- File:Commercial Court mural, Belfast, July 2010 (02).JPG
- File:Commercial Court mural, Belfast, July 2010 (03).JPG
- File:Commercial Court mural, Belfast, July 2010 (04).JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Divis Street Murals, Belfast, 2011
[edit]No FoP for "graphic works" such as posters or murals in the United Kingdom
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (03).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (02).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (08).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (05).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (01).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (09).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (07).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (06).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (12).JPG
- File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (11).JPG
- File:Mural, Falls Road, Belfast (7) - geograph.org.uk - 802538.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Missmohy.shima (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused diagrams. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 SHUM YIP UpperHills LOFT 黨群服務中心 Dangqun Services Center 圖書館 Library November 2023 R12S 01.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted book covers in China. Solomon203 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 SHUM YIP UpperHills LOFT 黨群服務中心 Dangqun Services Center 圖書館 Library November 2023 R12S 03.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted book covers in China. Solomon203 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmet Serdar Ates (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Replaced with other versions by same user.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
It looks like that pic is scanned from a magazine and so probably copyrighted. Sanandros (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doydoyduran (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the originals overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Logo with a specific and complex pattern, this isn't possible as PD-text. Taichi (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Diospyros virginiana BB-1913.png TheImaCow (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: file in use, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
File:TiinaMartikainen.jpg is not own work. I suspect that other image is also not own work. Deletion per COM:PCP
Estopedist1 (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Estere Žēbina (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.
Estopedist1 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable licence: unlikely to be uploaders own work and impossible to be taken in 2019, given that the subject of the photograph died in 2000. Bujo (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Non-free OS screenshot Thyj (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台北市 Taipei 大同區 Datong District 迪化街二段 Dihua Street 遊客中心 Visitor Centre March 2024 R12S 04.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - COM:DM - no focus on any particular book. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM. --Wdwd (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
no metadata doesn't seem like own work likely copyvio Waqar💬 07:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Wdwd (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Definitely not own work the logo is visible seems to be taken from some video Waqar💬 07:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Wdwd (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Apparently a still from an ISIS propaganda video. Certainly not own work. I am not quite certain about the copyright status of ISIS videos but I believe COM:Precautionary principle applies here. MKFI (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Bild einer enzyklopädische nicht relevanten Person (Klarname, geb. 2002?), hochgeladen durch einen infinit gesperrten Benutzer. Benutzer:WvB (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Wdwd (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
لا اوفق مع كيفية استخدام الصور من طرف بعض المواقع لاني صاحب حقوق Brahim fadel (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a recent upload & in scope. See COM:LRV. --Wdwd (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not under OGL. The "except where otherwise stated" clause indicates that the non-open CC by-nc-nd licence solely applies.
Note the use of {{Number-10-flickr}}, possibly also needs to be deleted, along with any other files using it in equivalent circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- To further complicate matters, the EXIF in the nominated image states "Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the many previous times this has been discussed, (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait (cropped).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official portrait of Liz Truss.jpg - Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg - Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheikh Hasina with David Cameron.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaleb Cooper.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boris Johnson hosts virtual G7 meeting (1).jpg, etc., etc.). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also I'll add that since you've added this to the template (and thus the 533 images that use it) it would be a good idea to notify the various uploaders as well. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the prior discussions, of which I was not aware, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. I would suggest that a link to one or more of those discussions (or to an explanatory page; linking to them in turn) be added to the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: DR withdrawn. --Wdwd (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Should be merged as duplicate with File:CO Fort Collins 1865.jpg, this exact file from the exact same source is available as the second file in the file history, so virtually nothing would be lost Nutshinou Talk! 10:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
File:"Westward the Course of Empire takes it Way." Laying track, 300 miles west of Missouri River, 19th October, 1867. - DPLA - 0622a692a322476124aa9ccbc7068e25.jpg
[edit]Should be merged as duplicate with File:'Westward the Course of Empire takes it Way.' Laying track, 300 miles west of Missouri River, 19th October, 1867. (Boston Public Library).jpg, this exact file from the exact same source is available as the first file in the file history (albeit in larger quality), so virtually nothing would be lost Nutshinou Talk! 10:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely not a duplicate: one shows the full page, the other is cropped to just the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Canada de las Uvas, or Tejon Pass in Sierra Nevada, California, 1690 miles west of Missouri River. (4619450628).jpg
[edit]Should be merged as duplicate with File:Tejon Pass, 1868.jpg, this exact file from the exact same source is available as the first file in the file history, so virtually nothing would be lost Nutshinou Talk! 10:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Canon of the Purgatoire, Southern Colorado, 580 miles from Missouri River. - DPLA - 7ea39c52efb33453079fc49bc88347f1.jpg
[edit]Should be merged as duplicate with File:Canon of the Purgatoire, Southern Colorado, 580 miles from Missouri River. (Boston Public Library).jpg, this exact file from the exact same source is available as the first file in the file history (albeit in larger quality), so virtually nothing would be lost Nutshinou Talk! 10:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely not a duplicate: one shows the full page, the other is cropped to just the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Should be merged as duplicate with File:Amyas upon the Quay at Bideford Small.jpg as it is a lower quality, stretched out version of it, that was generated by the thumbnailer: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Amyas_upon_the_Quay_at_Bideford_Small.jpg/591px-Amyas_upon_the_Quay_at_Bideford_Small.jpg Nutshinou Talk! 10:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
This file does not contain a pdf file, nor any other medium, only a description. I think File:Catálogo de todos os dias santos de guarda e de jejum (2nd version).pdf is the correct one. JopkeB (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: File page with no file uploaded/F7. --Wdwd (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Linea 1 Logo.svg Yeagvr (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Linea 1 Logo.svg Yeagvr (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
This file does not contain proper content like an image, video or sound fragment. It only contains a table, the same way a table would be made in Wikipedia (HTML?). This is not what Commons is for. And this file is not used anywere. See perhaps File:Galileo-43.gif. JopkeB (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the result of importing the file, and was used in the past. Can be SD. Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G1. --Wdwd (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Copy of File:Logo Linea 6 Napoli.svg Yeagvr (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Wdwd (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"Bob Eilenfeldt"
[edit]While these two photos were taken from a web site about the US Army in Germany, that site is private and not an official US military web site. There is also no indication that the photos were taken by US soldiers / federal officials as part of their official duties (as claimed by the license tags used). The web site notes "Graphics and photos on this web site are posted by permission of their owners and are for viewing only." So the files should be deleted per the precautionary principle.
Rosenzweig τ 17:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no doupt, that the photgraphers were on duty in Germany, not on vacation. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is there "no doubt"? Couldn't they have come back a few years later and taken the photographs then? And even if they were active soldiers at the time, did they actually take these photographs as part of their official duties? --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artwork; due to non-permanence no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artworks, no fop.
- File:Atrium - Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln1.jpg
- File:Atrium - Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln2.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artworks, no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artworks, no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheSpaceShrimp (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots of Virtual Regatta. I found no evidence indicating that it's freely licensed software, which makes these likely copyright violations.
TilmannR (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Not a free image Malik Nursultan B (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Most definitely not a free image Malik Nursultan B (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Image taken from gov. kz https://astanatimes.com/2023/06/time-for-reform-is-now-and-rewards-are-boundless-says-chairman-of-kazakhstans-strategic-planning-agency/ (therefore, not free) Malik Nursultan B (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS 186.174.71.131 19:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Underrepresented piercing. --RAN (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 05:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: no permission on source site http://www.demsign.com. Ruthven (msg) 12:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission on source site http://www.demsign.com. Ruthven (msg) 12:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused file. Single (remaining) uploading by the user. No EXIF-data (or no satisfactory EXIF-data). Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
clearly a screenshot. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a screenshot. I was in the show and I took the picture myself, using a cellphone camera. Maybe the quality is due to the dark venue. You can also see the camera details in the metadata. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Gabi. Ruthven (msg) 12:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Logo with a specific gradient of blurry, very likely reached to the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Below ToO. In USe. Ruthven (msg) 12:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Don t have Anu informations, is empty, no sens Fabrizionu (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. Ruthven (msg) 12:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Not "own work". No permission from the copyright holder. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Eduardo Cochino? 200.39.139.26 16:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo of no contributor F10. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it shouldn't be public. Janratops (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This .djvu is missing numerous pages and is superseded by the alternate scan of the same book File:The Hymns of the Rigveda Vol 2 (better).djvu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mårtensås (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2024-8-3 (UTC)
Kept: In use on en.wikisource. Ruthven (msg) 12:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I find it very unlikely that this is "own work", there is a similar pic in the gallery at https://www.vanityfair.it/fashion/news-fashion/2019/06/20/fabio-mancini-intervista-modello-armani-foto, pic 20/21. See also [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @BubbaJoe123456 if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - not totally certain that it's a copyvio, but certainly very likely. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pas trop compris pourquoi ce mural-ci devrait être supprimé alors qu’il en existe des dizaines sur Commons ! Cordialement Pierrette13 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What about the rest of Category:Murals in Belfast? Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio. No FOP in US Nv8200p (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted art. Also, the prime subject of the photo is the art- not the people. Ooligan (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted art. Ooligan (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
low quality, too blurry Luda.slominska (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, especially as there are much higher-quality images of the reserve. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
l'ho caricato io questa determinata foto, desidero di cancellarla definitvamente KSavys (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Il file va cancellato perché non desidero più che sia disponibile pubblicamente. KappaSavys (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
All files at Category:Minutes of the Vote Count for the 2024 Presidential Elections in Venezuela
[edit]Recently, User:Wilfredor has uploaded the minutes of the recent Elections for the Presidency of Venezuela. I think that the minutes are in the public domain, as those are legal documents. However, the uploader is tagging the page https://resultadosconvzla.com/ as the source of this minutes, and adding the official body Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela as the author of the files. This is incorrect tagging, as the web https://resultadosconvzla.com/ is not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela, but an ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition to show what they say that are the official minutes. I don't have any proof to say that those minutes are real or counterfeited, but the website https://resultadosconvzla.com/ has a copyright tag, and it's not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela. - Theklan (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep 1) The minutes are just data, therefore no copyright applies.
- 2) The "ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition" is pretty much legitimate, since delegates from the opposition are one of the parties which receive the minutes printed by the machine, along with the CNE. You are attributing an authority to the CNE which it doesn't have in the least - that's the very reason these minutes are impressed and distributed to a number of delegates from the various parties in the first place.
- It's irrelevant if you believe or not in these delegates, since it's not up to you to decide or audit that - and in all circumstances they would be in the Public Domain for being nothing but non copyrightable data. Darwin Ahoy! 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are different arguments here:
- This minutes are not just data. Raw data is general in the public domain, but collections of data can be copyrighted, as databases can be copyrighted. Anyway, this is not the case here, as the uploader didn't upload raw data, but JPGs, which have a layout, signatures and other items.
- I don't know if the ad-hoc website is legitimate or not, the minutes are real or not, but anyway those are not the minutes from the CNE, because the data presented is different. That's why this minutes can't be attributed to the CNE, but to whoever has created the ad-hoc website, which is under copyright.
- If there's this mismatch, we can't claim that this are the actual minutes having the authorship of the CNE, because that's not true. I'm not the one attributing an authority to the CNE, is the uploader who claims that this documents come from the CNE, which the [Government of Venezuela claims is not true. We should refrain from claiming that this are official documents, and attribute it to the source, which is this copyrighted website.
- If the copyright applies here or not is another discussion. If this was raw data, I wouldn't argue about the copyright (the discussion would be about the factuality), but it's not raw data, but JPG files with other elements inside.
- Theklan (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan According to the source, those are the minutes automatically emitted by the machines. They certainly do not come from the CNE, they come from the voting machines. They were signed and delivered to the delegates and the CNE, those being the ones from the ConVzla delegates. I'm puzzled why you say that the data presented "is different" from the CNE minutes, since AFAIK those were never made public. So unless you have some inside source at the Miraflores Palace, I don't think your claim can hold any water there. Anyway, it seems you are not even arguing about copyright, so I'm also puzzled what this DR is about. Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- If they don't come from the CNE, then the source is not the CNE, as stated by the uploader. The source should be changed to state that this images don't come from the CNE (which is one of the claims here).
- The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching. If the data would be the same, the result should be the same, which is not. There's even an official video claiming that these are counterfeited, which I can't post because of spam blocking of youtube: youtu.be/wspxQWlkM8o. Theklan (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan These minutes are very much legitimate, as they come from ConVzla delegates, which are one of the legitimate sources according to Venezuelan law. It's absolutely irrelevant if they are equal or not to the CNE ones, since the probability of fakery is the same for both sides, and as I said, that's the very reason why these paper minutes are emitted and kept in first place. You seem to be jumping to extraordinary conclusions by blindly believing CNE claims without even seeing any minutes from their part. Anyway, that would not be up to you to decide, in any case.
- As for the files, if your problem is with the author being CNE instead of the CNE voting machines, that can be quickly fixed using VFC, AWB or a bot. And it still is not a copyright issue. Darwin Ahoy! 10:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, the source is not the CNE voting machines. The source is a copyrighted website claiming these are legitimate documents, which is, at least, contentious. Theklan (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan The source is an official ConVzla website presenting the minutes of their delegates as (according to them) received from the voting machine operators. As already stated, your claim that they are not legitimate has no basis at all, as well as the references to a copyright mark on the website which obviously do not apply to materials which are themselves in the public domain. Please refrain from repeating the same thing over and over, that doesn't add anything to the debate. Darwin Ahoy! 11:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then the author should be "ConVzla". Theklan (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan No, that would mean they completely fabricated the minutes, which is a rather extraordinary claim without any base. The source information we present should be factual, not arbitrary Wikimedist opinions and baseless claims. It has already been fixed, BTW. Darwin Ahoy! 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The new authorship seems better. Theklan (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan No, that would mean they completely fabricated the minutes, which is a rather extraordinary claim without any base. The source information we present should be factual, not arbitrary Wikimedist opinions and baseless claims. It has already been fixed, BTW. Darwin Ahoy! 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then the author should be "ConVzla". Theklan (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan The source is an official ConVzla website presenting the minutes of their delegates as (according to them) received from the voting machine operators. As already stated, your claim that they are not legitimate has no basis at all, as well as the references to a copyright mark on the website which obviously do not apply to materials which are themselves in the public domain. Please refrain from repeating the same thing over and over, that doesn't add anything to the debate. Darwin Ahoy! 11:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, the source is not the CNE voting machines. The source is a copyrighted website claiming these are legitimate documents, which is, at least, contentious. Theklan (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching: the CNE has not released any tally sheets at all. It has only twice stated vote counts: on the 29 July it gave vote counts that correspond to the percentages 51.20000%, 44.20000%, and 4.60000%, to that level of precision, and on 2 August it published some vote vounts that give the invalid/null count as 0.41000%. These are for counts supposedly accurate to the level of several million voters. These are only barely more credible than 60.00000%, 35.00000%, and 5.00000%. So based on the w:WP:RS, there is no reason to expect there to be any match between the CNE values and the actas; the CNE vote counts so far published (just a tiny handful of numbers) are not credible.If the CNE ever publishes tally sheets, then we can publish them under PD with names like File:11 DE JULIO CNE.jpg instead of File:11 DE JULIO.jpg. Boud (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan According to the source, those are the minutes automatically emitted by the machines. They certainly do not come from the CNE, they come from the voting machines. They were signed and delivered to the delegates and the CNE, those being the ones from the ConVzla delegates. I'm puzzled why you say that the data presented "is different" from the CNE minutes, since AFAIK those were never made public. So unless you have some inside source at the Miraflores Palace, I don't think your claim can hold any water there. Anyway, it seems you are not even arguing about copyright, so I'm also puzzled what this DR is about. Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are different arguments here:
- Keep The CNE logo is not copyrighted, and the rest is just data printed from a machine. Even a copyrighted website can host files that are public domain, even if they do not declare it as such. I am also wondering how this deletion request is not motivated by the nominator's position on the disputed election results, similar to Darwin's concerns. --Minoa (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please, refrain from canvasing me. I'm not from Venezuela, not even from South America. Theklan (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Each vote tally has a QR code to confirm its authenticity. The copyright law in Venezuela is clear in saying that documents authored by the government are in the public domain ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}). Even if the actas were supposedly counterfeited, I doubt that they reach the threshold of originality, since they mostly consist in text and signatures. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, no. The QR encodes the number of the machine and the number of votes. You can check it yourself. The authenticity is checked with the hash number in the top and the digital signature in the bottom, and this can only be checked with the database from the CNE. So you and me can't know if the uploaded minutes are real or counterfeited... we can only know if the QR code and the number of votes displayed in the top are the same, which is something quite easy to do.
- Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to judge if the documents are real. And even if they were conterfeited they still have a place in Commons, as those are historical documents to prove the dicussion itself. What I'm claiming is that we can't say that this are a work from the VenezuelaGov, because the Government of Venezuela claims that this minutes are false. We should attribute those to the opposition party which created the website, so we don't create more confusion. Theklan (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep According to the Venezuelan Copyright Law, documents issued by the government, such as voting records, are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright (Art. 4). These records, printed by voting machines and distributed to delegates from different parties, including the opposition, meet this definition. Additionally, the presentation format, such as JPG files with signatures and other elements, does not affect their public domain status as they do not reach the originality threshold required for copyright protection (Art. 3). Even though the records were uploaded from an opposition website, this does not change their public nature or legitimize a copyright claim by the website. It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected". Exactly that. The only way this are PD is if the documents were printed by voting machines, which is under dispute. Theklan (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan No, it's not. The source is authoritative and claims the documents were obtained from the voting machines. That you apparently don't believe it is really immaterial to the case, as there is no copyright claim to start with: The source claims the documents were issued by the CNE voting machines, therefore PD-Gov (and even without that they would be in the PD, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's not what? Are you claiming that this is not under dispute? Because I have read some news talking about the issue with these documents, and the Government is claiming that those are counterfeit (I provide the video above). Theklan (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan What is not in dispute is that:
- The minutes came from the ConVzla website;
- ConVzla claims these are the minutes issued by the CNE voting machines;
- ConVzla is an authoritative source for minutes obtained from the CNE voting machines, under the Venezuelan law.
- That Maduro or the CNE is in dispute with ConVzla about the nature of these minutes is absolutely irrelevant to Commons. That was very much expected, that's why they were printed, signed and collected by CNE and the party delegates present at the voting stations in first place. Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not only that, but they were also signed by the CNE personnel in the polling centers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Venezuelako Hauteskunde Kontseilu Nazionalak (CNE) boto-akten faltsuak direla dioen arren, horrek ez die eragiten hauteskunde-prozesuan zehar jaulkitako dokumentu ofizialen izaerari. Dokumentu horien izaera ofizialak dirau, prozesu gobernamental formal baten barruan sortu eta banatu baitziren, eta Venezuelako egile-eskubideen legearen arabera, domeinu publikoan daude. Beste dokumentu gobernamental batzuekin antzekoa da, behin jaulkitakoan, haien egiazkotasuna zalantzan jartzen bada ere, dokumentu ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute. Boto-aktek ez dute izaera ofiziala galtzen haien edukia dela eta egon daitezkeen eztabaiden ondorioz. Adibidez, Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Erregistro Presidentzialen Legearen kasuan, administrazioak sortutako dokumentuak gobernuaren erregistro ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute, zalantzan jartzen edo aldi baterako kentzen badira ere Wilfredor (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan What is not in dispute is that:
- No, it's not what? Are you claiming that this is not under dispute? Because I have read some news talking about the issue with these documents, and the Government is claiming that those are counterfeit (I provide the video above). Theklan (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theklan No, it's not. The source is authoritative and claims the documents were obtained from the voting machines. That you apparently don't believe it is really immaterial to the case, as there is no copyright claim to start with: The source claims the documents were issued by the CNE voting machines, therefore PD-Gov (and even without that they would be in the PD, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep peer discussion (En el articulo 325 de la Ley organica del Trabajo,los trabajadores y trabajadoras LOTTT,es totalmente clara.)
- "It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected". Exactly that. The only way this are PD is if the documents were printed by voting machines, which is under dispute. Theklan (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Under Venezuelan electoral law, the observers at a polling station have the right to take away copies of the actas. There's no sign of the actas being faked, except for w:WP:FRINGE claims by government authorities. There seems to be no doubt about the PD copyright status. Boud (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept, per DarwIn, the files are ineligible for copyright as work of Venezuelan government. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Прошу удалить, загрузи файлы по отдельности, в данном изображении актуальность пропала Well-read MountainMan (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense deletion reason: (Google translate): "Please delete, upload files separately, this image is no longer relevant".-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- I have been uploaded this image and I ask you to delete it because I divided it and uploaded it separately, what's the point of creating more files? Well-read MountainMan (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm OK with deletion, if there's no good reason to show both photos together. Might there be a historical reason to do so, such as their being published on the same page of a book or pamphlet or something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you
- Apparently not.
- I intentionally uploaded two separate images, which increased their quality and made them easier to view. Well-read MountainMan (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm OK with deletion, if there's no good reason to show both photos together. Might there be a historical reason to do so, such as their being published on the same page of a book or pamphlet or something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
This file had been superseded by File:Kentucky Senate diagram, 2016-18.svg, which is a svg file. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 南京東路 Nanjing East Road 臺北捷運 松江南京站 Songjiang Nanjing Station morning March 2024 R12S 02.jpg
[edit]Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 05:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The photograph tagged is my own. Jdash30 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jdash30 Can you please explain how you took theis photo with an iPhone? Thanks Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (see https://southernwoodenboatsailing.com/news/americascup). --MB-one (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's in the public domain, and it was reuploaded as a PNG. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinged the uploader, if they can provide a permission. MB-one (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by krd as No permission since 22 September 2024. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Devaniyá123 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: file previously uploaded by Sockpuppet. See User:Nyilvoskt Krd 06:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd sorry, that is completely non-sensical, take a side from correct license and sourced image, that image supposedly not nominated. Moreover, considering the user tagging it was blocked indefinitely in several projects, I can't see why is this nomination is good-faith after all. Plus, accepting "sock-uploaded" as a reason from a sock account isn't really a bright move. Best regards, Nyilvoskt (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- add: This was the initial file description and these were the references taken from the image: Map of languages in Bali map of languages in Nusa Tenggara Barat. Nyilvoskt (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Although VOA is owned by the US government who releases their material into the public domain, this file uses copyrighted video from Live Storms Media that can only be used through paid licensing, thus, not free. IrishSurfer21 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- A1Cafel, could you help me understand the issue "NO FoP for 'graphic works' in the United Kingdom". This is picture I took several years ago of still extant public mural. Surely photographs of a piece of public/street art are not restricted. Wikipedia articles are filled with such images. But maybe I have missed something. Regards ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked with "Commons:Freedom of panorama". It lists UK FoP for '2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"'--for which a defining, though perhaps not definitive feature, is that the creator had "the conscious purpose of creating a work of art" which is surely the case here (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama). So it seems to be okay. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg ManfredHugh (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Discussion for moreManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked with "Commons:Freedom of panorama". It lists UK FoP for '2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"'--for which a defining, though perhaps not definitive feature, is that the creator had "the conscious purpose of creating a work of art" which is surely the case here (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama). So it seems to be okay. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg ManfredHugh (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
*The following comment has been moved here from talk page in accordance with Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11#Disabling talk pages of deletion requests and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08#Talk pages of deletion requests – again; transfer of comment/s by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deletion
A1Cafel, could you help me understand the issue "NO FoP for 'graphic works' in the United Kingdom". This is picture I took several years ago of still extant public mural. Surely photographs of a piece of public/street art are not restricted. Wikipedia articles are filled with such images. But maybe I have missed something. Regards ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- A1Cafel, could you help me understand the issue "NO FoP for 'graphic works' in the United Kingdom". This is picture I took several years ago of still extant public mural. Surely photographs of a piece of public/street art are not restricted. Wikipedia articles are filled with such images. But maybe I have missed something. Regards ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked with "Commons:Freedom of panorama". It lists UK FoP for '2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"'--for which a defining, though perhaps not definitive feature, is that the creator had "the conscious purpose of creating a work of art" which is surely the case here (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama). So it seems to be okay. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg ManfredHugh (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- There may be no blanket UK PoP for street murals, but two considerations: (1) as above, there is FoP for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"; and (2) the my photograph is not just of a mural, but of the street scene in which the mural appears. If it is not covered by FoP, the implication is that no picture of a public place or street in which a mural appears can be freely reproduced. Surely that cannot be the caseManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked with "Commons:Freedom of panorama". It lists UK FoP for '2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"'--for which a defining, though perhaps not definitive feature, is that the creator had "the conscious purpose of creating a work of art" which is surely the case here (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama). So it seems to be okay. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg ManfredHugh (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- A1Cafel, could you help me understand the issue "NO FoP for 'graphic works' in the United Kingdom". This is picture I took several years ago of still extant public mural. Surely photographs of a piece of public/street art are not restricted. Wikipedia articles are filled with such images. But maybe I have missed something. Regards ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Discussion ManfredHugh (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- No FoP?
There may be no blanket UK PoP for street murals, but two considerations: (1) there is FoP for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"; and (2) the my photograph is not just of a mural, but taken from the street presents a wider frame (including building and fencing) in which the mural (for which no copyright appears to have been recorded or asserted) appears. If it is not covered by FoP, is the implication that no picture of a public place or street in which a mural or other art work appears can be freely reproduced? Surely that could not be the caseManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC) *Moved here from discussion in accordance with Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11#Disabling talk pages of deletion requests and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08#Talk pages of deletion requests – again; transfer of comment/s by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Bad quality 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE on four different wikis. The only substitute that exists is a very low-resolution probable copyright violation. Your opinion on the quality or lack thereof is moot, especially considering there’s far worse illustrations of sex (File:Phonesex.gif, File:Spoon position on bed.PNG, File:Illustration-of-Buttjob.png, File:Diagrammatic, non-explicit, depiction of a male performing cunnilingus on a female..jpg) that are considered in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 00:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Bad quality, exactly as for the previous nomination. The difference is that we now have a rather better quality alternative: File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png It is INUSE, but that can be addressed by replacing it with the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don’t think there’s really a precedent to delete something solely because a better version exists if the inferior version came first. File:Blowjob.svg is an older, clearly inferior to File:Wiki-fellatio02.png and will likely never be used in place of that file or another superior image, but that doesn’t mean the first one is automatically out of scope. Deleting good-faith uploads because a better version has subsequently been uploaded is playing hindsight 20-20 with the original uploader. Dronebogus (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 06:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whether it's kept or not, it should not be INUSE. We have a better option now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- That’s for people on eswiki and simple wiki to decide. I added it to simple wiki so I don’t care if it’s removed there, but I only used it to replace a deleted image on eswiki and do not edit there. As far as I’m concerned the ball’s in their court now. Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus The "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" didn't decide to use the image - you did. You added it to those projects. You didn't consult the "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" when you did it, but now "they" have to make the decision to remove it and no one else can remove the image? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I edit on simple wiki, and added the image in that capacity; I already stated I don’t care whether it’s replaced or not. Eswiki was just me replacing a copyright violation; I do not edit there regularly. Me replacing a copyvio with the only contemporary alternative is, in my view, a simple courtesy; changing it from one image to another seems like a value judgement best left to the editors of that wiki. But that’s just my view of the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: just for clarity, your image is not in any way based on my image, correct? Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Just for clarity, are you literally insane? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: keep doing that and I am going to have an extremely good case against you at ANU. It’s a legitimate question: if there is any relation between the two images then the original should be kept as the source and the new one should be marked as a derivative work. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus It is not a legitimate question. It is a ridiculous question. The more times you ask, the more legitimate my question seems. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: if it’s so stupidly obvious to you why can’t you give a straight answer? Because the more times you say something uncivil and evasive the less I’m inclined to believe you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus There's a limit to which questions I will entertain. I don't feel the need to humor your delusions. If you don't like it, take it to ANU. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You were reported yesterday and were warned your behavior wasn’t great looking just today. I’m not about to immediately take you back there, but this unnecessary hostility is getting really old. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus There's a limit to which questions I will entertain. I don't feel the need to humor your delusions. If you don't like it, take it to ANU. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: if it’s so stupidly obvious to you why can’t you give a straight answer? Because the more times you say something uncivil and evasive the less I’m inclined to believe you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus It is not a legitimate question. It is a ridiculous question. The more times you ask, the more legitimate my question seems. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses: keep doing that and I am going to have an extremely good case against you at ANU. It’s a legitimate question: if there is any relation between the two images then the original should be kept as the source and the new one should be marked as a derivative work. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Just for clarity, are you literally insane? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus The "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" didn't decide to use the image - you did. You added it to those projects. You didn't consult the "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" when you did it, but now "they" have to make the decision to remove it and no one else can remove the image? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- That’s for people on eswiki and simple wiki to decide. I added it to simple wiki so I don’t care if it’s removed there, but I only used it to replace a deleted image on eswiki and do not edit there. As far as I’m concerned the ball’s in their court now. Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whether it's kept or not, it should not be INUSE. We have a better option now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep A publication may want to use a caricatured version, rather than more realistic version. And we should keep an entire set in the same style. If someone uses this to illustrate a book or magazine article they would need a complete set. If there are more in this set, they should be in a category. --RAN (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep AI is controversial, and subject to change. People and projects may reject AI out of hand. We shouldn't delete a hand drawn image for an AI image. This whole DR is just making trouble; there's no reason we can't have two images in this category, and there's no reason Spanish and Simple Wikipedias can't police themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This does not appear to be "in use" any longer. Delete as unused low quality self-made art. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Too low quality to be in COM:SCOPE.
Commons:Commons Is Not DeviantArtWikipedia-based trope alluding to COM:SCOPE, but struck to avoid confusion per below. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC). — Rhododendrites talk | 02:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)- That link goes nowhere. COM:CENSOR does go somewhere. Category:Ekiben (sex position) has two illustrations for reverse ekiben, and the other is AI that shows bad fingers. I continue to be frustrated that we toss DeviantArt files wildly, but not the Flikr and Photobucket files that Commons:Project scope actually mentions. Category:London Bridge has 282 files, (that's not counting subcategories) many of which are small, poorly photographed, unused and redundant but we can't have two files on reverse ekiben.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably the first time ever I’ve seen AI art being favored over human-made art. In any case @Rhododendrites: shouldn’t cite made-up policies. Dronebogus (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- you have both chosen to ignore the actual policy I linked and focused on the conspicuous non policy. It's a trope on enwp to refer to overly specific examples of the "what wikipedia is not" policy. COM:SCOPE is the commons equivalent. Apologies if that was confusing. To the point, I reject the idea that absolutely any image which claims to depict a subject is automatically in scope if we have no other images. That may usually be the case, but once in a while something comes along that cannot feasibly be used for any purpose. We're in that territory here. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- An image that “cannot feasibly be used for any purpose“ would be ”[a] nonsense AI-generated image of a nude figure (with at least one extra leg) climbing out of a painting”. Per Prosfilaes and RAN, this is not that. And why did you include a “conspicuous non-policy” in the first place if you knew it wasn’t a policy? Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Three of the arguments people have against AI images are that (a) they don't depict anything real, (b) the quality is sloppy, and (c) one is often no better than what a potential reuser could just generate themselves. All three of those apply here, too. For anyone who *really* needs a free picture of the "reverse ekiben position" such that absolutely anything will do, they can just draw their own and it won't be worse than this. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- You’re making a huge assumption about the drawing abilities of the average person. Do I have to bring up the (in-use) bathroom-stall graffiti that is File:Phonesex.gif again? Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Three of the arguments people have against AI images are that (a) they don't depict anything real, (b) the quality is sloppy, and (c) one is often no better than what a potential reuser could just generate themselves. All three of those apply here, too. For anyone who *really* needs a free picture of the "reverse ekiben position" such that absolutely anything will do, they can just draw their own and it won't be worse than this. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- COM:CENSOR links to the same page as COM:SCOPE. If anyone can draw better than this, then do so. I certainly can't. Any image which depicts a subject (there's no realistic claim that this doesn't depict the subject) is automatically in scope if it's the only picture. Perhaps it's easily obsoleted, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating; replace it before deleting it.
- The arguments against AI that concern me are that there's still legal questions of copyright violation in the air, and that no matter what the law says, it's wrong. The first could have Commons deleting all AI images; depending on the local laws, specific projects may chose to avoid AI images even if Commons stores them. The second could have specific projects banning AI images. Either way, an AI image should probably not be our only image for a subject if we have an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- An image that “cannot feasibly be used for any purpose“ would be ”[a] nonsense AI-generated image of a nude figure (with at least one extra leg) climbing out of a painting”. Per Prosfilaes and RAN, this is not that. And why did you include a “conspicuous non-policy” in the first place if you knew it wasn’t a policy? Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- you have both chosen to ignore the actual policy I linked and focused on the conspicuous non policy. It's a trope on enwp to refer to overly specific examples of the "what wikipedia is not" policy. COM:SCOPE is the commons equivalent. Apologies if that was confusing. To the point, I reject the idea that absolutely any image which claims to depict a subject is automatically in scope if we have no other images. That may usually be the case, but once in a while something comes along that cannot feasibly be used for any purpose. We're in that territory here. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably the first time ever I’ve seen AI art being favored over human-made art. In any case @Rhododendrites: shouldn’t cite made-up policies. Dronebogus (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That link goes nowhere. COM:CENSOR does go somewhere. Category:Ekiben (sex position) has two illustrations for reverse ekiben, and the other is AI that shows bad fingers. I continue to be frustrated that we toss DeviantArt files wildly, but not the Flikr and Photobucket files that Commons:Project scope actually mentions. Category:London Bridge has 282 files, (that's not counting subcategories) many of which are small, poorly photographed, unused and redundant but we can't have two files on reverse ekiben.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 15:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Translate: "I believe the image was taken before 1946, but I think a third party should make a judgment on whether or not it should be deleted." --RAN (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- If prior to 1946, we keep, I believe you are correct, so why ask for deletion, just ask at Village Pump without nominating. --RAN (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
この画像を削除せよと強く訴える人がいるからです。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- 人聞きが悪いな。「削除せよと強く訴える」なら即時削除タグ貼るか削除依頼出すだろ。明治大学関連は明白な著作権侵害あるいは出所不明の画像を大量投稿する捨てアカウント群(例:UZM、MDCK、SDCLUB、VATSU、AERWIN etc.)がいるんだから、原典が明らかでない画像のページにNo Sourceの告知を貼ってんだろうが。原典が明らかなページにまで乱発はしてねぇよ。--1.33.123.150 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- あ、自分がNo Sourceの告知を貼った一部の画像に対して、あなたが正しい原典情報を追記し削除を回避したことについては感謝してます。誤解なきよう。--1.33.123.150 03:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
出典情報があやふやであっても、PD-Japan-oldphoto を適用し得る画像や Google画像検索 などで著作権侵害を確認できない画像まで抹殺することはないでしょう。
たとえば File:Meiji University old memorial hall auditorium.jpgは『東京横浜復興建築図集 1923-1930』という文献によって、1931年以前に撮影された画像であることがわかります。これを削除されたことは到底納得できません。闇討ちのような形で No source のテンプレを貼りまくる行為は感心しません。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- 削除されたあとでも、原典がはっきりした状態であるならば、そしてそれが本当にウィキメディア・プロジェクトで使用する必要のある写真であるならば、あなたが再アップロードすれば済むだけの話では。COM:PRPによれば、ファイルはライセンスに疑義のある状態では受け入れ不可なので、あなたが疑義のない形にすればよろしい。No Sourceは1週間の猶予があるのに何が「闇討ち」か。疑わしいファイルを突然アップロードするほうがよっぽど闇討ちだろがい。--1.33.123.150 07:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
ひょっとしてあなたは日本版Wikipediaで無期限ブロックを受けた羽生さんかんさんじゃないですか?つい最近も「マケイン文芸部」と称する人物が奇妙な編集を行っていたようですし。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- だと思えば勝手にそう思ってれば? レッテル貼りしかできない惨めな人だね。ちなみにJAWPは「日本版」じゃなくて「日本語版」ですけどね。日本語を話す非日本人を排除する思想をお持ちのようで。--1.33.123.150 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
通常の削除依頼であれば第三者が削除の是非を判断します。しかし、あなたの場合は第三者を介入させない形で強行削除を繰り返しました。また、「1週間の猶予」も短すぎますね。通常の削除依頼であれば最終判断が下されるまでに数か月を要することもあります。
あなたは著作権侵害を叫ぶ前にオリジナル画像のリンクを提示すべきだったはずです。それをせずに多くの画像を闇に葬り去るのは荒らし行為と言わざるを得ません。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- これ以上はもう埒が明かないので最後にします。「あなたは著作権侵害を叫ぶ前にオリジナル画像のリンクを提示すべきだったはずです」とのことだが、その義務を負っているのはCOM:EVIDによればアップロード者でありこちらではない。こちらはその画像がCommonsにあろうがなかろうがどうでもいい、ただ怪しいファイルには消えてほしい。だから今後も原典が「Unknown source」などとだけ書かれたファイルがあれば、No Sourceを貼る。あなたがそのファイルを残したいのであれば、原典を示す責任はあなたにある。責任転嫁も甚だしいんだよ。削除されたとしても、原典を示せるのであれば再アップロードすればそれでよし。--1.33.123.150 23:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
私はあなたが削除した画像のアップロード者ではありませんから、原典を示す義務は私にはありません。削除すべき画像がCommons上に存在するのであれば、あなたがその理由を一つ一つ丁寧に説明すべきでした。
あなたは自分のこれまでの振る舞いに一点の曇りもないと強く信じているのであれば、なおさら通常の削除依頼を行い、第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでした。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
なお、あなたとの関連性を疑われる「マケイン文芸部」は無期限ブロックされました。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: appears to have been published before 1957 (and created before 1946). --Abzeronow (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: old photo, possibly before 1946, publication date unknown. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
この画像の出典は『東京横浜復興建築図集 1923-1930』(建築学会、1931年)ですが、削除せよと主張している人がいます。 --ブルーメンタール (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Published in 1931 per source. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like a pre-war photo. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
File:TW 台北市 Taipei 大同區 Datong District 迪化街二段 Dihua Street 遊客中心 Visitor Centre March 2024 R12S 07.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep QR codes are not copyrightable, the scribbled buildings/mountains etc are de minimis. If not, I can blur them, the image won't loose it's value. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. Unused and no clear educational purpose. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per IronGargoyle, out of scope. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Well-Informed Optimist as no source (No source since). Discussion is needed as per COM:GOF. Quick1984 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: will fix file, readded license for photo. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Photo courtesy of Kinmen Daily News, see the original post at [2]. 0x0a (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- 如果是這樣就麻煩刪掉 Jason22 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: we need a source that states it was published before 1957 (and created before 1946). --Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
According to User_talk:DarioCUELLAR#Deleted_content this file has been deleted. This file now has a link to File:Desktop Screenshot 2024.05.08 - 19.56.25.89.png and some text. To me this does not look correct. Can this file be deleted? JopkeB (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It looks like a wrongly placed request to move back the deleted image, with the screenshot as prove.
@DarioCUELLAR: A correct request:
- should be addressed to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team and
- the proof should be an email from the owner of the copyright in the format shown in that page (also available in Spanish); the consent should be for commercial use and modify also, exactly as stated in the example/format.
--JopkeB (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Per warning: Post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in USA A1Cafel (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Is Blair Gormal a person of historical significance? If not then I don't see why this photo needs to be held by wikimedia. 2A02:C7E:5C65:6C00:4941:A0F6:A889:33BC 11:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Louisa Johnson, the other person in the photo is notable, even though Blair Gormal is unclear. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: One of only two photos of Louisa Johnson, who is notable. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The political party had no unified election symbol. German2000 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The political party had no unified official election symbol. so, this symbol is inaccurate to demonstrate that the party had a Crecent as an election symbol. In the Egyptian electoral system, the candidate chooses their election symbol, regardless of party affiliation. German2000 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- But COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm reasonably confident that, despite the photograph being properly free because it was created by an employee of the United States government acting within the scope of their official duties, this does not negate the fact that this statue is copyright of living artist Benjamin Victor, and it was photographed in the US where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3d artworks. DS (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same issue with this one and this one and this one and many of the ones in this category. DS (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, we would need VRT permission from Benjamin Victor. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
There are only three Commons photos of Jia Jia, who is the main topic of this gallery. For some reason it also features a photo of Jia Kuo, of whom there are only two photos in total. The recently created Category:Jia Jia and Category:Jia Kuo are currently more useful than a gallery page. These topics don't yet benefit from samples or overviews. Sinigh (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Фотография человека, умершего в 2004 году, не может быть собственной работой 2024 года. Jim Hokins (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: 1960s or 1970s Russian photo, not PD, not an own work. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This letter is not own work of uploader. It is a letter from the musical artist David Bowie. It was sent from the UK, to America via mail. The CC license is invalid as the uploader did not create the work. Can be undeleted 70 years after the death of Bowie. Only way this could be kept if {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. Would mailing a letter with no notice from the UK to USA count as simultaneous publication? PascalHD (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm the Sandra Adams who received the letter. I'm now Sandra Dodd.
- If the legalities require it to be deleted, I don't mind. I've had a scan of it on my own website for over 20 years, and when "Letters of Note" found it there and picked it up, it went EVERYWHERE. King Features made another scan, so there are two images out there.
- The letter was mine; addressed to me, sent to me.
- The physical letter was sold, a few years ago. Last I heard it was in a museum in Japan; that was probably a traveling exhibit.
- The fact that I received it, and eventually scanned it, can't be undone. :-) 2601:8C0:703:7270:E1EF:BA56:81F:982B 16:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Having copies and physical possession is not the same as the issue in question; copyright. Wiki Commons required all files to be freely licensed or public domain. Based on the evidence, it does not meet those requirements to be hosted here until it enters the Public Domain 70 years after authors death, per COM:L. By all means it can be posted anywhere else in the internet. Glad to hear it is in a museum, cool! PascalHD (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Unpublished (until recently) work, Undelete in 2087. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Bogus PD rationale (70pma for an unnamed author), no evidence of first publication 70 or more years ago to meet COM:Russia requirements. Quick1984 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- She was photographed in jail procedure when Joseph Stalin ruled. She was freed from jail when Joseph Stalin died in 1953. So, 2024 - 1953 = 71. And this is a minimum, because the mugshot probably from 1949, when she was arrested. It's obvious public domain, I suppose. Are you having other opinion? Thank you, anyway, for your attention on Wikimedia Commons patrolling. PoetVeches (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rules are about publication, not creation. Quick1984 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, the mugshot done by KGB USSR, so it's again obvious public domain. Do you think someone can obtain rights of mugshots done by KGB USSR? Maybe CIA or Mossad? PoetVeches (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just read here Licensing "Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information)." You was just wrong, I suppose, implying "70 years since first publication". Read the Licensing again, please (description in more section). PoetVeches (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found also other reason of public domain: the document (mugshot of Lina Stern) is brought from Source: "Website https://bessmertnybarak.ru/article/noch_kaznennykh_poetov/" that has license for all documents: "Free copying (Rus. Свободное копирование). Free copying. Any use and reprinting of materials is welcomed by the editors of the project. The materials are collected from various sources, often family memories. We believe that information about these important pages of history should be free for distribution, no restrictions can be imposed on them. This is our history, and we are obliged to know it, preserve it and tell it to children. (Rus. Любое использование и перепечатка материалов приветствуется редакцией проекта. Материалы собраны из разных источников, часто это семейные воспоминания. Мы считаем, что сведения об этих важных страницах истории должны быть свободными для распространения, на них не могут накладываться никакие ограничения. Это наша история, и мы обязаны ее знать, сохранять и рассказывать детям.)" So, it was published in the source under Free copying license. Anyway, if you think it is wrong, you may delete the file, because maybe you have more experience on Wikimedia. In God we trust. PoetVeches (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses policy. The one you describe is not acceptable. Quick1984 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are very inattentive. There is no point in reading the text of a deliberately irrelevant template that you have set up, since if you do not know who the author is, you cannot claim that he died more than 70 years ago. Regarding the terms of copyright for works created in the USSR and Russia, carefully read the link already provided to you above: COM:Russia#Durations. Quick1984 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found also other reason of public domain: the document (mugshot of Lina Stern) is brought from Source: "Website https://bessmertnybarak.ru/article/noch_kaznennykh_poetov/" that has license for all documents: "Free copying (Rus. Свободное копирование). Free copying. Any use and reprinting of materials is welcomed by the editors of the project. The materials are collected from various sources, often family memories. We believe that information about these important pages of history should be free for distribution, no restrictions can be imposed on them. This is our history, and we are obliged to know it, preserve it and tell it to children. (Rus. Любое использование и перепечатка материалов приветствуется редакцией проекта. Материалы собраны из разных источников, часто это семейные воспоминания. Мы считаем, что сведения об этих важных страницах истории должны быть свободными для распространения, на них не могут накладываться никакие ограничения. Это наша история, и мы обязаны ее знать, сохранять и рассказывать детям.)" So, it was published in the source under Free copying license. Anyway, if you think it is wrong, you may delete the file, because maybe you have more experience on Wikimedia. In God we trust. PoetVeches (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just read here Licensing "Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information)." You was just wrong, I suppose, implying "70 years since first publication". Read the Licensing again, please (description in more section). PoetVeches (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, the mugshot done by KGB USSR, so it's again obvious public domain. Do you think someone can obtain rights of mugshots done by KGB USSR? Maybe CIA or Mossad? PoetVeches (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rules are about publication, not creation. Quick1984 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep In the absence of conflicting Russian case law, we rely on USA case law and mugshots are "made public" at creation, copies are made and viewed. --RAN (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Two things: we don't use US law to overrule Russian copyright law, so knowing publication date matters. Second, even if published in 1949, it would have been restored by URAA so it is under U.S. copyright until at least 2045. Undelete in 2070 when PD-old-assumed takes care of any publication issues unless publication can be proven earlier than 1974. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Pienso, entonces existo. No es trabajo propio. 200.39.139.26 15:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- 2013 upload, looks like source is a video. Abzeronow (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Turns out, this image already exists (File:Aslan Musin.jpg) Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: both in use. --Krd 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)