Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/11/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
,_ab_1950_als_99_4613_bezeichnet,_am_18._Oktober_1958_in_Pasewalk_(a).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14768043811).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio. This picture was publiched by voronezhnews.ru. НеКакВсе (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
All of these are fake maps ("alternative history") and out of scope.
- File:MiPres68.png
- File:Mi1869parl.png
- File:Mipar1868.png
- File:1865miprez.png
- File:Miparliment.png
- File:Mi 1862.png
- File:1962senate-2.svg
- File:1962senate.svg
- File:Map1858.png
- File:Mi1853.png
- File:MIPRES1.svg
- File:Blank map of Michigansenateshiw.svg
- File:Shiaw.png
Elli (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Uploads from one of those users who uploads copyrighted photos to Commons so that they can make fake election result infoboxes on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wjgand/sandbox), to take a screenshot for Reddit or whatever.
Belbury (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I,the author of the image, made a mistake in the brasil part of the map by using the wrong camouflage 190.113.115.34 06:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{subst:delete2|image=File:Palacio del inca.jpg|reason=por falta de metadatos}} ~~~~ Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, reasonably soon uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
COPYVIO, raster duplicate of non-free file on Wikipedia, see en:File:Coat_of_arms_of_South_Africa.svg Thespoondragon (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- This photo is taken from Ukrainian Wikipedia. uk:File:Coat_of_arms_of_South_Africa.svg--121.200.86.194 05:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @121.200.86.194: To take screenshot of vector image and save it as raster image? For what? --Рассилон (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: image is used on the project. If it is replaced by the svg version, the png may be deleted per COM:DUPE. Please notify if that has been realised. --Ellywa (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Fair use is not permitted on Commons. The version on en Wikipedia is fair use en:File:Coat of arms of South Africa.svg - no indication that this is freely licensed Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license claim. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
miss uplode ねぎねぎ (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7. Brianjd (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
vandalized image not useful for an encyclopedic purpose: note the additional figure inserted far right DrKay (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, prank image, false claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
We have many black images, and we don't need those are unused and low quality A1Cafel (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Cover of a book. Copyright violation HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC) CiroGalves (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Archivo duplicado de https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Salvador_Borenus_Darko.jpg CiroGalves (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is not a duplicate, but the same file shown at es.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Solicito que se elimine la imagen a pedido de la persona fotografiada. CiroGalves (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Vk}} per four previous sections, no valid reason for deletion, especially after four years.— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the file should be deleted due to poor image quality and wrong filename. CiroGalves (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @CiroGalves Image quality is good. The file name being bad is not a reason to delete, but a reason to rename the file. See COM:FR for instructions. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I request that this photo File:Salvador BorenusDarko.jpg be removed and I wish to be allowed to keep File:Retrato de Salvador Borenus.jpg as a substitute for the first mentioned image. I am a perfectionist and I do not want unsatisfactory work to continue in this great community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiroGalves (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Löschen per pcp. On the one hand, CiroGalves has tried at least 8 times to have this photo deleted from Commons. The original's account has been removed from Flickr. However, per File:Retrato de Salvador Borenus.jpg and https://www.flickr.com/photos/c1rogalves/52503289180/ the photo has never had a proper license (like CC-0) on Flickr (and now has no camera metadata there), and Salvador Borenus is not the photographer. The "public domain mark" on Flickr is just an assertion that the image is in the public domain. In this case, I see no reason to believe it is an accurate assertion. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen. Why have we been trying to keep this out-of-scope image that serves no educational purpose? Is the subject notable somehow and I'm missing it? IronGargoyle (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: well then, deleted per the discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
concern of copyright violation グリーンベレー (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:SPAM Evs (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy deleteG10F10combo Lemonaka (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Kadı. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The man on the image don't like that his image is online. Please delete this image. Etvdv (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Question Which image? The image of the nude man or the image that's totally irrelevant to the title that you have gone back and forth about whether to substitute for it? What is depicted in the land-and-waterscape, and would you like that to be online? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hope the image of the nude man can stay online. This with the see can be deleted. Thanks. (Etvdv (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Please delete only the images with the sea and the unused nude man images. I changed my mind and will let my nude image online on Wikimedia. Thanks. Etvdv{{Etvdv (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)}}
Kommentar Uploader is nominator. Uploader overwrote the file several times, as noted above, and added the file to Nudity. Brianjd (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The man on the image don't like that his image is online. Please delete both images. Etvdv (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I now sugar that the image with the nude man can stay online. Please delete all the unused images. The final image is this I Use now. It is my own image but I was not sugar that is was good for my imago. Now is that no problem. Please undelete my image. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etvdv (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- I confirm my decision and sign this message. (Etvdv (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
with this photo I am threatened by spreading them everywhere with hate messages. Etvdv (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- What is going on? Why does the nominator/uploader keep changing their mind? What is with the nonsense in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude outdoor.jpg? Why is there (almost) an allegation of abuse in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Older nude man.jpg? And a suggestion of intimidation in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naturisme.jpg? Brianjd (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Krd 05:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Per previous DRs (no longer in use) and uploader’s request on their talk page. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen Unused; uploader wants it deleted. If deleted, it cannot be used anymore so the drama will be resolved. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the benefit of other users, the drama here is the discussions at the uploader’s talk page and simple:Talk:Nude photography. Brianjd (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen Completely lacking in educational value. AshFriday (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Published in France, and because Ernst died in 1976 it is not in the public domain in its source country, only in the US. Hekerui (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
not used Gnarsgnars (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We keep multiple images of notable people. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer used. Removed by uploader. Gnarsgnars (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- In use; what are you talking about? However, the EXIF - "_error" - is concerning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- In use at cs:Murat Saygıner. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muratsayginer.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Krd 05:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
not used Gnarsgnars (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
no reason for deletion given. he has an article in english-WP Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We keep multiple images of notable people. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer used. Removed by uploader. Gnarsgnars (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken: it is in use. However, the EXIF - "_error" - is concerning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- In use at cs:Murat Saygıner. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muratsayginer.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Krd 05:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gnarsgnars as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for G7. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
No longer used. Removed by uploader. Gnarsgnars (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Kommentar: notable artist. However, the EXIF - "_error" - is concerning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek More concerning is the information template that gives the source as Website. But no non-Wikimedia hits on TinEye. Brianjd (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Gnarsgnars But uploaded in 2011, more than 10 years ago. Much too long for a courtesy deletion without an exceptional reason. Brianjd (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 05:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as claimed, looks like a photo of a photo Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Internet/google - all need OTRS
- File:AnthonyAbellCollege.png
- File:Ministry of Finance and Economy.png
- File:AnthonyAbell.p.jpg
- File:Zil.p.jpg
- File:Baiduri logo.jp.png
- File:Mrspad2 logo PNG.png
- File:Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Secondary School.jpg
- File:ProgresifHG.jpg
- File:Borneobulletin.jpg
- File:Fjar.jpe.jpg
- File:Moc main office.svj.jpg
- File:Moc.svj.jpg
- File:Moe.svj.png
- File:Sayyidina ali secondary school.svj.jpg
- File:Salim.svj.jpg
- File:BIBD.svj.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Not own work as claimed, all need OTRS
- File:CHAR 314.jpg
- File:CHAR 723.jpg
- File:Représentation de l'hôpital.jpg
- File:CAMOPI.jpg
- File:Projet de recherche.jpg
- File:CHAR 836.jpg
- File:Bâtiment de médecine.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, a number have author info in exif
- File:Theodore Orjii.jpg
- File:Hon Nnenna Elendu Ukeje.jpg
- File:Promise Uzoma.jpg
- File:Chinedum Orji.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen per nomination. File:Promise Uzoma.jpg is two days younger than this post on his Facebook page [1]. File:Chinedum Orji.jpg has "MEDIA UNIT - OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER - ABHA" across the bottom. All appear to be press/promo photos. Storchy (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Post-1975 Italy photo, still under copyright per warning of the template A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Post-1975 photo, still under copyright per warning of the template A1Cafel (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Source is personal archive (in English) doesn't necessary mean that this photo is the uploader's work. Considering the history of the photo, IMO a proper source and license should be provided to verify copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source is personal archive (in English) doesn't necessary mean that this photo is the uploader's work. Considering the history of the photo, IMO a proper source and license should be provided to verify copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Appears to be an old photographs, definitely not recent work, but not sure whether it entered PD or not A1Cafel (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be an old photographs, definitely not recent work, but not sure whether it entered PD or not A1Cafel (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Not own work as claimed Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
In Germany, freedom of panorama is only valid for works permanently installed in one place. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Participates in the U.S.-India Forum with Indian Foreign Secretary Shringla (50480382546).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo Courtesy Indian Ministry of External Affairs, not from the US Federal Government, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo Courtesy Indian Ministry of Defense, not from the US Federal Government, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo Courtesy Indian Ministry of Defense, not from the US Federal Government, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
copyrights violation possibility グリーンベレー (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Free Alaa Abd El-Fattah, on hunger strike in Egypt. His sister Mona Seif protesting outside the British Foreign Office.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Protester with two placards calling on the UK to 'free Assange' and expressing concern about 'the future of the free press'.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Zevulun (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
A dark, blurry and unused image, no educational value A1Cafel (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:VRT should be used instead. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Shoptoonangita (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Above COM:TOO UK? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused random image of nondescript water ripples, no context, no educational use, indistinguishable and unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Apparently OOS self-promotion. User's only upload, October 2019. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
OOS personal photo Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi 24x7 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Agenezik13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]None have exif, many have FBMD, unlikely to be own work as claimed, PCP
- File:Engr Abubakar Ohere.jpg
- File:Edward onoja 33.jpg
- File:Imu Ovaioza Yunusa.jpg
- File:Edward David Onoja 2.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, VRT permission required. — Tulsi 24x7 06:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi 24x7 06:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eldriandejose (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that are not in use and seem unlikely to be of wider use to the project. Commons is not a web hosting platform
- File:EldrianLopez 5.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 6.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 8.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 7.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 4.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 2.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 3.jpg
- File:EldrianLopez 1.jpg
- File:Main Eldrian.png
Herby talk thyme 11:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi 24x7 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo non libre de droit https://iqna.ir/fr/news/3479583/la-grande-mosqu%C3%A9e-dalger Aréat (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen: copyvio, the website's footer has an "all rights reserved" statement (© Tous droits réservés à IQNA) --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely above the threshold of originality as the flames can't really be described as simple geometric shapes. Could be replaced with File:Grand Theft Auto logo series.svg if necessary. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
- Löschen. The logo is originally from the UK so TOO is very likely reached. IceWelder [✉] 23:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
Needs to be a file that is own work JL 91411 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Fee Alaa Abd El-Fattah Before COP27. Alaa's sisters, Mona and Sanaa Seif, protesting outside the British Foreign Office.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The banner is only a small part of the image? Incidental inclusion. --TimSC (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content - raw text better hosted elsewhere Headlock0225 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Kleinbahn Klockow-Pasewalk. Die ehemalige KKP-Lok 2 (Orenstein & Koppel 3010 von 1908), ab 1950 als 99 4613 bezeichnet, am 18. Oktober 1958 in Pasewalk (a).jpg
[edit],_ab_1950_als_99_4613_bezeichnet,_am_18._Oktober_1958_in_Pasewalk_(a).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_ab_1950_als_99_4613_bezeichnet,_am_18._Oktober_1958_in_Pasewalk_(a).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
NO PD-Poland. Picture was taken in Eastern Germany in 1958. Not in the public domain, photographer unknown. Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted image see metadata "Author jelle muller Copyright holder jelle mullerCopyright status Copyrighted Online copyright statement www.ashot.be" Hoyanova (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused low quality photo of random foot with indistinguishable background, no context, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Löschen Poor quality image of very common object we have many much better illustrations of. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
ordinary person; IMG not used @WM Mateus2019 (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Kommentar It is currently in use. It also has a great background, which I would like User:Sulavxettriko to please identify. If Sulavxettriko would also assure us that they took this photo, that would be helpful, too, since there is no metadata. The thing is, though, is this a joke page? The Simple Wikipedia article identifies Rip Bahadur Khatri as the Prime Minister of Nepal, and there is no trace of such a name at w:Prime Minister of Nepal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek It’s telling me that the file is not in use, so apparently things change quickly around here. Brianjd (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted from Simple English Wikipedia as a fake or hoax. That explains everything. Brianjd (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Was used in hoax. Despite the quality of the background, hoax use and low resolution give little reason to believe it is free. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Icone without META data, unlikely from uploader. Pierre cb (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Id22091988 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Claimed as own work but a mix of cameras, some with no exif, only uploads of this user. PCP
- File:Margarita-Kovalova.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi feat-Margarita-Kovalova-22-02-2021.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2015.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2017.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2016.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2012.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2006.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2010.jpg
- File:Proty-Nochi-2008.jpg
- File:Tyho-Presentation -by-Proty-Nochi-18-03-2018.jpg
- File:Logo-Proty-Nochi Монтажная область 1.svg
- File:Logo-Proty-Nochi.svg
Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author is Alain Rolland/European Union, not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Original licence template was {{PD Mark 1.0}}, which you replaced with {{PD-USGov-DOS}}. I don't understant: isn't {{PD Mark 1.0}} allowed on Commons? --Titlutin (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Titlutin As explained in the template’s documentation, {{PD Mark 1.0}} is acceptable only when used outside of Commons and applied by the copyright holder. Brianjd (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author is Alain Rolland/European Union, not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Original licence template was {{PD Mark 1.0}}, which you replaced with {{PD-USGov-DOS}}. I don't understant: isn't {{PD Mark 1.0}} allowed on Commons?--Titlutin (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Picture does not depict Eston Hemings Jefferson, it is actually an 1860s photo of Confederate States Secretary of War George W. Randolph CzarJobKhaya (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then the file must be renamed, not deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- So sorry, I agree that it should be renamed.CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- also file:Global 2019.svg
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Uploader is blocked as copyviolator. Taivo (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
orphan talk page Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
No information of the creation date, the creator nor the publication date. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 17:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
A very dark image, cannot see the subject clearly. We have plenty of images that illustrate darkness, and we don't need a low quality one A1Cafel (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Weak delete The description clearly says that the the image’s purpose is not to illustrate darkness, but rather to illustrate how well a particular camera copes with that darkness.
- That seems useful, but it might only be useful when multiple devices are tested under the same conditions. Brianjd (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 17:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Personal photos of non-contributors. --Kadı Message 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Clearly not "own work" but taken from agefotostock.com Fram (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Original version of the photo may be old, but this one comes from a photo stock website, so it is modified. Copyrighted, such files can not exist in Commons. --Kadı Message 19:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo issue de Paris Match, non libre de droit : https://www.parismatch.com/Royal-Blog/Le-prince-Moulay-El-Hassan-du-Maroc-a-16-ans-1623179#1 Aréat (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo issue de Purepeople, non libre de droit : https://www.purepeople.com/media/le-prince-moulay-el-hassan-du-maroc-le_m5079809 Aréat (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader had permission for file found on the subject's blog 208.184.161.147 22:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is an older file anyway and can be deleted. the current file has the appropriate license added. - eatoz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatoz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- fix. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the licensing of the original of the photo being edited here, the image includes substantial content of a piece of modern proprietary software. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DMacks
- That's kinda odd. This file is part of a series of three screenshots – but the deletion request discussion refers only to this one. While another one seems to be fine and the third got the nuclear option of speedy deletion.
- Well, I get your concern regarding the problem with proprietary software, but that series was meant to be an updated version of this file. There have been several attempts at deleting that one too, but apparently to no avail. Since user Ralf Roletschek takes copyright issues and permissions in general very seriously, I trusted his judgement and basically used his permission template.
- But (tbh) I missed checking with Adobe and see what they have to say about using Screenshots of their products. And they state "You may use screenshots in advertising, on documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books and tutorial apps, in video, or on websites, provided you meet the following guidelines". After adding the missing copyright attribution statement in the file description, all guidelines should be adhered to. In my opinion commons serves mainly educational and documentational purposes and therefore a publication is possible.
- I won't go through the hassle updating the other two as well before the issue is resolved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affegass (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- KR, Affegass (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Affegass, you raise good points about the originality of the interface elements and what Adobe grants by default. I had not seen that DR discusion for the other Photoshop screenshot. I had actually meant to tag this one for speedy, but mis-clicked the tool, after having deleted a different one that User:Matr1x-101 had tagged. For now, I'm undeleting that one and re-tagging the set of them as part of this here DR:
- Will comment on the substance of the licensing later today when I have more time, but wanted to get out of the speedy world ASAP so we can discuss it. DMacks (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Affegass and DMacks: Assuming that the software elements shown are copyrightable, we must fall back on the Adobe guidelines, which are an obvious deal breaker. There is all sorts of stuff in there that contradicts Commons’ requirement that files are free to use for all purposes. Brianjd (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly… the communitiy's guidelines for what to do and not to do are a complete mess and clusterfuck of epic proportions. I.e. your link: basically it tells you: no screenshots of non-free software. One link further you'll get to a matrix that in parts contradicts the whole thing. How should anyone make sense of that? Okay. I'm getting a bit sidetracked in fundamentals here, but how can it be that in the year 18 of commons' existence there is A still no plain and easily understandable concept of what is acceptable and B no apparent strategy how to deal with these special cases as screenshots for software as educational material. I mean… is it that difficult for the WMF to get in contact with the big software players and see if there's a chance to come to an understanding if under certain rules, screenshots can be in line with WMFs ideals? Affegass (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Affegass these special cases as screenshots for software as educational material (emphasis added) That sounds like fair use, which is not allowed here! Like I said above, Commons requires files to be free for all purposes.
- Regarding the rest of your comment, it’s not the fault of the WMF or the Commons community that copyright is ridiculously complicated or that some big companies are copyright maximalists (I’m not saying that Adobe is one of them, but as far as I know, Adobe is not known for using free licenses). Also, just to give a recent example: At Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Arch Linux, someone suggested that Arch Linux is wrongly claiming copyright on their logo. If they can’t get that right, what do you expect from Adobe?
- Could you elaborate on exactly what you would like the WMF or the Commons community to do? Brianjd (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note to Commons:Licensing about freely-licensed screenshots, but your description is way over the top, unless there are more contradictions you would like to elaborate on? Brianjd (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly… the communitiy's guidelines for what to do and not to do are a complete mess and clusterfuck of epic proportions. I.e. your link: basically it tells you: no screenshots of non-free software. One link further you'll get to a matrix that in parts contradicts the whole thing. How should anyone make sense of that? Okay. I'm getting a bit sidetracked in fundamentals here, but how can it be that in the year 18 of commons' existence there is A still no plain and easily understandable concept of what is acceptable and B no apparent strategy how to deal with these special cases as screenshots for software as educational material. I mean… is it that difficult for the WMF to get in contact with the big software players and see if there's a chance to come to an understanding if under certain rules, screenshots can be in line with WMFs ideals? Affegass (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep der Löschantrag ist Nonsens, es ist nichts geschütztes im Bild. Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Translation: There is nothing copyrightable in the picture.
- Perhaps that’s true. It’s basically text and simple shapes. Brianjd (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Screenshot of Adobe Photoshop, software is under a copyright. --Yann (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is made soon after or even during WWII, so this is not own work. Real author and publication data are needed to determine copyright status. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Planespotter said: REAL photographer is Alexander Less as credited in newspaper «Победа за нами» ("Victory is behind us") number 164 from 1945-12-22. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
no source given Hoyanova (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Hoyanova. Can you tell me why there is a problem with the source? I contacted the owner/maker of the picture via Instagram to add his selfmade picture (photo at a festival) to Wikimedia Commons. Logically that it the source is his own work, isn't it? Niels98 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Niels98 The file was uploaded by Pogbot. Who are you? Brianjd (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Brianjd. If you click on the name of the author, you are directed to the page of Pogbot... And I was in contact with the author/uploader. I saw the picture and asked him to upload it. Niels98 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Niels98 OK, your earlier message was ambiguous. In that message, to add could mean to get permission (how I interpreted it) or to actually upload [by himself] (which is how you seem to mean it).
- As you point out, the author line is a link to Pogbot’s user page. But it doesn’t say Pogbot; it says Minu Kim. It is easy to miss the fact that it is actually Pogbot. Perhaps that was Hoyanova’s error? Brianjd (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Ah. You are right, my first message was not completely clear ;) To clarify: The picture is uploaded by Minu Kim (Pogbot) and it is his own work :) And yes... maybe @Hoyanova was confused by the fact that the names of Pogbot and Minu Kim are used both (what I can understand if you see it like this). Niels98 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjdand @Hoyanova. Is it possible to delete the picture from the nomination list? I did not do it before, so I do not understand the process. Niels98 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Niels98 It has been more than 7 days, so an admin should close the deletion request. But we have a huge backlog, so it might take a long time. Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjdand @Hoyanova. Is it possible to delete the picture from the nomination list? I did not do it before, so I do not understand the process. Niels98 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Ah. You are right, my first message was not completely clear ;) To clarify: The picture is uploaded by Minu Kim (Pogbot) and it is his own work :) And yes... maybe @Hoyanova was confused by the fact that the names of Pogbot and Minu Kim are used both (what I can understand if you see it like this). Niels98 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Brianjd. If you click on the name of the author, you are directed to the page of Pogbot... And I was in contact with the author/uploader. I saw the picture and asked him to upload it. Niels98 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Niels98 The file was uploaded by Pogbot. Who are you? Brianjd (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Xavere as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Besitzer des Schleppers und möchte nicht, dass mein Kennzeichen sichtbar ist --Xavere (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. You have uploaded this image >11 years ago and NOW claim the license-plate is visible? -- Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- at this time i didn't think about this. But now wouldn't upload a picture with licence plate again Xavere (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I've now blanked-out the license-plate and hidden the original image. Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio
Speedy keep I thought the original would still be in the Wayback Machine, but it’s not. Anyway, I suggest closing this early, if there’s no other arguments for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio
- Ok. I've now blanked-out the license-plate and hidden the original image.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Completely darkness image, showed nothing about the Russo-Ukrainian war. We already had plenty images that illustrate darkness, we don't need a low quality one A1Cafel (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, it is unfortunate that it is a low quality picture, but it does illustrate darkness caused by particular circumstances, which are different from other circumstances — Russian assault on Chernihiv in the early days of the war. I do see educational value in the picture as per the COM:SCOPE. Of course when there are other pictures of blackouts in Chernihiv at that time uploaded we might consider deleting this one as redundant. --Base (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Grainy bad quality photo of a photo of unknown copyright. Pierre cb (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Happycook28 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Happycook28 asked me to Commons:License review these files on my talk page. Unfortunately the YouTube video they come from is not actually Creative Commons Attribution licensed. COM:WHERE#YouTube explains how to check - it doesn't have the "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" under the "SHOW MORE" link. Sorry.
GRuban (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Adding one more,
- also asked about on my talk page. Reasons:
- The Flickr user https://www.flickr.com/people/196908211@N04/ just created his account this month.
- They only have 5 photos on that account, and the other 4 have nothing to do with that red carpet event.
- Those other 4 images are from 2017, 2018, were taken by different cameras, have EXIF, and are noticeably larger.
- This image has no EXIF, was taken in 2022 and is noticeably smaller.
- Possibly most important, that image looks an awful lot like a crop of the image at the Justin Chatwin Online fan page, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=443008357827536&set=pb.100063551257793.-2207520000.&type=3 - though I will admit, those first 4 reasons were what made me go search for another copy of this image somewhere public on the internet.
- For all these reasons, I strongly suspect that Flickr user does not own this image. In fact, if I were a suspicious person, I might even suspect that Flickr user account was created specifically to be able to upload this image to Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia.
Commons:License laundering is our page on that, and it urges us to nominate these for deletion. --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete all of 'em. It's a shame that those are all problematically unacceptable.
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 14:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC); edited on 14:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Skazi as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://vk.com/albums41876175 Kadı Message 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This chart has no meaning, no source, no educational use. No proportions in this chart for this definitionsis meaningful. Uploaded for students test. Drakosh (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hallo ein relativ neuer User kennt das richtige Eintragen von Lizenzen nicht. Hier wird Hilfe benötigt .... es hat dadurch ca. 15 bis 20 Bilder "verloren"--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No license, no EXIF data. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, just random group photo (Mistři = Champions in Czech) — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Possible copyvio: Album cover Kadı Message 14:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheberin ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Официальный сайт Одессы не разрешает использование материалов в коммерческих целях. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
poor quality AnhaltER1960 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Kommentar Do we have other photos of these buildings in Edinburgh? If largely redundant to better photos, delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused random photo of nondescript cat, no context, little educational use, unusable and out of scope. Redundant to innumerable better cat photos already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Not random to me - black and grayish with black head - and not nearly too bad to use as a thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Not too bad to use as a thumbnail"??? Your standards are too low. There are innumerable high quality cat photos already on Commons. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Spend some time on COM:VIC. Only the thumbnail really matters for online articles. This is a cat with a particular kind of look, and I don't see what's gained by hiding this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, COM:VIC has nothing to do with scope. COM:PS: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose include files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." (bold emphasis mine) IMO, Commons shouldn't become the dumping ground for every conceivable free image, no matter how crummy (which it is fast becoming anyway). OK, enough said, closing admin can deal with it. Regards, --P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of the policy. The fact that you and I disagree on where to draw the line shouldn't give you the license to claim that I want Commons to be a dumping ground for every conceivable free image, nor for me to claim that you want to eliminate every photo that is not of Quality Image level because you get off on deleting things (I don't believe that, by the way; I believe you are acting in what you sincerely believe is the interest of Commons, just as I am acting in what I believe is the interest of users and the exchange of potentially useful content). My record shows that I do support deleting unusable photos, but that's almost beside the point to me right now. You personally insult me and then finish with "regards." Regards yourself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: My apologies. It was certainly not my intention to insult, nor was that statement meant to be personal, rather a general observation. I know that you too are acting in good faith, in the interest of Commons. Keep up the good work. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, accepted. You too. I appreciate the work you do to get lots of unusable crap deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The cat is not even sharp (motion blur). --Yann (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am the person who this photo represents. I was a minor--17 years old at the time of this photo. I have contacted the photographer and told him that I am very uncomfortable of him posting photos of me when I was a minor, without my consent, and have expressed my desire to have this photo taken down. I do not consent to this photo, of me as an underaged person, being posted on the internet without my consent. 71.71.108.213 23:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep First, no proof that this random is the person depicted (Olga Tsitlik). Even if that this is the case this photo was taken in 2007 (15 years ago) in a public eventin a public space (a demonstration in Washington DC) and fact that this can be an underage in this particular case is irrelevant and this photo is not demaning or abusive to the person depicted or attacks in any anyway the good name or character of said person.
- In the words of the very photographer this march were a "small march, with only ten people (...) In the regular DC crowd, we had Jeff, Luke, Olga, Dylan (Olga’s guy), Isis, and myself, as well as four others", i.e. the photographer and the person depicted knew\knows each other at least on some personal level, not as some random photographer photographs some random person as this IP seems to try to imply.
- Also, there is no need of consent for the taking and publication of this photo as, per the same words of the photographer, this was an "small protest march on Saturday in DC – a march reminding all of the FBI’s roundup of alleged environmental and animal rights activists" and they "marched from Farragut Square to the FBI building via the White House in our “Resist the Greenscare”, i.e. this march, an public event, happened in public space.
- Per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/en#Examples, "The following examples do not require consent in many countries: (...) An anonymous person, in a public place, especially as part of a larger crowd" and per Commons:Country specific consent requirements there is no expectation of privacy in a public space and\or public event in the United States. Tm (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Tm I agree that we need proof that the nominator is Olga Tsitlik; we also need proof that Olga was underage at the time. And I generally agree with the rest of your reasoning – assuming that all that stuff that the photographer said is true.
- While you are eager to demand various sorts of proof from the nominator, you seem equally eager to take the photographer at their word. It may turn out that things are not what they seem. The nominator says they have contacted the photographer; if they succeed in having the photo removed at Flickr and the blog, then we should at least consider a courtesy deletion here. If what the photographer says is true, then we have plenty of other images of the same event; there doesn’t seem to be any pressing reason to keep this one. Not in use; not linked; uploaded in 2020; apparently uploaded to Flickr in 2020. Brianjd (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- In cases of deletions like this, i tend prefer to believe in the word of someone that is identified, than someone that claims to be someone but is unidentified and essentially anonymous and with unkown motives to open this deletion request. Tm (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- You quote this example: The following examples do not require consent in many countries: (...) An anonymous person, in a public place, especially as part of a larger crowd
- But you can hardly claim that the person is anonymous when you identify the person in the same comment. What are you trying to say here? Also, this image focuses on that identified person; it does not show them as part of a larger crowd. So that part does not apply either. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- As is clearly quoted this is for "many countries". i.e. this is the generic example to the most part of the world, i.e. in a public space there is a generalized .The term "large crowd" comment is preceded by the word "especially" , not "in a", i.e. in several countries there is no or small expectation of privacy in public setting.
- An naming someone with two names is not identified someone, i.e. not doxxing. I could point several people online that have nothing in common except this same name and are unrelated with the depicted person.
- As this image was taken in the case of the USA, as clearly stated in Commons:Country specific consent requirements there is no expectation of privacy in a public place and, more strongly, this was a public event, not some stalker taking pcitures of someone on its backyard. Tm (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Do minors demonstrating in public in the U.S. have the right to require takedowns of photos of them? If they don't and we choose to delete this photo, we need to specify that we are doing so as a courtesy only. I say this not to be unfriendly or disrespectful of Olga but because if we unnecessarily accept her premise, we might find ourselves unable to host images showing anyone or at least anyone who might have been a minor in public, lest someone complain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- And why do we are discussing this image taking as a fact, with zero proof, that the IP is the depicted person? Tm (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's another question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Tm We could have simply noted the nominator was anonymous, directed them to COM:VRT, and waited for an admin to close this DR (if no proof was provided). But you basically wrote an essay dismissing even the possibility of courtesy deletion. I felt the need to balance that with some comments of my own. And now it’s blown up into a huge discussion. Brianjd (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Yes, we should always be careful about what precedent we set. I used the word courtesy in my comment above, and that word should also be prominently included in the deletion rationale if the file ends up being deleted that way. I also said that we need proof that the nominator is who they say they are and that they were underage at the time. That’s a high standard to meet; if it is met, it favours courtesy deletion. Brianjd (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- And to answer your question directly, absolutely not. They have no right to require takedowns.
- And to clarify, I would probably object to courtesy deletion even if suitable proof was provided. I am just saying that if we ever do courtesy deletions, then this would be a good candidate if such proof was provided. Brianjd (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- And why do we are discussing this image taking as a fact, with zero proof, that the IP is the depicted person? Tm (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
I'm uncomfortable with this map of a fictional country being described as the uploader's own work, because it's inherently a derivative of the IP of Tom Gleisner, Santo Cilauro and Rob Sitch. The "flag" of Molvania, I could see a reasonable argument for being below the threshold of originality, but not this. DS (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative work of the map from the book. See [2]. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
No conceivable value, notability concerns Emu (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
No conceivable value, notability concerns Emu (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
possible copvio: official logo uploaded as CC-BY-SA by an unverified account; as source is given simply the website, though I cannot see there being any hint that the logo can be used under these terms KPFC 💬 14:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ahmad Tavakkoli
[edit]Copyvio, screenshot from Iranian TV program aired in 1993. It can be undeleted in 2023.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @HeminKurdistan: If it's from 1993 and we assume a 30 year term, the copyright should run to the end of 2023, and undeletion can happen in 2024. Though a) Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran does not say if Iranian copyright terms run to the end of year like in most other countries and b) because of the Iranian calendar, the end of the Iranian year should be March 20th in Western calendars. Because we usually undelete at the beginning of January, undeletion should then be either in 2024 or 2025 depending on which part of 1993 this TV program is from. --Rosenzweig τ 23:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The programm most probably was aired in June 1993, when the presidential election was held. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion; undelete at the beginning of 2025. Or in April 2024 if anybody thinks of it. --Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleted It is now May 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 89.107.57.225 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Known personality in Japan, speedy deletion asked by a LTA, it should go through a regular DR Thibaut (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in use in multiple pages. --Geni (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
著作権違反のため みんなのピース (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @さよなら人類: 著作権侵害である根拠を示さないと、この依頼は{{Keep}}で終わる可能性があります。/ If you don't show proof of copyvio, this request may end with {{Keep}}. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence of copyvio given. --Yasu (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
internet-era fake, no proof whatsoever that this was a secret service agent's ID Ponor (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unchallenged. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
por falta de metadatos Lidia Guerrero Ayala (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyrightedes Foto ohne freigabe durch den Urheber Jbergner (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Rechte vom Urheber, das Foto hier zu verwenden. Ich kann den Urheber auch selbst bitten, es hochzuladen, CLHSTERN (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @CLHSTERN: Oder alternativ den Urheber eine Freigabe per E-Mail schicken lassen, siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 12:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs COM:VRT. Undelete if ever permission has been received. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
地图有误，想删除后重新创建 FradonStar (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate User:Albacore70 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC) It is a duplicate of File:TomaNSocolescu1880.jpg (The original to keep) {{--Albacore70 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)|12:15, 8 November 2022|Albacore70}}
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This map is redundant because it was recreated based on BlankMap-World.svg. It is not in use anymore. Saftorangen (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Those maps are obviously not the same (one is blank), so I don't see how this map is redundant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for being unclear, this is my first deletion request. I assumed that the existence of a {{vector version available}}-tag would be enough. Let me rephrase: I'm requesting File:World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.png to be deleted, as it has been made redundant by File:World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.svg. Saftorangen (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. No metadata and low resolution. seems like a screenshot HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Löschen False authorship claims; original image is from here respectively from that video. --Mosbatho (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" laut Metadaten aber Photo By Stephen Sartori Lutheraner (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
non-de minimus copyrighted content SecretName101 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I made a mistake in creating a new filename. Vinyasi (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Vinyasi Speedy delete as an unused, unlinked duplicate of 13 - Calculating the root mean square (RMS) voltages.png.
- But that file has its own problems. Its description says: I have permission from the author of this video to post screenshots of his video on Wikimedia Commons if I also provide a link-back to his video. That’s not good enough: Commons files (where subject to copyright) must be under a specific free license. For example, 13 - Calculating the root mean square (RMS) voltages.png claims to be licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. That’s not OK, unless the video author gives permission. Also, both files incorrectly claim to be your own work. Brianjd (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd I have permission from its author and have already notified Wikimedia permissions-commons and their blanket warning is that it may take two weeks. As for claiming File:13_-_Calculating_the_root_mean_square_(RMS)_voltages.png to be my own, its graffiti is my own, but yes, it's on top of someone else's work. And besides, this is what the final goal is, is: to list its copyright status this way. So, yes, this is a little bit premature, but I already have the email from the author and the "paperwork" is zipping through the appropriate bureaucratic channels, so I am not alarmed. Should I be? Thanks for commenting. -- Vinyasi (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Vinyasi I am not familiar with those processes, but according to Commons:Email templates, the file should be tagged with {{subst:PP}}. No such tag appears.
- If the file consists of something drawn on top of someone else’s work, then it’s not your own work. That needs to change, but perhaps that can wait until the other issues are resolved.
- (note for everyone else)
The fileThe other file (13 - Calculating the root mean square (RMS) voltages.png) is now in use on wikiversity:Free Energy does not Exist, so perhaps it is in scope after all. Brianjd (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)- @Brianjd Thank you. I'm somewhat new, here, so I need all of the advice I can get. I added the tag. I received a very speedy response from Permissions Authority a couple of hours ago asking me to ask the original author to follow procedure in releasing his handiwork. Very shortly afterward, he sent me an email acknowledging that he has done this. So, permission is almost complete. Thanks. -- Vinyasi (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Vinyasi Please don’t use edit summaries like added a tag upon the advice from someone more experienced than I. A more appropriate summary would be added {{subst:PP}} per Commons:Deletion requests/File:13 - Calculating the resistances.png. That way, if anyone has any questions, they know where to look.
- Also, you forgot to tag the file being discussed here, 13 - Calculating the resistances.png. Brianjd (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd I don't understand why I would want to tag a file which I want deleted? If I don't tag it, then it gets deleted, yes? -- Vinyasi (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Vinyasi: Deletion is based on an admin’s judgement, not tags (or lack of). But your overall point is valid. I got the files mixed up somehow. Brianjd (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd I don't understand why I would want to tag a file which I want deleted? If I don't tag it, then it gets deleted, yes? -- Vinyasi (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd Thank you. I'm somewhat new, here, so I need all of the advice I can get. I added the tag. I received a very speedy response from Permissions Authority a couple of hours ago asking me to ask the original author to follow procedure in releasing his handiwork. Very shortly afterward, he sent me an email acknowledging that he has done this. So, permission is almost complete. Thanks. -- Vinyasi (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd I have permission from its author and have already notified Wikimedia permissions-commons and their blanket warning is that it may take two weeks. As for claiming File:13_-_Calculating_the_root_mean_square_(RMS)_voltages.png to be my own, its graffiti is my own, but yes, it's on top of someone else's work. And besides, this is what the final goal is, is: to list its copyright status this way. So, yes, this is a little bit premature, but I already have the email from the author and the "paperwork" is zipping through the appropriate bureaucratic channels, so I am not alarmed. Should I be? Thanks for commenting. -- Vinyasi (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
_voltages.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept: no reason for deletion. --Krd 11:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:20 - Summation of results defying the initial assumption prior to performing this experiment.png
- File:15 - Total and individual resistances.png
- File:07 - Diagram for taking voltage measurements.png
- File:04 - First draft of a schematic of the experiment to be performed.png
- File:02 - Initial presumption of a shorted transformer.png
- File:Ammann with more diodes, v2c3c3g3c, output, precharged with 100V, v4, explosive at 38ns.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- It might be OK after all. Waiting for VRT. See the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Kommentar Now File:13 - Calculating the resistances.png has been marked as covered by VRT permission, but no such action has been taken on the files discussed here. Felix QW (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- It might be OK after all. Waiting for VRT. See the other DR. Brianjd (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright reserved by the Entomological society of Canada journal where it was first published, the Flicker repost is still held by that Kevmin § 00:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. I have doubts whether a faithful photograph of a flat fossil like this can attract copyright (following the logic of {{PD-Art}}). It is especially true in this case, as this example appears to be scanned and not photographed (no camera EXIF data, background lighting that suggests a scanner). IronGargoyle (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IG. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possible copyvio: image appears at https://www.spacerogue.net/wordpress/?page_id=49 ; no evidence that this account is the copyright holder Bri (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am not the copyright holder but the image has been updated at the above source to include a copyright license which says that the image is part of the public domain and is available for free and public use. - eatoz Eatoz (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an VRTS email received for “File:American hacker Space Rogue (Cris Thomas).jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2022111710013704. --Yahya (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14768043811).jpg){kind=link}
_(14768043811).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blank page CzarJobKhaya (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
_(14768043811).jpg){kind=link}
- Don't we save even blank pages when we scan a book? - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel It was always my understanding that we save all pages, including blank pages, to preserve the sequence. But now that I take a closer look, I don’t see any obvious sequence, just a jumble of images. No page numbers, no previous page/next page links. Is this how it’s meant to be? Brianjd (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably we could use the PDF file to name the pages that have been broken out as individual picture files. As to whether there is an underlying logic or whether anyone will ever take the time . . . Jim.henderson (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel It was always my understanding that we save all pages, including blank pages, to preserve the sequence. But now that I take a closer look, I don’t see any obvious sequence, just a jumble of images. No page numbers, no previous page/next page links. Is this how it’s meant to be? Brianjd (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no need to deletion (apart from the discussion, some handwriting is visible, which might be of interest, who knows?). --Ellywa (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
_(14768043811).jpg){kind=link}
_(14768043811).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Blank page CzarJobKhaya (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep. @CzarJobKhaya: it is not appropriate to come back again with the exact same deletion rationale after a file was kept, given that nothing has changed in between. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aklan Provincial Capitol
[edit]Unfree building. Per a comment on this Facebook post, it suggests that it is of contemporary period and Architect Taligatos as part of the team of the provincial office behind the inception of the provincial capitol building. As there is no freedom of panorama here, this work cannot be exploited commercially and photos of it cannot be licensed commercially. Architect Taligatos is apparently Architect Larry Taligatos in this 2020 Facebook post about a meeting of the Aklan chapter of the United Architects of the Philippines. Needs commercial license permit from him for the photos to be retained, if there is still no FOP here.
Since a local photo of this exists on enwiki as w:en:File:Aklan Capitol side view (Osmeña Avenue, Estancia, Kalibo, Aklan; 10-20-2022).jpg, there is no need to transfer any of these photos since enwiki is not supposed to mimic Commons as per w:en:WP:NOTREPOSITORY.
.jpg){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP Philippines, no freedom of panorama in this country for architecture still in copyright. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with signal for help, this Canadian Women's Foundation artwork was only informally released under a CC (or equivalent) licence, the foundation didn't go through VRT. Belbury (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not PD in the UK. British photographer Anthony E. Durrant died in 1999. [3] No proof of publication in Indonesia more than 50 years ago. Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen Even if first publication had been in Indonesia, there is still US copyright to consider, which runs until 95 years after first publication since the image would have been copyrighted in Indonesia in 1996. Felix QW (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.243.178 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof that this was published to qualify to PD-Portugal-URAA
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As the depicted person was born in 1894, in 1970 he was likely out of his position; so this formal portrait was very likely shot before 1970. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Info: The original source doesn't give any date, only "20 dc." (20th century?), so the status that it was created before July 1, 1970 (maximun date for Portuguese photographs to be eligibles for be PD in that country) is theorically uncertain. By 1970, Américo Thomaz was in his position yet, he was retired after Arpil 25, 1974 (when the Portuguese Revolution took place). Also, the photographer Manuel Alves de San Payo, died in 1974 (same year in which the Revolution happened and when Thomaz has retired). If the photograph was taken prior to January 1, 1970, the photograph would be eligible to be Public Domain by both {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} oder {{PD-Portugal-photo}}. However, if it was created after 1970, the photograph would be protected for 70 years since the author's death (and also protected by the URAA in the United States). This work would be PD in its home country (Portugal) on January 1, 2045. 83.61.243.178 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen Américo Thomaz was the President of the Portuguese of the Republic from 9 of August until 25 of Abril 1974. Also source of this photo does not state
who was the photographer orthe date of it. Tm (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)- Kommentar The source states who took this photo, but only says that this photo was taken in the 20 century. Source is an website with the portuguese public collections under the responsability of the Directorate-General for Cultural Heritage. Tm (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This picture was deleted on November 5 for having the wrong license, which this file is the exact duplicate… it just has a different license. This picture is copyrighted and no proof has been given that it’s in the public domain. Kansas does not, nor has it ever, released its photographs in the public domain unless given permission by the photographer or authorized designee. Corky 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- A - It's not the same file.
- B - You're asking to prove a negative. How does one prove that something ISN'T copyrighted? I found no indication that it is. Instead, my research indicated that this was a standard photo used for routine tasks like fulfilling autograph requests.
- C - Since there's no indication that it is copyrighted, I see no reason this photo can't be added to Wikimedia commons.Billmckern (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Billmckern: It is the same file - it’s the same picture and same name (with the exception of ‘governor’ being lowercase). Images are automatically copyrighted by the photographer or their employer and lasts until the author’s death plus 70 years after; they don’t need to file for a copyright. Whatever it was used for has no relevance as that doesn’t affect the copyright status. Unless you can find the photographer to seek permission, it can’t be used. Corky 21:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Plus, I’ll add if the copyright status is unknown (copyright or public domain), it probably shouldn’t be used. Corky 00:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree . But there's no clearly no point in continuing this discussion. Do what you want. Moving on. Billmckern (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Billmckern Copyright is a concept defined by law. Uploading non-free works here is a violation of both the law and Commons policy. That is something you should pay attention to, especially given the many warnings you have already received. Brianjd (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree . But there's no clearly no point in continuing this discussion. Do what you want. Moving on. Billmckern (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen 1989 was the last year that you still had to register a copyright. If this is her as governor, it is copyrighted. If this is her as treasurer in 1975, it would be public domain. --RAN (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- I do have proof (via email) that this image is her gubernatorial portrait, which was taken in 1994. The Kansas State Historical Society provided this information and can be sent to OTRS if need be to show it was taken in 1994. Corky 22:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan Can you please send this to VRT and reply with the ticket number? Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I note that the deleted file is a color version of this photo. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: Yes, Ticket#: 2023030310000703. Thanks! Corky 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan Replied to the email. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: Yes, Ticket#: 2023030310000703. Thanks! Corky 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I note that the deleted file is a color version of this photo. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan Can you please send this to VRT and reply with the ticket number? Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do have proof (via email) that this image is her gubernatorial portrait, which was taken in 1994. The Kansas State Historical Society provided this information and can be sent to OTRS if need be to show it was taken in 1994. Corky 22:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Löschen 1994 photo (confirmed, see ticket:2023030310000703), no free license, not in public domain until the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 after creation. Known to be published in at latest 2010 (https://web.archive.org/web/20101217143359/http://kshs.org/kansapedia/joan-finney/12051), so undelete in 2106. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}