Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/07/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_05.jpg){kind=link}
Je crois que j'ai du faire une érreur. Désolé. Pas besoin de metre copyvio sur ma page. Je crois que j'ai compris mon érreur — Ludopedia(Talk) 07:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedydelete, the photography is a derivative work of the packaging including a snow leopard photography which is copyrighted PierreSelim (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This is very obvious album artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Album cover. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This is album coverart? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly looks like it. What is your deletion reason? darkweasel94 17:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio album cover art. See fair-use rationale on en.wiki for true author. INeverCry (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This looks like logo artwork above TOO, and not the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not Apache licensed - proprietary Sony skin is copyrighted —Mono 05:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not Apache licensed - proprietary Sony skin is copyrighted —Mono 05:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not Apache licensed - proprietary Sony skin is copyrighted —Mono 05:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
non-free use, copied from http://alicejamesbooks.org/authors/nikolopoulos-angelo/ Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Selfpromotion. Possible copyvio. Southgeist (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not uploaders as claimed,. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
These two are two different diagrams of the same atropisomer (not sure if they're Sa or Ra, but they are not one-of-each Sa/Ra): rotate one of them 180° in the plane of the screen. Compare to File:Atropisomer.svg that are mirror images (S vs R are visibly geometric mirror images of each other if one is rotated 180° in the plane of the screen). DMacks (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I agree. They are, in fact, the same structure, not atropisomers. Good catch. Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I accidentally tagged the wrong file. BA Acadamy is way within project scope. My bad. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: "Only uploading so I can access it on a forum." Southgeist (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. "Only uploaded so I can access it on a forum." Southgeist (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
THis is logo artwork and not uploers own as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Logo artwork, above threshold of originality owing to the complexity of the whaet sheafs motif. Not nesscessrially own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The text on the image suggests that this might be a screenshot from a film, so the claim that this is own work by the uploader might be wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, and not the uploaders work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, and not the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I corrected it, it's not my own work, I copied it from english wikipedia site.Thank you--Avagyan (talk) 16
- 49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a fair use image on enwiki, we cannot host that here. darkweasel94 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- But how can I upload that tipe of files you had deleted and be shure that it will not be deleted again?--Avagyan (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- By asking its copyright holder to release it under a free license and having them send a confirmation to COM:OTRS. If they aren't willing to do that, we can't have it here - that's just a basic rule here. darkweasel94 16:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This is album cover art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold or originality concern, United Kingdom. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text.where copy violo.--EEIM (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom; COM:TOO in UK is very low. INeverCry (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. "test, test" Southgeist (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
INlcusion OF OS logo renders this potentially Non-free, Also unsed so unsure about scope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright © 1997 Sony BMG - According to English Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of two images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Obs.: I edited the file. This was the last version before my edit. Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The image comes from the official website of The Town of Secaucus, which isn't listed on this page, and therefore the image isn't in the public domain. The official website also says: "© Town of Secaucus. All Rights Reserved". User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 09:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Fails {{Pd-simple}} reqs imo, also COM:SCOPE —Mono 01:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I Was Just Actually Experimenting. So Delete. This Is Not Your Ordinary Acid3 Fan. (My Talk Page) 16:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not the work of the uploader Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork which is above the TOO (despite being marked otherwise) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern, owing to complexity of design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is broken. Southgeist (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Description and appearance suggest that this is a screen capture from the TV series en:Hollyoaks. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
copyvio (scan of book cover) Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
pagina wikipedia collegata eliminata Maria Teresa Pilloni (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Extremely low quality shot, hardly usable, and thereby out of COM:SCOPE. AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source, the Amazon Web Service "Cloudefront", does not allow for conclusion that this file is created by an Army employee. The photo can be found in front in Grimsley Hall (http://physics.citadel.edu/index.php/facilities), a building built in 1991 The Citadel. The Citadel is a state-supported collece that Grimsley directed 1980–1989. Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Admins, this picture was uploaded years ago, by using this account even so without asking me for my allowance. It would be marvelous, if this file would be deleted. Best regards! KV Vogelsberg-Fulda (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
it has been uploaded on internet, such as at http://sohanews2.vcmedia.vn/2013/giang-b6436.jpg http://123.30.128.19/i/s500/2013/05/w5U67ZZ7.jpg http://123.30.128.19/i/s500/2013/05/w5U67ZZ7.jpg. Need more evidences of copyright. AlleinStein (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Copyvio. The uploader calls himself "Ly Vo Phu Hung" who is a well-known photographer in Vietnam but this image has no Exif and was uploaded on several websites well before. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork and not uploaders own work as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF + author missing (failing {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Uploaded in enwiki in 09.2007 by enwiki user Raj srikanth800. Most likely cropped from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1648883 (04.2007, © Alle Rechte vorbehalten von Srikanth Adepu). Affected montages: File:Hyderabad panorama.jpg + File:Hyderabad india -tile.jpg Gunnex (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This logo is above TOO, despite claiming otherwise . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
What kind of permission do you ask for?
It is a logo of a company (like a million) which does not have a problem about the usage of this logo (no changes applied) on Wikipedia (ask them personally if you doubt - source given).
User:Wikitelligent (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2013 (CET)
Deleted: per nom: above COM:TOO. INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright details given in Metadata Mattythewhite (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a photo of an image on a screen Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nominating also
- File:Isco 2013.png (duplicate)
- Gunnex (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of 5 images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Obs.: high wiki use. Gunnex (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks +
Keep Gunnex (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this the flickr account owner's own work from 1956-1960? Leoboudv (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is most likely a flickrwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this the flickr account owner's own picture from 1956-1960 or a flickrwash? Leoboudv (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Btw, no related uploads by user, so these files, if they are in Commons, may coming from other authors. One file (here with exif) = no wiki hits before upload date in 03.02.2012. Gunnex (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: unlikely to be own work. Part of a row of 7 uploads to illustrate sq:Kështjellat e Shqipërisë (created by same user) = 6x copyvios. This is the remaining file (no exif). Gunnex (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad qualitiy', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE due to being a out-of-focus low-quality "home-porn" shot. Blanked by uploader. Gunnex (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Fully replaced by fully recommended File:Landkreis Biberach Uebersicht.png Perhelion (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
False format Kauk0r (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional information: Correct version is here --Kauk0r (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. JPEG is a lossy format intended for photographic images, and is inferior to PNG or TIFF for editing purposes and for line art in general. This TIFF file should be reuploaded in PNG format, though, since TIFF thumbnailing doesn't currently work (or better yet, redrawn in SVG). Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate replaced by recommended file-format File:Landkreis Biberach Uebersicht.png Perhelion (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate fully replaced by fully recommended file-format file:LkrBCVerwaltungsgemeinschaften.png Perhelion (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork and thus either not the Uploaders work, or a derivative work Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, and not nesscarily a self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not the work of the uploader as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -122.49.181.54 14:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Its a picture of me sucking my dick it is public domain because of my cunt exgf but I do not want it here thank you
No exif, No consent, source not working, uploaded the 5 of july and dated the 12th... Pleclown (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Description and appearance suggest that this is a screen capture from the TV series en:Hollyoaks. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Extremely low-quality shot, hardly anything can be recognized (just a hand, skin, and hairs), unused and out of COM:SCOPE. AFBorchert (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is scanned from a book by Milutin Milanković. Milanković died in 1958, so his works will be in public domain in 2028 2029. They are copyrighted until then. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Suspiciously small, square, photo of a celebrity with no metadata. Probably a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is PD, as claimed by uploader. While the statue was created in 1936, the true source of the image is unclear. Might be a reproduction from print. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Neotame, unsued. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't see clear evidence for the licensing. This has been floating around the internet. Zagalejo (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Charles Kvapil (1884-1958) is not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.7.25 18:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
imho no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
imho relatively 'bad quality', no 'educational use' and not in use, i.e. imho "out of scope", Roland zh 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Roland zh 19:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a book cover, without further infromation an ineligble claim cannot be supported Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation (scan of book cover) Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Logo artwork, and not uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Btw, no related uploads by user, so these files, if they are in Commons, may coming from other authors. Sourced with "www.pernik.bg" = http://www.pernik.bg = official site of that city in Bulgaria.... Gunnex (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
no fop in cambodia, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Independence Monument, Phnom Penh Isderion (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
non-free use, copied from http://alicejamesbooks.org/authors/nikolopoulos-angelo/ Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is album cover-art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is album cover-art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, and superceeded by Pyrrolysine.svg or Pyrrolysin.png. Yikrazuul (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This file is used in a template showing small images of all 22 aminoacids with the same vertical display, and changing it into horizontal image will break the layout of this table. The current file is not perfect, but all other images of Pyl I could see in Commons are horizontal. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Unless you have a better file showing pyrrolysine in vertical display just like File:L-lysine-2D-skeletal.png, which would be real improvement then... — Bob Saint Clar (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in use. darkweasel94 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as has a valid use-case for this layout, just needs someone to redraw to higher-quality standards. Could upload at same filename because it would fit the same niche. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- ...which I did. I did the neutral form (not zwitterion that previous had...a point against the original claim of "need this for consistency") and implicit methyl (rather than explicit CH3 that previous had) to match the style of the others in fr:Modèle:Acides aminés. I used hydroxyl-down/carbonyl-right on the carboxylic-acid group because that's what more of them seem to use but they're not consistent. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's definitely better now. Good job ;-) Bob Saint Clar (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
spam - out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
personal picture, with an obscene title. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Infringement of copyright tntchn Comment · Contribs 01:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted TouchWiz software —Mono 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted TouchWiz software —Mono 23:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded this picture by mistake. Psychotic Blue (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright© 2000-2013 Cinemagia® Moros y Cristianos 09:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As the uploader, I strongly believe that my file has been copied onto the mentioned website. I uploaded the file in question on 26 December 2010 (check the file history), whilst the website had been using another photo at least until 2 October 2011 [1]. I can provide the original, non cropped version of the photo if needed. Yasu (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing this up. AGF. I withdraw this request. Moros y Cristianos 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- speedy keep. Moros y Cristianos 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: INeverCry (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Really? While I'm the exact opposite of an expert on chemistry, I can't see any other 2D diagram in that category that is "color-coded" like this one. darkweasel94 17:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's the point in commenting a DR if you are lacking any expertise? Delete: Non-standard representation, unusable quality. --Leyo 14:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's the point in commenting a DR if you are lacking any expertise?
- Delete per nom. While color-coding could have some use, these colors are hard on the eyes. I can't think of a case where this specific inconsistent set of explicitly visible and colored atoms would be useful (not all "H at stereocenters" included but some are; not all H are visible, so not useful for "find all H by color to verify formula", etc.). If someone has a need for colored and or semi-explicitly-labeled atoms, trivial to make one on demand in high quality png...ask anyone at the chempages here or on en/de.wp. DMacks (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Photograph of a copyrighted work. Southgeist (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
copy vio: scan of book cover Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Maxime Boulard de Villeneuve (1883-1971) is not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.7.25 18:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I own this picture!
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork,and not uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
derivative work: book cover scan Sealle (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Evaduranuvvu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JaByeRa BaLenTyna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Delete as: self-promotional, and/or out of scope (personal snapshots without educational value).
- File:Ñen6o flow&Gotay.jpg
- File:Daddy yankee.jpg
- File:Cosculluela.jpg
- File:Daddy yankee&De la Ghetto.jpg
Senator2029 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- At least Daddy Yankee is a known regeaton singer (Gasolina). But I dont think that the Daddy Yankee photo is self created. Also the other uploads. For example File:Daddy yankee&De la Ghetto.jpg is a copy of File:Ñengoo flow ft gotay.jpg and therefore JaByeRa BaLenTyna's claim of own work is most likely untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Personal photos of self-expression that are not useful for the educational purpose of Wikimedia Commons.
- File:Sensación.jpg
- File:Fiestaa.jpg
- File:Love music.jpg
- File:Petrificado.jpg
- File:Posession.jpg
- File:Posession 2.jpg
- File:Azechan.jpg
Senator2029 03:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Peelthetruth (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zuper Daniel (talk · contribs)
[edit]low quality personal images and a logo; out of project scope
Isderion (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwork, not uploaders as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd simple FASTILY 06:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artowork, not the work of the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, my friend. The above mentioned logo is public and represents the Central Sport Club (soccer team at Brazil), i'm a director at this team. No copyrights, the logo has more than 90 years.
- Withdrawn, Pending OTRS confirmation of the above situation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn FASTILY 06:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Es gibt eine svg-Datei : Rachmaninow Prelude Cis Moll Lilypond ThSki (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 06:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The image is in a discussion on this flickrlink but there is no license for it. 96.48.230.18 00:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep.DO NOT DELETE: Originally, I thought the image was taken by Steve Jurvetson, but today I spent more time researching Epiphany Eyewear photos on Flickr and found the author to be Erick Miller. The link is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278344301/in/set-72157634623664479/
Mr. Miller is the CEO of Vergence Labs and has granted permission to reuse the photo. I made edits to the image information box on the article's page. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. 301man (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Miller's flickr account dates to 2011 but only has 3 images That's strange. But he is a contact of Steve Jurvetson. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The file at https://secure.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01/8810446747 has file name "8810446487_c9556a7c71.jpg" (right-click and select "view image" to see the file name in the location bar). Now go to https://secure.flickr.com/services/api/explore/flickr.photos.getInfo and specify 8810446487 as "photo_id" and c9556a7c71 as "secret". This brings up a lot of XML code. At the bottom, you see the URL to Flickr's file information page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8810446487/) where it says that the file is private. The upload at https://secure.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278344301 seems to be recent so we will have to assume that http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8810446487/ is the original source. As we can't check the copyright status due to the photo being marked as private, we have to assume that the photo is unfree. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Once again... DO NOT DELETE........ Hello Stefan4: I can understand where you are coming from, but your assumption is not accurate. The person who actually took the photo is Erick Miller. He took the photo with Steve Jurvetson's camera (and I will put myself out on the limb here and assume they somehow exchanged the photo between one another, but I can probably assure you Mr. Jurvetson did not take that photo of himself -- someone had to be behind that camera, and Mr. Miller said he was the person who actually took the picture). Here's the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278344301/in/set-72157634623664479/ And, Mr.Miller said, "Photo that I took w/ Steve's camera at the Churchill Club." (and it has the correct license to reuse it)
- When I first found the image, it was located on a page which I thought was in a Commons Licensed page, but it was just a photo posted in a conversation string. I didn't discover until later that the ORIGINAL PHOTO was taken by Mr. Miller and posted on his Flickr page with proper Commons License to use. This photo should not be deleted. It has the proper license to use it. PLEASE DISMISS ANY REFERENCE TO STEVE JURVETSON as he is NOT the author of the photo. That was my error!!!! The author of the image is Erick Miller. The original source is Mr.Miller because he took the photo! If this is too complicated for you to understand, please provide more detail to why you believe there is a problem here. There's no problem using a photo that was taken by the author and given proper license to reuse. According to "Permissions at Wikipedia" I am following the proper protocol to use the photo. Thank you, 301man (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- As Jurvetson used the photo before Miller used it, you will have to make sure that Jurvetson sends an e-mail to OTRS, explaining how he obtained the image. For example, why would Miller use Jurvetson's camera? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- KeepI've been in communication via email with Permissions-Commons@Wikipedia.org about this image, and this is what I was told by Permissions, "As explained at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_files>, images from Flickr can be used on Wikimedia Commons without the need for email verification of permission." I have followed and I am following the proper procedure for the use of a Flickr photo on a Wikipedia Article. The author states he took the photo and has identified the proper license to use it. There's no need to argue about it. Miller and Jurvetson are contacts and friends as indicated on his Flickr account. 301man (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just saw a comment made by the author of this photo on his Flickr page. Miller said, "You're welcome. I looked at the Wikipedia article. Nice work, thank you for making that page. I also posted another photo that I took of Steve wearing our glasses with my iPhone: www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9326921843/in/photostream/ right before Steve handed me his camera and asked me to snap this photo, which Steve also posted in his Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8810446747/in/faves-erick... -- I noticed in the public Wikipedia edit comments that some of the Wikipedia editors are giving you a difficult time about who owns these images -- I can assure you that I personally took these photos, thanks again for being a positive part of the user-generated web and making a great Wikipedia article about our product - as the CEO of the company, this really means a lot to me. We wish you the best. Erick" 301man (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As Jurvetson used the photo before Miller used it, you will have to make sure that Jurvetson sends an e-mail to OTRS, explaining how he obtained the image. For example, why would Miller use Jurvetson's camera? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- When I first found the image, it was located on a page which I thought was in a Commons Licensed page, but it was just a photo posted in a conversation string. I didn't discover until later that the ORIGINAL PHOTO was taken by Mr. Miller and posted on his Flickr page with proper Commons License to use. This photo should not be deleted. It has the proper license to use it. PLEASE DISMISS ANY REFERENCE TO STEVE JURVETSON as he is NOT the author of the photo. That was my error!!!! The author of the image is Erick Miller. The original source is Mr.Miller because he took the photo! If this is too complicated for you to understand, please provide more detail to why you believe there is a problem here. There's no problem using a photo that was taken by the author and given proper license to reuse. According to "Permissions at Wikipedia" I am following the proper protocol to use the photo. Thank you, 301man (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep OK. The uploader has uploaded several other images with no copyright issues. I believe that this DR can be closed now as keep. I forgot to log in but 96.48.230.18 is my IP number so I filed this DR originally. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Leoboudv. INeverCry (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank You
[edit]
301man (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Le sujet de la photo est la mairie mais le sculpteur du monument aux morts est décédé en 1956 ; le problème du de minimis se trouve donc posé. -- JLPC (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Le sujet est la Marire. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The artwork even if central in the composition is only accessory to the picture, the subject is the city hall building. PierreSelim (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wait - you added it to the "kept" category, gave a reason for keeping, didn't delete it, but wrote "Deleted" here? I guess that's an error. darkweasel94 21:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo of a an organisation, it's not a low, nor decree, nor regulation, nor official material of the Republic of Serbia, so the PD-SerbiaGov tag should not be used. See this discussion to find out what are official materials. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will ask for a OTRS anyway. Will be done in next several days. Therefor, wait for it. --WhiteWriter speaks 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: File to be restored upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Clear copyright infringement. The claim to the copyright holder of this "self published work" is totally implausible. See, for example, http://jillianinlondon.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dscn6165.jpg?w=300&h=225, http://www.africaimagery.com/image_gallery/album/Destinations/France/slides/411838.jpg, and http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4435771166_ba63d540a7.jpg. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the third of those has now become unavailable, which is a pity, as it was a better fit to the image uploaded to Wikipedia than either of the other two. However, there is still enough to show that it is a commercial image, which has been found on internet sites. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: These were taken on an iPhone 5 on my trip to Europe, which included Amsterdam, Paris, and London. But I took the photos. Look at the corners, it shows different angles. Plus, how many people likely took such a photo? A lot, includong amateur's on an iPhone 5.
The fact that these diffs with the corners being different likely proves that many people, ranging from amateur iPhoners like me to professional photographers. It would be reasonable if my photo timestamps were from the day of upload, but my timestamp from February 2013 shows the day and time taken. I find the idea of having multiple similar photos on various websites as not creditable evidence, considering the differing angles. Please look for the small details.
Compare the pictures' bottom right corners as well as the street across the river. In my picture, there are white coach busses parked there. In the other two, there aren't. WT101 (Chat • Count) 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Just look at the clouds in each of them, they are all different, one has clear skies, the other haze and the current one has high altitude cumulus clouds! this doesnt really look like a copyvio to me. PBASH607 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: There are many inconsistencies between File:Rivers from Eiffel Tower 3.JPG, http://jillianinlondon.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dscn6165.jpg?w=300&h=225, and http://www.africaimagery.com/image_gallery/album/Destinations/France/slides/411838.jpg and http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4435771166_ba63d540a7.jpg has been deleted from flikr so it can't be compared to. One of the suggested images is extremely low quality compared to this image, depicts red cranes in the middle of town and one vehicle in the parking lot. The other one that was available to compare it to has no cars in the parking lot and a huge watermark stamped across the image. This leave 0 evidence that this is a copy violation at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I withdraw my nomination. I looked carefully at the image which has now gone, and I thought it really did seem to be the same one, whereas the other two I just glanced at and thought they were the same without checking. However, since the evidence has now gone, I am willing to accept I may have been mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn -FASTILY 09:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by KAMiKAZOW as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Windows artwork Copyright © Microsoft is visible. Category:Windows screenshots says: “screenshots including copyrighted Windows widgets will be deleted in accordance with Commons:Screenshots.” --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Denniss (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Image restored from unjustified deletion and tagged for DR instead. There's no copyrighted M$ artwork visible, a blue background bar and the "X" are not copyrightable. --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Anything possibly MS-copyrighted here is de minimis. darkweasel94 17:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Seems fine to me FASTILY 09:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Not official materials2
[edit]File:Milankovtch Mars.jpgPD-Old- File:Milanković Figure.jpg
- File:Through Distant Worlds and Times.jpg
- File:Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Serbia.jpg
- File:Ludaško jezero.jpg
- File:Serbia Aegean basin.png
- File:Serbia Danube basin.png
- File:Serbia Great Morava basin.png
- File:Serbia Kolubara basin.PNG
- File:Serbia Drina basin.png
- File:Serbia White Drim basin.png
- File:Serbia West Morava basin.png
- File:Serbia Timok basin.png
- File:Serbia South Morava basin.png
- File:Serbia Sava basin.png
- File:Timok region map.gif
- File:Serbia mountain ranges.png
- File:Serbia relief.jpg
- File:Serbia relief light.png
- File:Serbia regions.png
- File:Orao J22.jpg
- File:Nbs seal.jpg
- File:Map of national composition of Eastern Macedonia(Greece) after the colonisation 1920-28 - Po kolonizacijata 1920-28.jpg
- File:Sedenje u NSRS 2009.jpg
- File:Sitting in the National Assembly of Serbia.JPG
- File:Verska sluzba 2.jpg
_after_the_colonisation_1920-28_-_Po_kolonizacijata_1920-28.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These are not laws, nor decrees, nor regulations, nor official materials of the Republic of Serbia (or Serbia and Montenegro). So, the PD-SerbiaGov or PD-SCGGov tag may not be used. See this discussion to find out what are official materials. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will send letter to Seismological Survey of Serbia for OTRS. I am asking for a closing admin to wait for OTRS. Nominator should do that also, instead of just running to delete. Permission is only a few letter away regarding this. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)But,
- Comment: You changed the licence for the file File:Milankovtch Mars.jpg to PD-old. That tag is used when the author is dead for more than 70 years. But, Milutin Milanković died in 1958. The image is scanned from his book, and is therefore not free. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Files to be restored upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY 09:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a duplicate that is not used anywhere. Southgeist (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please indicate which file it is a duplicate of. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Copyrighted movie poster. Southgeist (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5 words + 1 number, imho ineligible --Isderion (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd ineligible FASTILY 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Contains large copyrighted image, and as such it is not public domain. Beerest355 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- How can this photo be copyrighted if it was taken in a location? You think just because Family Guy characters is on the photo, you have the rights to tell me that it's a large copyright? --拱連鑄機 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simply taking a photo of the poster justifies the fact that you don't own the rights to it. It's a pretty clear copyright violation. Beerest355 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do own the rights to the photo, because I took the picture. Also, I don't see in the copyright rules that taking a photo in a public place is a copyright violation. --拱連鑄機 14:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:DW. If the poster were there only incidentally, it might be kept because of COM:DM, but clearly you took this photo specifically to include the poster. We can't have it here. darkweasel94 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does not mention about if anything is captured in a photo, it's a copyright violation, also it is COM:DM. It was token in a public place, so how does that make my photo that I took could be a copyright violation?--拱連鑄機 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The "public place" argument is called COM:FOP. In the US it would apply to buildings but not to 2D artworks, and in almost no country would it apply to artworks that are in public places only temporarily. Sorry, we didn't invent those laws. darkweasel94 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Check out the United States part, it says nothing about having it in 3D only, it says if a poster is on a building, it is ok to upload it. --拱連鑄機 20:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? darkweasel94 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- [1] --拱連鑄機 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've read that. That doesn't say anywhere that if a poster is on a building you can take a photo of the poster. Or if it does, please quote the entire sentence. darkweasel94 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It only says artwork and sculptures are not allowed, not posters that are taken in public places. --拱連鑄機 23:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Posters are artwork, unless they are so simple that they cannot be copyrighted (e.g. consist only of a few words and no graphics). darkweasel94 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is simple, it has a few words and it doesn't have that much graphics. --拱連鑄機 23:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Family Guy characters on the poster are enough graphics. There is no use discussing it with me, btw; I'm not an admin and nobody here invented copyright law. darkweasel94 00:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The photo is simple, it has a few words and it doesn't have that much graphics. --拱連鑄機 23:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Posters are artwork, unless they are so simple that they cannot be copyrighted (e.g. consist only of a few words and no graphics). darkweasel94 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It only says artwork and sculptures are not allowed, not posters that are taken in public places. --拱連鑄機 23:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've read that. That doesn't say anywhere that if a poster is on a building you can take a photo of the poster. Or if it does, please quote the entire sentence. darkweasel94 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- [1] --拱連鑄機 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? darkweasel94 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Check out the United States part, it says nothing about having it in 3D only, it says if a poster is on a building, it is ok to upload it. --拱連鑄機 20:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The "public place" argument is called COM:FOP. In the US it would apply to buildings but not to 2D artworks, and in almost no country would it apply to artworks that are in public places only temporarily. Sorry, we didn't invent those laws. darkweasel94 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does not mention about if anything is captured in a photo, it's a copyright violation, also it is COM:DM. It was token in a public place, so how does that make my photo that I took could be a copyright violation?--拱連鑄機 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:DW. If the poster were there only incidentally, it might be kept because of COM:DM, but clearly you took this photo specifically to include the poster. We can't have it here. darkweasel94 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do own the rights to the photo, because I took the picture. Also, I don't see in the copyright rules that taking a photo in a public place is a copyright violation. --拱連鑄機 14:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatives of non-free works are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 20:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope - made up flag. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Mattbuck, the matter of National Reconciliation and Concord of the Vietnamese People in Vietnam has been NEVER OUT OF SCOPE! This Reconciliation Flag of Vietnam/Lá Cờ Hoà Giải Của Nước Việt Nam had been made up/created/constituted in Saigon, SVN, Jan.1973 when the Paris :Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, signed in Paris and entered into force January 17, 1973. This flag has been definitely made up/constituted for the purpose of the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord that could use it in SVN after cease fire. Absolutely, it's NOT A MADE-UP FLAG!
- In South VN during 1973 after cease fire,"immediately after the cease-fire, the two South Vietnamese parties shall hold consultations in a spirit of national reconciliation and concord, mutual respect, and mutual non-elimination to set up a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord of three equal segments". Unfortunately, both SVN Parties KILLED the "national reconciliation and concord". The National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord Could-Not-Be-Real!
- UNFORTUNATELY, VIETNAMESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OUT OF LUCK WHEN THE "VN WAR CRIMINALS" KILLED the "National Reconciliation and Concord". The National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord Could-Not-Be-Real, NEITHER COULD THIS "RECONCILIATION FLAG OF VIETNAM" ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim-Ngưu (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Juts like the last DR, there is zero proof this is a fiction. Secondly, even if it was we have many fictional flags on Commons. Keep still no reasons to delete. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last DR? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- This image was deleted in the past as "made up". That by itself is not a reason for deleting flag files and everyone knows it. There was some compelling evidence that this flag had limited use. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last DR? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete FASTILY 20:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Holder has requested that metadata be removed from the file and emailed Wiki Permissions but did not receive a response. He had not realized the metadata was included in the file that had been provided. Author/Owner has asked me to delete this file and reload with the metadata scrubbed. He is willing to send another email with the license permission for the file with the metadata removed.. Raasta123 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The license on the original image isn't revocable, and no reason for reducing the information stored about the photo has been given. There isn't any personally identifiable information in the metadata. LFaraone 13:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: wat FASTILY 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: this is a private artwork without educational value 188.104.116.90 17:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then again, we also have File:Censored.png ... darkweasel94 18:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Remember that Commons isn't supposed to function as a personal webhost. If the files are used internally on Wikimedia projects by users to express views, however, that may be okay WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope FASTILY 20:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The author asked on eo:Vikipedio:Diskutejo/Teknikejo#Helpo_por_viŝi_bildon_el_la_komunejo to have this nominated for deletion because it is redundant to the corrected version File:Partoj de libro (korektita).jpg (and, which the uploader didn't say, it's also in a bad file format; I will ask him if he can provide a PNG or even SVG version however) darkweasel94 17:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 20:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
" The word "PETRONAS" and the PETRONAS oil-drop device ( the "PETRONAS House Marks") are registered trademarks and service marks of Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS). You are not permitted to display or use in any manner the PETRONAS House Marks or the other trade marks and service marks appearing on this website without specific prior written permission. " Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Trademarks. darkweasel94 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Trademarks are not Commons-incompatible, and you know that Sfan00. Another stupid DR. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: should be ok FASTILY 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Due to discussions in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hcc.png, it seems that, as Malaysia is also a common law country, it's likely that how the COM:TOO UK is very low, how their TOO is also very low, the previous keep reason is hence no longer valid. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sfan00 IMG, Darkweasel94, Fry1989, and Fastily: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept. In my opinion this is still simple logo. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Non free; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph_seal_zamboanga_del_sur.png User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"This work is a product of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Republic Act 8293 forbids the use of government works for commercial purposes. This image therefore does not qualify for free use under the terms adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is considered non-free on Wikipedia." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov, the non-commercial restriction is a non-copyright restriction which doesn't affect Commons. If you disagree, you should nominate the template for deletion instead of individual files. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently ok -FASTILY 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This is logo artwok, and not self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment May be ineligible. darkweasel94 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept: should be ok FASTILY 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 91.64.241.102 as duplicate (Dupe) and the most recent rationale was: File:Goethe (Stieler 1828).jpg. Same image, though colouration is different, different enough to not delete as exact duplicate. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted TouchWiz software. Clock/weather widget at the top part of the screen is proprietary and does not qualify for de minimis exemption. —Mono 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
_05.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Repeated request. See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krassotkin. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, the rationale is different. I consulted with the original DR before nominating. The closing admin noted the icons did qualify for de minimis, but I believe the clock/weather widgets do not. —Mono 01:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatives of non-free works are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 21:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
_05.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative of copyrighted TouchWiz software —Mono 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Does this file be keeped if I blur the screen ? That's usefull to display several wacom derived hardware, the subject is not the operating system interface by itself Popolon (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Some other files to delete if this the interface :
- File:Group_of_smartphones.jpg File:MotoroiX.jpg File:Motorola A925, front.jpeg, File:Motorola Backflip with keyboard.jpg in fact, most of phone pictures, in Category:Motorola_mobile_phones (and subcategories), Category:Sony_Ericsson_mobile_phones (and subcategories), Category:T-Mobile devices (and subcategories), Category:PowerBook_G4 (and subcategories). Popolon (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I look again about the problem of derivative work, that can be applied to a screenshot of a software, This is not the case here, as this picture show the whole devices with their interfaces (hardware and software). That can't be used as derivative work. The screens are to blury to be a copy, and this is clearly to display capacities of the hardware and their software. Perhaps a review could be asked to Samsung itself ? Drawing and pictures are all by myself, the map on the left is a standard free map, used on every linux system. Popolon (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatives of non-free works are prohibited on Commons FASTILY 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:PD Canada
[edit]Per COM:URAA, these are not in the public domain in the United States as they were not created before 1946.
- File:1946 Algonquin.jpg
- File:1946 Courtenay Elementary School damage.jpg
- File:1946 Kelsey Bay Highway soil failure.jpg
- File:1948 toronto highway plan.png
- File:1949 Toronto TTC YongeSubwayConstruction1.jpg
- File:1949 Toronto YongeSubwayConstruction2.jpg
- File:1949 Toronto YongeSubwayConstruction3.jpg
- File:401 at 427 in 1954.jpg
- File:401 Weston 1953.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very unlikely these were published in the US within 30 days after being published in Canada. That means under the Uruguay
round, their copyright was not restored. They had no copyright in US at the time. Does that not cover it? Alaney2k (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- You've got it wrong. They are protected by copyright in the United States unless they were published in the United States within 30 days after publication in Canada. So if you're claiming that they aren't protected by copyright in the United States, you'll have to dig up a publication from the USA within 30 days of the first publication in Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- keep because there was some Commons discussion that deemed that files falling under Crown Copyright be exempt from URAA rules, because the crown agreed to not exercise their rights in the US (I think). -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- That may have been Commons:Deletion requests/Ontario highway images where the files were deleted because no one could find any evidence that Canadian Crown Copyright works can be considered to be in the public domain worldwide once the copyright has expired in Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Screw the URAA. The copyright holder agrees that the copyright has expired on these. The copyright status in some other country is irrelevant, as only the creator has a claim. Otherwise, move back to en wiki because commons sucks (for reasons like this, and OTRS) - Floydian (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- If they're unfree in the United States, then they are also treated as unfree on Wikipedia. OTRS is also used on Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please restore the files moved here from enwiki by a bot. Files get moved here, then deleted with no accountability! - Floydian (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, I am sorry but your comments here have been both inaccurate and unhelpful (and, frankly, at points childish). The copyright status in the U.S. is not irrelevant, as has been explained to you in countless other discussions both here and at Wikipedia. Continuing to insist on the opposite does not make it any less true. The need for public domain images to be PD in the U.S. is a Wikimedia requirement, and the same result would have occurred at Wikipedia, which has the exact same requirement. As far as I know, you do not have any confirmation whatsoever from the copyright holder that they consider the images to be public domain worldwide (or, at a minimum, in the U.S.). I would be delighted if you obtained that confirmation, and last time we discussed it offered to help you obtain it (which you never replied to). And your allegation that there is "no accountability" is just false on its face. If you cannot treat others with respect and be civil, there is little point in engaging with you or working with you on this issue. If you want to deal with this issue more constructively, please let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The images would be allowed with a fair use rationale or a template in use there for images believed in good-faith to be public domain in Canada. Many (at least several of mine) were uploaded to en.wiki, transferred here by a bot, and now summarily deleted. Restore the bloody upload to en wiki and I will continue to slap {{Keep local}} tags on everything I upload to keep it out of this bloody dumpster (or repository as it's called). - Floydian (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- First, if you'd correctly tagged these images fair use in the first place, they would not have been moved. Second, nobody is going to lift a finger to help you when you insist on having these childish tantrums. Honestly, grow up and learn to discuss like an adult. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The images would be allowed with a fair use rationale or a template in use there for images believed in good-faith to be public domain in Canada. Many (at least several of mine) were uploaded to en.wiki, transferred here by a bot, and now summarily deleted. Restore the bloody upload to en wiki and I will continue to slap {{Keep local}} tags on everything I upload to keep it out of this bloody dumpster (or repository as it's called). - Floydian (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, I am sorry but your comments here have been both inaccurate and unhelpful (and, frankly, at points childish). The copyright status in the U.S. is not irrelevant, as has been explained to you in countless other discussions both here and at Wikipedia. Continuing to insist on the opposite does not make it any less true. The need for public domain images to be PD in the U.S. is a Wikimedia requirement, and the same result would have occurred at Wikipedia, which has the exact same requirement. As far as I know, you do not have any confirmation whatsoever from the copyright holder that they consider the images to be public domain worldwide (or, at a minimum, in the U.S.). I would be delighted if you obtained that confirmation, and last time we discussed it offered to help you obtain it (which you never replied to). And your allegation that there is "no accountability" is just false on its face. If you cannot treat others with respect and be civil, there is little point in engaging with you or working with you on this issue. If you want to deal with this issue more constructively, please let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm closing this discussion now. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)