Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
,_27_MacMahon_Street,_Hurstville,_New_South_Wales_(2010-07-18).jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_02_(edits).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The original sources of the montage are not identified. Trycatch (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- One of these sources has been brought to deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buddy Holly mural on 19th Street in Lubbock.jpg. NVO (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close -- Since at least one of the images in this is not PD (the Buddy Holly mural), and is not attributed as required by its license, this montage is a clear copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 05:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account --> this user is also blocked Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy closed and then recreated to permanently protect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account --> this account is also indef. blocked Mabdul (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy close and then recreated to permanently protect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account --> this user is also blocked Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy closed and then recreated to permanently protect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account Mabdul (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
vandalism by an indef. blocked account --> this account is also indef. blocked Mabdul (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy close and then recreated to permanently protect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedily removed. odder (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Retina_Consultants_(Old_Fire_Station_building),_27_MacMahon_Street,_Hurstville,_New_South_Wales_(2010-07-18).jpg
[edit],_27_MacMahon_Street,_Hurstville,_New_South_Wales_(2010-07-18).jpg){kind=link}
,_27_MacMahon_Street,_Hurstville,_New_South_Wales_(2010-07-18).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Retina Consultants is not associated with Old Fire Station. We want our name taken off this page. Sicme (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: Not a valid reason to delete, the photograph also shows a "Retina Consultants" sign. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's an old photograph. If you take a new one, it will not have Retina Consultants. It will have another name entirely. incorrect company 203.217.22.68 09:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Change of name is not a criterion for deletion. If you would like to advertise the new business located in the fire station, feel free to take a better quality photograph of the building and you can insert it into the Hurstville, New South Wales article. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
persona photo, out of scope Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused image, no information about what it is, dubious license (was copyed from website, don't know how it was licensed there as this user uploads everything as FAL), probably out of scope as well Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
poor quality and not many enjoy look at April nude, she request old hairy photo be removed . Reddog11223 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality, and out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)- Delete per subject request, fails COM:PEOPLE evidence of consent requirement. --99of9 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader and nominator Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
useless image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 2014-01-12T10:50:40 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, personal image, out of scope. And not even one Nude Woman in the entire picture! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Image uploaded as made by W. Oelen, but user:Woelen himself denied it, provided a real source [1], and asked not to use this specific image. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Calvero (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 23:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope as not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Promotional photo of a non-notable (and recently deleted) college a capella club GrapedApe (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private symbol - out of scope (esoteric content, but a personal theory (I strongly believe)) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted --ZooFari 01:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted --ZooFari 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope (test, look at the description) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, taken from a blog (?) - copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Hold and wave (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
low-quality format, unused (replaceable by File:Colchicinebiosynthesis.png and File:Colchicinebiogenesis.svg) DMacks (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Unwieldy file format (doesn't display actually on my firefox, had to save the file to preview), unused file, two copies available. Materialscientist (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
File unused 195.6.180.215 06:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason Jcb (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No tiene una descripción muy precisa Loro 2 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: actually no reason for deletion High Contrast (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No contiene una descripción Loro 2 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep An admin needs to look at the nominations made by this user, most of them for this reason, which is not valid. --Iroonhide (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Inaccurate, and wouldn't be a reason for deletion anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
image is watermarked as Copyright Stargraphy.net - All rights reserved - clearly not "own work" 67.180.104.238 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Lymantria (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
File was tagged with no permission. I'm not sure if this is copyrightable, though. Darwin Ahoy! 09:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Bad source, bad license. "© Abbott Laboratories, 2011" on site. --Art-top (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but what exactly is copyrightable there? -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- no opinion. Had the image been completely produced in Russia it would fit the last line of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. But where was it produced? where the data came from? dead end there. Fallback option: precautionary principle ("don't tell the marketing people that their choice of colours wasn't creative..."). NVO (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but what exactly is copyrightable there? -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
wrong license 217.186.22.187 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing of essential source information High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt very much that this user is the creator of this logo as claimed here. It is too complex to be PD-text logo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: valid permission for a PD-release is missing High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded accidently Desmortum (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Image is one of many that was deleted from en Wikl because its sole purpose was to serve one user's self-promotional pages. Damiens.rf 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete My own feelings on the rest of the matter aside, no one here should not have access to his home address, which is printed on the check. Sven Manguard (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Scan of a 1977 newspaper photo 199.247.253.58 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused, very small, a bit strange image of an airport (part) - not really useful - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
strange unused image .of something (montage?) - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
taken from myspace - copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
TV-image - taken from a website? - station? - copy vio Please use this source (Courtesy TBS) Thanks! Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort used in a now deleted copyvio on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort used in a now deleted copyvio on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Used for vandalism on nl-wiki; nonsense date 1926/2026; nonsense author kees kaaskoek Vinkje83 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Not being used; unusused wikimedian picture Rockfender (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
useless JeanBono (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its a copy from an havatar from here, most probably a copyvio as well, besides being completely out of scope. I believe it was intended to be a test, anyway.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yann deleted "File:Los biseps.png" (Copyright violation) High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
no description, missing permission, not used Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
missing description, probably not notable artwork Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, private photo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
should be copyrighted JeanBono (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable band - out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
far out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, not notable organisation Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
no description, not used Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
code in jpeg - out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional photo, not used Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File has insufficient source and author information High Contrast (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable writer's back Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - map of unidentified place (no description, not used) Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, no description, so probably private photo Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
ouf of scope Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Fritz Kiehn is a interest person in Germany, but not his family. It exist no permission for this picture from the other persons. Mef.ellingen (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- A Keep for me. Seem to be in PD.--Ben.MQ (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For one, we don't need permission for a public picture; for another, it's silly to be worrying about this for an 85 year old photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Fritz Kiehn is a interest person in Germany, but not his family. It exist no permission for this picture from the other persons. Mef.ellingen (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, delete this as a duplicate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Duplicate of the one above ( File:F.K._als_aufstrebender_Unternehmer_der_Weimarer_Republik.jpeg). This image is not used but the other one does--Ben.MQ (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No sufficient permission. OTRS required. PaterMcFly (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
poor quality and what is this? JeanBono (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This is obviously unfree and shouldn't be on WM Commons for that reason. Island Monkey (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Katekrejci (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inonsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Likely to be advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all per nom. Wknight94 talk 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
technical problem with the svg format which I have to fix before re-uploading Geopsis (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Test file. Yann (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
technical problem with the svg format which I have to fix before re-uploading Geopsis (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Test file. Yann (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Same reason as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano. The uploader was blocked for a month after that deletion discussion, and as soon as they're back, they continue in the same way. Looks like a screenshot of a television broadcast or a photographs of a television screen rather than the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This banknote was created in 1990, and the image has no license or anything (other than just a statement to just pass this image around, which is not good enough for the Commons in the terms of permissions). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd read permission to distribute acquired by email as "waiting for OTRS" --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the image and permission were from 2005, so who knows. Plus, if it is just for redistribution, no mention of modification, commercial use (and even if that is mentioned, if the currency was created by Croatia in 1990, I am not sure even if we can host it here due to that). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I donno about copyright on Croatian currency, but there hardly would be a real problem about its use. The currency is not valid any more. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we need to know the copyright in order to host here (if not, then it goes onto en.wikipedia). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I donno about copyright on Croatian currency, but there hardly would be a real problem about its use. The currency is not valid any more. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the image and permission were from 2005, so who knows. Plus, if it is just for redistribution, no mention of modification, commercial use (and even if that is mentioned, if the currency was created by Croatia in 1990, I am not sure even if we can host it here due to that). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Croatian currency}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This banknote was created in 1990, and the image has no license or anything (other than just a statement to just pass this image around, which is not good enough for the Commons in the terms of permissions). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Croatian currency}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This banknote was created in 1990, and the image has no license or anything (other than just a statement to just pass this image around, which is not good enough for the Commons in the terms of permissions). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Croatian currency}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This banknote was created in 1990, and the image has no license or anything (other than just a statement to just pass this image around, which is not good enough for the Commons in the terms of permissions). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Croatian currency}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This banknote was created in 1990, and the image has no license or anything (other than just a statement to just pass this image around, which is not good enough for the Commons in the terms of permissions). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Croatian currency}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
i had initially marked this picture as no source, but I believe there is a reasonable probability that it could be PD-Old, though I'm sending this to a regular DR instead. Darwin Ahoy! 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
originally uploaded as - with the source as G.A.P's (Global Assistance Partners) website, which does not have a (c) statement that I could find; however "Own work" can't be correct 67.180.104.238 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The source page does not mention this image as being licensed under CC. It is likely that the uploader provided a false licensing tag. 朝彦 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The house owner does not want to have the photograph on internet Vidariv (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable house of an historical figure, and the house architecture on itself seems to be notable enough to make this a valuable image. The photo seems to have been taken from the street.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - There's FOP for buildings in Norway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable house. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is not taken from the street, but from inside the garden. The house owener called me and told me that she did not want to have the photo on internet. I think we should respect this Mbakkel2 12:59, 21 June 2011 (CEST)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Stamp does not appear to meet terms of the licence. (too recent) Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the picture was donated by a private collector. Shadowxfox (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean Shadowfox? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Licence is wrong. Item is too recent. Should be 80 years old. Marked as 1950 but actually is 2005. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please ignore, I think the paintings on the stamp are out of copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent stamp that does not appear to be 50 years old and therefore out of copyright in Colombia. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
File:The_Servant_Of_God,_Father_Varghese_Palakkappillil_with_the_Pioneer_Sisters_of_the_Destitute.png
[edit]
Strange picture. It seems that the person in the middle was photoshopped in from some other photograph. Giving the fact the photograph came from an untrusted crowd-sourced resource I tend to vote for deletion of such picture. Trycatch (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a strange picture, but I don't believe photoshop has anything to do with it. It looks more like some primitive attempt at displaying the father and the sisters along with the mission where they lived or worked, by double exposure or some other method. In any case, the facts are: At least the fore photograph is from before 1929, and no authorship is stated at the source (which, by the way, though not being great on itself, I suspect has received this material from the great-grand nephew of the subject, who is also here in Commons, but he would confirm if it is so). -- Darwin Ahoy! 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, if you look closer to it, you will see that it was not the middle person who was inserted there, but rather an entirely distinct photograph of the sisters seated along with the father in the middle. It's a whole group, not only one person. The sisters and the plant in the left also do not belong there, you can even see part of their chairs. This sort of "special effect" was usual in the 20's and was very easy to do using double exposure, though as you may see the result was often quite awkward.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like double exposure or something, it just a plain good old Photoshop. Look at the bottom -- it's a mess, everything was cloned there, look at the armrests -- the whole area was moved from some other photograph. I've marked suspicious features on this picture: [2] -- yes, it seems that the person at the right (and the whole right part of the photo) was photoshopped as well. You can't do things like this with double exposure, it's just a basic clone brush. Trycatch (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9776/vaghese1.png){kind=link}
- Well, now that you marked it it's completely obvious that it's good old photoshop. :) The objective that the author was trying to get with such a weird composition is unclear, however. I wonder if a crop of the torso of the priest would be acceptable, though? -- Darwin Ahoy! 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that this was a photo of four sisters, 3rd sister was moved on the right, and the priest was moved from other photograph on her place. It's just a baseless guess, however. I agree that a crop would be ok, however, we don't know much about the publication history of this photo/these photos. Trycatch (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe your guess was pretty much what happened, especially given the repetition of the scenario in the back of the fourth sister. From their biography, and given the fact that in that photo the good sisters were not blushing flowers of 20 something anymore, but rather women in a very advanced age, I believe it can be fairly assumed that the photograph is a copyvio, except for the father who, I believe, can be fairly assumed to be PD-OLD, since he looks very young there and was born in 1876. Its probably a photo from about the time he was ordained, in 1907. Incidentally, I believe I found why the third nun is floating and looks much younger than the others. She died in 1950, so when the surviving sisters took that photograph - in the 1970s, I presume - she was no more with them. The author of this collage picked the three sisters photograph of the 70s, moved the third nun to the far left, and inserted the father picture from the 1900s and Sister Cecyl, who seems to be in her 30s or 40s, creating this visual and chronological absurd. If you don't oppose, I'll try to isolate the father image, and upload it under a different name. This file should be deleted as copyvio, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is higher resolution version of this photo on the site you linked to: [3], and I agree with your analysis -- there is something wrong with 3rd nun, maybe her face was replaced. Well, interesting quest. I am not going to oppose to the keeping of the cropped father (however, this picture can be created in early 1900s, but published much later). Trycatch (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](http://sistersofthedestitute.org/sisfiles/1244814060/image/Founder%20with%20pioneers_.jpg){kind=link}
- Say, is there a time traveler over here? --Yuval Y § Chat § 13:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It has a blank borders around image itself. I will reupload a correct one soon. 83.170.238.218 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Just load the new one over this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Image défectueuse Leonard Paris (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not broken as far as I see Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong image Lefthander Chassis (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Source: "History". Author: "Folklore" (it's a contemporary map of 17th-18th century Ukraine). NVO (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What is the problem then? The Map is clearly old enough to be PD, so a missing/wrong author doesn't really matter from a copyright point of view. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Clearly old enough" - just how old? 1970s? 1980s? (sans-serif typeface looks like not earlier than 1970s). NVO (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could be right, but then this is not a "contemporary" map, but maybe a copy from a history book. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Clearly old enough" - just how old? 1970s? 1980s? (sans-serif typeface looks like not earlier than 1970s). NVO (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan. Vantey (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accidentally put a wrong file name. I'll upload a new one with correct name. Ximonic (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just put {{Rename}} on this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons doesn't have a WikiProject Geography, so a Hindi userbox for it isn't much use Rd232 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It is in use on a user page -- who is, presumably, claiming that he is a member of the project. Does that put it in scope? Or just make him mistaken? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The user in question created the template. It's probably just copied from the Hindi Wikipedia (where he's an admin) - and where there probably is such a project. He hasn't been active here since 2008 and on Hindi WP since 2010, so - delete. Rd232 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OK Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 1955. I believe this is over one of the entrances of the Sage Building Annex, which dates from 1930-31, and therefore is still not public domain Darwin Ahoy! 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although there is no freedom of panorama in the US except for buildings, sculptures which are part of buildings are also exempted. When I get home, I'll post the Supreme Court ruling on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be great. If possible update the FOP page with that as well. There is also another sculpture by the same artist in the same situation, the Prometheus in Queens College, it would be great if both are saved.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am having trouble finding the citation, the gist of which was that if the sculptural work was an intimate part of the building, the right to photograph the building extended to the artwork as well. It may have been a circuit court decision, not a Supreme Court ruling, but apparently still in force. I'll keep looking, but in actuality I realized it's not relevant. The panel is not over the door to the Annex to the Russell Sage Foundation Building, it's over the side door to the original building. The building dates from 1912-1913, but the panels were installed in the alteration of 1922, so as pre-1923, they are public domain. (If you're familiar with the building, the Annex is the 15-story building just west of the 5-story "connector" which links it to the original building.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- From what I read here, you are right, though it says that the panels were carve between 1922 and 1926, but let's not be picky.
- Please don't desist to find the court action, there is another picture of a sculpture by the same artist that would otherwise be deleted, and most important, it could save uncountable more.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still looking, and I'm a bit distressed not to be able to find it. I came across it when I first investigated Freedom of Panorama, and I thought it was interesting and something that was not generally known, but it wasn't relevant to the specific case I was looking into, so I never posted it. I thought I had saved in on my hard drive, but apparently not, and now I can't find it online, or the article which pointed me to it. I have the feeling I'm not using the right search terms. I have one possible link, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow when my wife can access Lexis/Nexis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am having trouble finding the citation, the gist of which was that if the sculptural work was an intimate part of the building, the right to photograph the building extended to the artwork as well. It may have been a circuit court decision, not a Supreme Court ruling, but apparently still in force. I'll keep looking, but in actuality I realized it's not relevant. The panel is not over the door to the Annex to the Russell Sage Foundation Building, it's over the side door to the original building. The building dates from 1912-1913, but the panels were installed in the alteration of 1922, so as pre-1923, they are public domain. (If you're familiar with the building, the Annex is the 15-story building just west of the 5-story "connector" which links it to the original building.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be great. If possible update the FOP page with that as well. There is also another sculpture by the same artist in the same situation, the Prometheus in Queens College, it would be great if both are saved.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture on Remsen Hall, a 1950 building, by sculptor who died in 1955, not in public domain Darwin Ahoy! 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
not necessary Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
not necessary Luxusfrosch (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be a professional photo, presumably of Ivan Teves, who I assume to be the uploader, in which case it's unlikely he has copyright of the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the last remaining Nkabouris upload of dubious authenticity. I couldn't find a source for it, but on the face of the many other copyvios uploaded as own work, it's best to send to DR. Darwin Ahoy! 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Orphaned logo, used in a now deleted copyvio on en.wikipedia, low quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploaded in 2007 with no evidence of permission to use, please validate if the license is correct or if the file should be deleted as precaution Darwin Ahoy! 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The original source of this file is unknown, but it is most certainly not Agência Brasil. There is no evidence that this image is free. Karppinen (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is probably a 3x4cm picture from his ID card. Agencia Brasil also republish third-party content, so some pictures from its site (like this one) are not under commons creative license. Giro720 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no evidence for CC-BY-SA license given, [4] just says it can be used free of charge for reporting --08-15 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read again, carefully. The third sentence on http://www.chatzi.de/de/presse/pressefotos.html reads: "Es gilt für alle Fotos: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de". This means: All photos are under the cc-by-sa-3.0, what else? --Tom A.T. (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
i want to sell that Moroyanu (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licence and Creative Commons licences are irrevocable. --High Contrast (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
_02_(edits).jpg){kind=link}
_02_(edits).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
facesbook 76.108.20.209 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
_02_(edits).jpg){kind=link}
- What do you like to express with "facesbook"? Was it published before on facebook and where (provide a link)? Please answer or I will close this as a hoax-request. -- RE rillke questions? 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
_02_(edits).jpg){kind=link}
and other uploads by SOS Fantome (talk · contribs). Images may be in public domain, but relevant information must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Remaining files are this and File:1131483148 Soldat français fleur.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by PunkieMX (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader is grabbing files from Panoramio (GoogleEarth) and editing them. Not own work. Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and other uploads by Aculina Strasnei Popa (talk · contribs). Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See source, the page says 版权所有：武汉外国语学校 (Copyright:WFLS). May be a violation. Ben.MQ (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
See source, the page says 版权所有：武汉外国语学校 (Copyright:WFLS). May be a violation. Ben.MQ (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
See source, the page says 版权所有：武汉外国语学校 (Copyright:WFLS). May be a violation. Ben.MQ (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Japangyro (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The site on which this was created reserves all rights to the images created there and the components which it provides. Also, this is out of scope, as it is a personally created crest, with no history or background. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Might want to actually indicate the site next time, Jim. – Adrignola talk 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
philippines revolutionary - but a copy vio - needs an OTRS, taken from a website (like all images of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission received. – Adrignola talk 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
TinEye image searches show some of "yamaha_gangsta"'s Flickr uploads appearing elsewhere on the Internet. Although I could not find original copy of this specific image, uploader's Flickr unconvincing photostream consists of random images mostly related to protests in Egypt. Seems to be a case of license laundering. Karppinen (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep TinEye image searches shows that is not true [5]. and also unless you can back your claim that there is another image that happens to be the original image, the image should stay. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment There is absolute proof that Flickr user has copied images from elsewhere and posted them in Flickr. Some examples: this photograph can be found from Wael Ghonim's Twitter, this photograph is work of Associated Press, copy of this photograph can be found here, this photograph was from here, this photograph is work of Reuters and this photograph was originally from here. I wouldn't trust a Flickr user who has uploaded mostly copyright violations. Although I could not find evidence that this particular image was taken from somewhere else, the poor quality and lack of metadata from camera are enough to raise suspicion. --Karppinen (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: License laundering and no OTRS permission received. – Adrignola talk 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope -- text, personal, no general educational value Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 06:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment file is in use [6]. But I do not see any educational value as well for this image --High Contrast (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It is no longer in use. The Users WP:EN user page, where it was used, was far out of scope and was deleted at the user's request. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright status is unclear, if it can't be clarified probably it would be best to move this image back to wiki-en Darwin Ahoy! 18:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Moved back to en.wiki. – Adrignola talk 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
TinEye image searches show some of "yamaha_gangsta"'s Flickr uploads appearing elsewhere on the Internet. Although I could not find original copy of this specific image, uploader's Flickr unconvincing photostream consists of random images related to protests in Egypt. Seems to be a case of license laundering. Karppinen (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep TinEye image searches shows that is not true [7]. and also unless you can back your claim that there is another image that happens to be the original image, the image should stay. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I have two emails from the uploader affirming the images are originals. He is in Egypt and a part of the protests and the activist culture there. I'd be happy to forward the emails to whomever. He says he also gives away his images on other sites, which would explain their showing up elsewhere. Ocaasi (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is absolute proof that Flickr user has copied images from elsewhere and posted them in Flickr. Some examples: this photograph can be found from Wael Ghonim's Twitter, this photograph is work of Associated Press, copy of this photograph can be found here, this photograph was from here, this photograph is work of Reuters and this photograph was originally from here.
- Although the uploader on Flickr could very well be the original copyright holder of this image, his quite suspicious Flickr history does not make him look like a genuine photographer at all. Why is this such a poor quality image? Where is the metadata from camera? --Karppinen (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have been trying to get a hold of "Wael Ghonim" to see if he knows yamaha and if yamaha did take that photo and if there were any other photographer that were talking his photo while he was on the bridge. We also have an OTRS from Ghonim from his other photo so I might not have to talk. As for the metadata of this photo, I have no idea why it is not showing up. On flickr, It shows that it was taken by a RIM BlackBerry 8520. As for the other photos that we know that they are copyrighted from other websites (BBC, Reuters, AP), They are copyrighted in his account, meaning we could not use them anyway and he might have uploaded them just because he likes them (Many flickr users tend to do that). As for the photo of that shows people who are praying being attacked, There's a huge problem there, noone really knows how took it; it was giving to Aljazera by anonymous user on their sharek website. Anyways, Im trying to fix some of the problem facing the other picture but I think this picture is ok to keep for now unless we find the original, then I will try to talk the owner into releasing it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear provenance. – Adrignola talk 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Self-drawn instructions for drug use. Out of scope, not useful for an educational purpose. Jafeluv (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- First must be fixed the lie that the charts were "instructions", because they only show the mechanism which makes the effect while otherwise properly performed, also the propose creator didn't present any sources given for example on Finnish Wikipedia where they were given, in an article. Due to these arguments Jafeluv's request is pure vandalism and should be quickly closed. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- LOL! Slice - dice - profit! These Finnish prices went out of hand lately. Jafeluv: Get real, what instructions? It's just a poor comic doodle. If it's not in use, delete as unused "personal artwork". NVO (talk)
- Not in use, poor quality. Delete.--MiPe (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Very informative and useful graphics, should be added in related articles. 91.155.36.53 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep because these are not instructions but showing the mechanism about how do they work. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, pictures are absolutely useless. --Otrfan (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I personally found the instructions very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.100.209.215 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
- Speedy delete, parody/vandalism. --Ilaiho (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the user Ilaiho is a famous cross wiki vandal, before the conser of his comments. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary. Ilaiho is a user in good standing on the Finnish Wikipedia, with over 9k edits and holds rollback rights there since 2008. The only entry in his block log since registering in 2005 was one in a series of blatantly inappropriate blocks (reversed eight minutes later) for which the blocking user was subsequently emergency desysopped.[8] He is also one of the administrators of Finnish Wikinews. The above comment is a flat-out incorrect and inappropriate personal attack. Jafeluv (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good usering another user on same vandalismy sysopped wikiproject, is not appropriate, and no usable in any way. "Vandalism" or something is a personal attack while not explained, but cross vandalism is a good proposition. User has got for example: vandalizing templates with making their HTML-based contributes shown on any page the template was used with; reverting vandalismy added speedy delete -template, into a over 10 000 bytes long page, and not given the strictly required reason field. After due his commentary on the page is pure vandalism. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- In addition: User has done mass codebased junk spreading on pages with referenced on Irti Huumeista -organization [9] etcetera. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Something weird id going on here. Adding 2 more: File:Synapse without drugged.gif, File:Kannabis psychosis.png. Yann (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikis have very few synapse images with animation, or have? This comment and vandalizing is user pointed hassarment, not about images loaded here. Wikis have very much troll images which have been also duplicated, do a search "trollface" to see, and synapse is informative, and that's way the vandalism is now reverted there. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, Definitely in scope. Wikimedia Commons does not have an anti-drug policy! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. Actually I didn't imply that we have any such policy. We don't have an anti-brusing-your-teeth policy, but self-drawn
MS Paintimages about brushing your teeth can still be out of scope as not useful for an educational purpose, can't they? Jafeluv (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)- It is some personal attack, very powerful, to say about being drawn by MS Paint, actually these charts are designed and drawwed via G.I.M.P. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- My point wasn't actually the program used, but fair enough. I've struck part of my comment accordingly. Jafeluv (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is some personal attack, very powerful, to say about being drawn by MS Paint, actually these charts are designed and drawwed via G.I.M.P. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. Actually I didn't imply that we have any such policy. We don't have an anti-brusing-your-teeth policy, but self-drawn
- Delete, useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment is unbased, not defined and consered to be a very strict personal attack. -Asian tuntiij (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Educational. Vibhijain (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain. For me, these drawings seem to be ridiculously biased and of very low quality. UnCommons stuff, at best. --ilaiho (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Low quality is not a reason for deletion. According to the description, it says that the image tells How abusing drugs by sniffing them does exactly work.. I see no reason for deletion. Vibhijain (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Useless image. --Stryn (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. Could be transferred to Uncyclopedia or similar though. --Jisis (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep its educational--Mayur (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Falls under several categories of images not in scope. – Adrignola talk 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Image is CC-BY-NC-ND. (See EXIF and watermark in bottom left). Separately, there is copyrighted art by Olek clearly visible in the right half.GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment left a comment for the author at flickr. Is that art work a big issue?--Ben.MQ (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'd say the main issue is the license, the artwork isn't the main subject here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. The artwork could be cropped out. There's no workaround the license problem.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'd say the main issue is the license, the artwork isn't the main subject here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unacceptable license. – Adrignola talk 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a fake title. Matthieu Chatelin bought the title "baron" from a not existing Sarah Helen Leeder see here [10] for exemple Traumrune (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am no longer sure the file is out of scope. I put the transcription of the letter under the description. Maybe it is an interesting file for studies. But if it is deleted the file File:Page de garde des lettres anoblissant le Baron Matthieu CHATELIN.jpg and File:Armoiries du Baron Matthieu CHATELIN,Lord de Redwoods.jpg have to be deleted too. Traumrune (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Ask for a rename of the title with {{Rename}}. No reason provided for deletion. – Adrignola talk 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This is essentially a user page image, fakely granted. It is out of scope and not in use. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is related to this map on wikipedia, personal pages, nore internet Ciaurlec (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Leaning to delete. Not sure what it's all about (it might turn out wiki-notable), but "Author: Dusty Roads Media" is a red flag. Needs at least OTRS. NVO (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep this image. It pertains to a chapter in my book which I'm going to reference in bio. The company listed as the author made the map for me. I have the rights to it. --ABBauthor (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permisson from Dusty Roads Media. Please follow instructions at OTRS if you wish to have it restored. – Adrignola talk 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
poor quality Reddog11223 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a derivative (photo of a photo) of unknown source. NVO (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
poor quality wife request her picture be removed Reddog11223 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Since this is the author requesting, it sounds like he now knows that the subject does not consent to us hosting the image. Hence this certainly fails COM:PEOPLE. --99of9 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and uploader. Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Originally tagged as copyvio with the following argument: "источник или обоснование - There is not PD - it's only project of COA. See [11]" I checked the source, and this CoA does indeed seem to be teh artist proposal for a CoA rather than the official one, therefore the licensing is incorrect, and the work is possibly under copyright. Darwin Ahoy! 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a project. Approved by Bykovskii regional Duma of Volgograd region of 21.07.2009 #61/402--User№101 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, even with the Google translation, it is clear that it was not this CoA what was approved: "In the rough to the left running waves of gold and azure field at the top - going scarlet bull with a gold ring in the nostrils, at the bottom of the gold with green stripes bordered with gold melon thinly and accompanied by a circle of fourteen gold eight pointed star. The shield is crowned crown municipal standard pattern" - No bull with gold ring in the nostrils, no 14 eight pointed stars, etc. -- Darwin Ahoy! 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. You must delete the image. The correct coat of arms here. --User№101 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, copied from here or some other place. As this is a flag I thought a DR would be better than tagging as copyvio. Darwin Ahoy! 10:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- This seems weird. The commons file has a higher resolution than the one that it was supposed to be copied from. And the "or some other place" statement is utterly vague. This or this or this are actually the more likely locations. Obviously this brings a chicken-egg question. --Whaledad (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Some other place", since the uploader is a known copyfraudster, and you will notice that in the link I gave, the same flag (even if in a low res.) was uploaded more than 6 months before this user uploaded it here. I believe it's obvious what is the egg, even if the right chicken can't be found. My only doubt is if this is copyrightable, being a flag, otherwise it would have already gone as a copyvio.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: if there is no evidence about the copyright situation, this is copyrighted Jcb (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Themisderecho
[edit]
All files are unused media from [13], a Peruvian website/association/magazine with no notability/advertising as per deleted here es:THEMIS - no foreseeable use, out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Highly stylised logo that is certainly subject to copyright and not composed solely of simple geometric shapes. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: pd text logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt very much that this user has the right to release this company logo into the Public Domain -- it may be PD-text logo, but that is not what is claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
British logo. Looks more complex than en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. INeverCry 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by LenVest (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Настоящий файл моя личная собственность (Лена Вестергольм), свободно к распространению, съемка Петра Иванова. Уфа.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This user has uploaded several confirmed copyright violations (File:SCGEpista1.jpg, File:LUCAS B.jpg, File:Lucasbarrios.jpg, File:Barriosborussiadortmund.jpg, File:Lucasb2.jpg, File:Ladecochile2.jpg and File:Iberia2011plantelcompleto.jpg) in spite of repeated warnings, thus calling all their authorship claims into question. I'm willing to believe that the high-resolution photos taken with a Canon PowerShot A460 are actually the uploader's own work, so those have not been included here. The files listed here are all low-resolution photos without EXIF data, with the exception of File:SCGEpistaterrizaje1.jpg and File:SCGEapril2.jpg, which are not low-resolution, but are still missing EXIF data.
- File:Tomassssalazar1.jpg
- File:Usm lautaron debuin.jpg
- File:Unionsantamriaplantel1.jpg
- File:IntiSchröder1.jpg
- File:Estadiocap1.jpg
- File:Ladeco Fokker f27-500.jpg
- File:SCGEapril2.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
As far as i know, this image appeared originally in the uruguayan version of the album: "Mateo solo bien se lame" (De la Planta KL 8317. 1972). Where this image came from?, the uploader owns the original record, or he took it from elsewhere in the internet?. It doesnt seem to be an scan of the album cover.--Zeroth (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The original album was published in Argentina before Uruguay in October 1972 , for the no-longer existent label Trova.--Negromacondo (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please, provide the source of the image, like a link for the scanned (full) cover. I dubt this photograph was present in original version of the album. --Zeroth (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
