Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/02/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dross.png Ramuzna (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, https://www.instagram.com/p/CYoxHwCr6RR/. --Achim55 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
No educational use, used for cyberbullying on nlwiki. See also the dutch file-description Bas dehaan (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ошибочно загружен Николай Сваровский (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
ошибочно загружен Николай Сваровский (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Claimed as "public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer" and "published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927", but neither is true for a painting from 1937, by an artist who died in 1966. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted thanks for flagging this Lord Belbury. I have no clue how this one slipped through. I must have accidentally removed one of the filters for a custom run. I'll have a look if more slipped through. Multichill (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted package. Solomon203 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:47, 5 February 2022 UTC: Derivative work of non-free content (F3): Commercial packaging --Krdbot 20:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of COM:SCOPE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Welcome to Pennsylvania (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused, non-notable - en:wiki article rejected. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Used for vandalism targeting this person on English Wikipedia. No future use expected. Liz (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Useless Self Promotion Picture that serves no purpose 2405:201:6806:5065:3004:10DE:4CDE:FDC2 08:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
no source no permission also non encyclopedic child used as victim of cross wiki promo spam Hoyanova (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Meaningless image, apparently used in an advertisement Andre Engels (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
portrait of a non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Portrait of a non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Portrait of an unspecified person Andre Engels (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
screenshot from a non-notable film Andre Engels (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
screenshot from a non-notable film Andre Engels (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
portrait of an unidentified person Andre Engels (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
screenshot from an unspecified program Andre Engels (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saidul Islam143 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Collection of personal photos.
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 15.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 13.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 14.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 12.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 11.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 10.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 09.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 07.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 08.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 06.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 04.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 05.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 01.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 03.jpg
- File:Md. Saidul Islam Personal Photo 02.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
vague image for a non-notable organization Andre Engels (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subodhkumarbthbthbth (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Collection of personal photos.
- File:Subodh singh kushwaha.jpg
- File:Subodh sonali singh.jpg
- File:Subodh babu.jpg
- File:Subodh rebal.jpg
- File:Subodh singh.jpg
- File:Murat-singh.jpg
- File:Sonalisingh.jpg
- File:Subodh-sonali-singh.jpg
- File:Subodh rebel.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a rather crude drawing of a heart Andre Engels (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Single upload, small file, no EXIF, unidentified location. File not in use. Smooth O (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photos
Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. And likely not own work but low-res/web-size screengrab P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photos
Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Devkalyan Baidya (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photo
Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mahmud Bakhtiar (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos
Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by K M Hamayat Hossain (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo
Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of company of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo Afifa Afrin (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused 3D chemical model consisting of anion+cation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Inorganic salts should not be depicted as a simple 3D molecular models consisting of anion(s)+cation(s), but as a crystal structures. Wostr (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)- Delete per nom & as chemically incorrect. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, experiments, no usage Gampe (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlirezaAzad83 (talk · contribs)
[edit]personal images out of COM:SCOPE, used for promotion at wikidata.org
- File:AlirezaAzad 17.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 16.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 15.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 14.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 13.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 12.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 11.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 09.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 07.png
- File:AlirezaAzad 08.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 06.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 05.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 04.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 02.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 01.jpg
- File:AlirezaAzad 03.jpg
Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate chemical diagram that has been replaced; not a molecular compound. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unused, disputed file. Wostr (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violationKe an (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure: TIF instead of PNG, and uses -O instead of -OH for hydroxy groups. All uses replaced by File:De epoxynivalenol.png. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete very poor quality + chemical inaccuracies. Wostr (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per chemical mistake & low-quality image. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL violation Ke an (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Ivan Veretennikov is a Russian folklorist, composer, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation. Member of the Union of Composers of Russia, has the Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland", has the title of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation". There is a Wikipedia article about it. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal images, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Farhad Omidwar - NBC Interview.jpg
- File:Volunteer team at the 10,000 Best Jobs Expo.jpg
- File:Farhad Omidwar at the 10,000 Best Jobs Expo.jpg
- File:Farhad Omidwar - 1994 USOSD Karate Exhibition.jpg
- File:Farhad Omidwar - 1993 USOSD Karate Exhibition.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagram without context, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Websolutionshull (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text doc, out of scope and unclear copyright status.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RAJUKUMAR16288 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res/web-size screengrab thumbnails, unusable and likely copyvios.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused tiny sketches without context, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mirko Pagano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams without clear purpose, no meaningful description, unusable, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of nondescript object, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused random photo of nondescript toys/crafts, no educational use, unusable and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot snippet, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 19:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res diagrams without clear purpose, and one image with math equations that should be in wiki-markup if needed, out of scope.
- File:Skizze Castor - Endlösung.png
- File:Skizze AKW Müll elektrische Energie.png
- File:Redoxreaktion im Basischen und Sauren.gif
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yet more COMMONS:OOS crap from a user who can’t seem to understand COMMONS:PORN Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yet more COMMONS:OOS crap from a user who can’t seem to understand COMMONS:PORN Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused image of unidentified male. Out of Scope if indeed not a copyright violation as well. See size is Facebook size and quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused band spam. If uploader is depicted, it is not possible to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized image likely out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused private photo Hubert Kororo (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
used on cswiki to illustrate a mock article; most probably vandalism and/or harassement GeXeS (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laxmi Narayan Maharana official (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
unused logo, out of Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Self-promotion (COM:ADVERT). Allegedly personal picture only used at the article made by the uploader about herself at pt.wiki, and the article itself has been nominated for deletion. Solon 26.125 23:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:EV + no use + self-promotion Renvoy (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused low quality images of flag and COA, no meaningful description, likely personal fantasy, no educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Very blurry. Out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Autoportrét, též Madoňák, Rekviem nebo Oplakávání pejska, před 1980, polychromovaná sádra, v. 70 cm (1).jpg
[edit]- also file:Zdeněk J. Preclík, Píseň, 1979.jpg
Sculptor died in 2021 and his works are protected with copyright until 2092 (70+1 years from death). Freedom of panorama in Chech Republic applies only for works permanently situated in public places. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC) - keep The copyright for the photograph of the sculpture is owned by the photographer, not the author of the sculpture. This is different from the photographic reproduction of a 2D work. --Gampe (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Photographs of sculptures have double copyright. Photographer and sculptor both have it. Taivo (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is not different from 2D work. There is no freedom of interiors in the Czech Republic, thus photographs of artwork in the interiors could not be freely used. The photographer is the owner of the photograph but does not poses the right to share the image. See other such cases. --Černá micka (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Photographs of sculptures have double copyright. Photographer and sculptor both have it. Taivo (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, the uploader needs the agreement from the sculptor.--Černá micka (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Violation of Canadian copyright law SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. I made this. I did not bought it from anywhere else. N32756377 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Be honest. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Violation of US copyright law SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. I made this. I did not bought it from anywhere else. N32756377 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Be honest. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I mistook the person pictured for another for whom I was actually looking for an illustration. Therefore, I have no use for the image at all. Auguste de Gouges (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Someone else may be interested in using it, if a museum finds the person interesting, we should also, and create a Wikidata entry for them. --RAN (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Published in Austria in 1913, the immediate URL where this was taken from is apparently [1]. The artist is named as one Marga Martinssen. I could not find any information about this woman apart from what was written in this magazine issue. She's called "Frau" (Mrs.), so she was married and probably not a young teen anymore, is said to be from Munich, of French origin, a student of M(oritz) Heymann and a "rising star". Apparently she wasn't really, else I would have found more about her, but this suggests she was still young. On page 9 of that issue, there's a photograph of her, looking at which I think she could have been anywhere between the ages of 20 and 40. If I go with 20 (quite young, but she could already have been married at that age), she would have been born in 1892/1893 and easily could have lived to 1968 or 1973. So the artwork could very well still protected by copyright per the usual 70 years pma formula, and I'll delete it per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 14:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
{{copyvio| published 1933 not 1926 see: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth117159/m1/92/}} Jujutacul65 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Db-g7}} Jujutacul65 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
copyvio|https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth117159/m1/92/ Jujutacul65 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Copyvio| 1=https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-newspaper-printing-press-1898-99-135097900.html}} Mackle.td (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Hi sorry. New webpage added, sorry, thank Mackle.td (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Db-g7}} Mackle.td (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-expired, the fact that Alamy is selling it does not change its status. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: Hi Can I delete this current B&W image to replace it with this image from: https://www.heatherdcurtis.com/popular-media-global-expansion/ it has the original signature and more color.Mackle.td (talk) 16 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Db-g7}} would like to pls replace with this image:https://www.heatherdcurtis.com/popular-media-global-expansion/ it includes a signature and more color Mackle.td (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC) {{Db-g7}} Mackle.td (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ Hi Can I delete this current B&W image to replace it with this image from: https://www.heatherdcurtis.com/popular-media-global-expansion/ it has the original signature and more color. Mackle.td (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠Please I am begging. Can I delete this image. I'm scared I messed up. I can reupload with a more appropriate version: https://collections.mcny.org/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult_VPage&VBID=24UP1GVKG4V5&SMLS=1&RW=1432&RH=732&VP3=SearchResult_VPage&VBID=24UP1GVKG4V5&SMLS=1&RW=1432&RH=732#/SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GRA8LPCD&PN=1&WS=SearchResults Mackle.td (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keeping. Esta parece más grande. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.116.20.130 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠I'm really not sure if this is in the public domain. I just listed the date it was made (I don't know when it was published). Is there anyway to get this taken down. Please, I made a mistake I should have checked first. I'm so sorry. Mackle.td (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also could this be applied? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle Since the image was taken by the Byron Company (which is still around) and the collection is here: https://collections.mcny.org/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult_VPage&VBID=24UP1GVKG4V5&SMLS=1&RW=1432&RH=732&VP3=SearchResult_VPage&VBID=24UP1GVKG4V5&SMLS=1&RW=1432&RH=732 which requires licensing to use the images. Mackle.td (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Close as Kept. No reason for deletion; disruptive multiple templates. (Clearly public domain in US, country of origin- 1898 is old enough even if not published at time.) A different version of a public domain work may be uploaded without deleting an existing version. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Copyvio |1=Although the original photo is in the public domain, this is a derivative work from here: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-newspaper-printing-press-1898-99-135097900.html and as such copyrighted by the stock image contributor. The pd image can be used, but as you can see there are significant changes between the pd and the derivative work. https://www.heatherdcurtis.com/popular-media-global-expansion/}} Mackle.td (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Storkk: Your deletion is contrary to the previous admin decision. Would you please review this page and work it through with the admin as this looks like a brute force deletion request. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This was an obvious error on my part. I've checked the surrounding deletions in Category:Copyright violations I made, and think those were correct, so I must have selected this one by accident. Storkk (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've added a nowiki tag to the template to avoid transclusion and categorization. A full deletion request, upon which people can comment, supercedes a speedy deletion request except in the most obvious cases. Storkk (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Offering an image for sale does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Copyvio | 1= This image is originally taken from the (and is most likely published by) the Byron Collection at the Museum of the City of New York (google ID number: MNY17174). Looking at the page it requires licensing. If the image was previously unpublished, the museum may be the publisher/copyright owner. It would be important to present or get permission from the museum before other users can use this image (also read museum's policy on rights and reproductions of image). Please reconsider this issue as situation as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues for others. url= https://collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GRA8LPCD&PN=1&WS=SearchResults}} Jujutacul65 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment As there was already an open deletion discussion, no need to redundantly relist. Just give your comments in the ongoing discussion. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)- Keep per previous discussion; any Copyfraud (slapping a notice on something that was already copyright expired) does nothing to change the underlying PD status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No creative alterations has been made which warrants a copyright protection in the US according to our rules on PD-art and PD-scan. This is a slavish and faithful recreation of the original work. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as the previous two decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 23:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable team, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images. File:Tpoly.jpg was published here in 2013. Unreliable uploader.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eng. Itamar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eng. Itamar (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Per previous DR, this is an unreliable uploader. These 3 remaining uploads are also likely not own works: 3 low-res web sized diagrams with 3 very disparate styles and format.
- File:Esfera Rolante.png
- File:Gaiola de Faraday.png
- File:Sistema de Proteção contra Descargas Atmosféricas (SPDA).jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio: Derivative work from this book, p. 162, according to the uploader himself. 217.239.4.223 00:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The axonometric drawing is definetely my own work as graduate student at the Cornell AAP department in Ungers design studio. In the last chapter (A symbiotic operation - Peter Riemann in conversation with Florian Hertweck and Sebastien Marot) of the aforementioned book on page 162 (english version) it is described as: "Peter Riemann, study project für Buffalo, 1976". Please reinstall. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Likely to be a hoax, and it looks not that like a CoA. Stang★ 02:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thought so too when I started contributing to micronations but it exists. - DownTownRich (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- See the earlier deletion requests for similar files from the same uploader:
- Verbcatcher (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a probable hoax, unless the uploader can supply a source to confirm authenticity. A Google image search returns no matches. Also delete:
- Verbcatcher (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source https://africagov.org Converted the images into SVG - DownTownRich (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be the website of a real or of a proposed country, and it is a direct copy of the UK government website.[2] The terms and conditions page[3] asserts "Most content on GOV.AFR is subject to Crown copyright protection and is published under the Open Government Licence (OGL)", and links to the UK government's OGL page. Whatever the Kingdom of Africa is, it is clearly not a part of the UK government. The entire website is misleading, and we should not accept any licenses that it specifies. This is a logo that is above the threshold or originality, and we do not have a reliable free license for it. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: This would qualify for a speedy deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be the website of a real or of a proposed country, and it is a direct copy of the UK government website.[2] The terms and conditions page[3] asserts "Most content on GOV.AFR is subject to Crown copyright protection and is published under the Open Government Licence (OGL)", and links to the UK government's OGL page. Whatever the Kingdom of Africa is, it is clearly not a part of the UK government. The entire website is misleading, and we should not accept any licenses that it specifies. This is a logo that is above the threshold or originality, and we do not have a reliable free license for it. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source https://africagov.org Converted the images into SVG - DownTownRich (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This same uploader is also responsible for the "Kingdom of Africa" nonsense. All of their uploads were deleted per community consensus, and Rich recently reuploaded the File:Flag of Kingdom of Africa.svg despite the result. He then posted it under "Flags of micronations" [4] with a wikipedia link to "Kingdom of Africa". This entity did exist historically, but there is no mention or evidence of a current micronation. An admin might want to look into this as possible disruption at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- On second thought... Speedy delete this per CSD G4 as the image may be an exact duplicate of File:Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Africa.svg. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A speedy deletion tag has been removed by the uploader. This logo is above the threshold of originality. There is no evidence of a free license, and it is unlikely that the uploader is the author of the original logo. The PD-US claim is invalid because the African Union was founded in 2001 so US copyright will not have expired. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- See also the discussion at User talk:DownTownRich#File:Emblem of the African Union.svg and also Commons:Deletion requests/File:AU emblem.png. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- File creation based on File:Emblem of the African Union.png, see alsoCommons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the African Union.png - DownTownRich (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is a fair use copy of this logo in English Wikipedia at w:en:File:Emblem of the African Union.svg. This indicates that the Wikipedia uploader thought that the file was not reliably free. Also, the Commons file is binary-identical to the enwiki file (other than the sodipodi:docname field), which casts doubt on DownTownRich's claim of authorship. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Non-trivial logo, which is presumed to be copyrighted. However, it is possible that this is old enough to have fallen into the public domain, as it appears to be a symbol attached to a very old building de:Sensenschmiede Steinhub. However, we'd need to know for sure how old it is in order to keep it (per COM:PRP). IagoQnsi (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The sign was used as a brand for scythes and was registered in 1830 by de:Caspar Zeitlinger for his factory de:Sensenschmiede Steinhub (Source: Franz Schröckenfux: Geschichte der österreichischen Sensenwerke und ihrer Besitzer. Linz – Achern, 1975). The production of scythes ended in 1966. Since then, the sign ist not registered as a brand or copyrighted any more. Martin Osen (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If it is that old, it is surely out of copyright. Fry1989 eh? 14:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: if the original sign / logo recreated here is from 1830, its author could have lived for another 120 years and it would still be in the PD in Austria. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/194941214@N07
[edit]Flickrwashing: account was created this month and has 0 followers, 0 following. No EXIF data here or on flickr. Also, the image could be found on imdb crediting "Florentina Mocanu-Schendel".
Njd-de (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons is not fair use this is copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
COPYVIO. Dronebogus (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we have 100s of images like these already. --Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
photograph of a person who is described of the son of some as far as I can see non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
An image taken in 2017 that has a copyright claim on it from another name in 2016... Something tells me that that is NOT 'own work' Andre Engels (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Basedf on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Junior Charles at Windward Island School Games 2016.jpg I have no trust in this person's copyright claims. Andre Engels (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
After Commons:Deletion requests/File:Junior Charles at Windward Island School Games 2016.jpg I have no trust in this person's copyright claims Andre Engels (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo but unclear of what Andre Engels (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support deletion --Arjoopy (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Not useful Andre Engels (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep We have an entire Category:Floating leaves, so this high-quality image is useful. De728631 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
extremely improbable 'own work' claim Andre Engels (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
some football players of 'the club', not specifying which club that is Andre Engels (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
personal image Andre Engels (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Has what seems to be a watermark from a stock photo company (thus, very much copyright violation) Andre Engels (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyright violation (scanning a poster?). Even if it is not, this works better within Wikimedia sites as a text than as an image. Andre Engels (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I took this photo while an employee for a company therefore it may not be considered my work. So as a precaution it should be deleted. Newfoundlandguy (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
copyvio from the source 190.17.53.106 13:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Should not be here unless the subjects have given permission to be photographed and published on a public platform .... Highly unethical action by the uploader ... SHOULD BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY .... SPEEDY DELETION 2405:201:6806:5065:DCB:A6D8:779B:852F 13:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with the proposal of delection. The image has a free license and was already proven at the time it was uploaded. Therefore, the image of people in the photo does not interfere with anything, as the photo already has a proper license for Wikimedia Commons. WikiFer (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nissan2019 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same rationale as Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nissan2021, another sock of User:Yuiyui2001, a user with a history of uploading fake/speculative Philippines police badges
- File:Ph seal maguindanao del norte.png
- File:Ph seal maguindanao del sur.png
- File:PNP Maguindanao del Norte.png
- File:PNP Maguindanao del Sur.png
- File:PNP City of Isabela 2022.png
- File:PNP Dagupan 2022.png
- File:PNP Lucena 2022.png
Lord Belbury (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete User-generated fantasy/speculative artwork, definitely out of Commons' scope. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of Creative Commons license at the specified source. Bujo (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a crayon portrait, it's a digital filter applied to a Man Ray photo (File:Eugene McCown Jérôme Kagan Coll.jpg). Lord Belbury (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Different crops of this photo appear elsewhere online, such as https://www.codalario.com/carlo-bergonzi/noticias-2014/adios-al-catedratico-carlo-bergonzi.-por-alejandro-martinez_2197_90_5077_0_1_in.html Lord Belbury (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Image appears at same resolution at http://www.carlobergonzi.it/page.asp?IdCategoria=2288&IDSezione=&IDOggetto=&Tipo=GENERICO, with no CC licence, only "© copyright 2005" Lord Belbury (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
{{SD| G7 for "author/uploader request"}} dronepicr (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion, there are better photos in the category. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
G7 "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; commons licenses are irrevocable. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: File moved. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Some doubts whether "own work" by uploader, as shame shot on Facebook[5] credits "fotó: RegiPhoto". -- Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
- the photo's rights are mine.
- Thank you.
- Annamaria 2001:4C4C:229A:8F00:AD52:3F86:2D6:FA88 21:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tnvsjk2013 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not evidence of permission - suspect copyright is owned by Gov (same as South Africa, and same as UK - it was a former colony)
Ronhjones (Talk) 18:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; appears to be (c) at https://www.centralbank.org.ls. --Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tnvsjk2013 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tnvsjk2013 (talk · contribs)
[edit]This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bailiwick of Guernsey has no information about currency or government works.
- File:5basd.jpg
- File:5aasd.jpg
- File:1abasd.jpg
- File:1aaasd.jpg
- File:1£ Banknote reverse.jpg
- File:1£ Banknote observe.jpg
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: I found the same image here - https://thecoinexpert.co.uk/blog/can-you-use-guernsey-currency-in-the-uk/ - same serial number and size. Unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
ne esiste una versione a molta migliore risoluzione: File:Pala sforzesca.jpg Beaest (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep This file has a different colour balance, so we usually keep both versions as long as they are different. No reason for deletion --Sailko (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Sailko. Ruthven (msg) 11:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Fair use}} Mackle.td (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's still copyrighted, when the author died in 1914? --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- copyvio| not pd: https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/artifacts/runaway-scrape-account Mackle.td (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Db-g7}} Mackle.td (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Public domain per US law; any claims by the website are not valid copyright when the original is already PD. That said, the resolution is too low to read the text, and image is unused. There is no copyright problem, but I would not object to deletion on grounds of not being useful to Commons scope. Also, @Mackle.td: do not renominate something when there is still an open deletion discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Infrogmation of New Orleans sorry about the renominations. Would it still be possible to delete since it is illegible? thank you so much, sorry Mackle.td (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation Mackle.td (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as unused and unusable due to poor resolution. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Derivative works of magazines Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Ich habe es aus Versehen hochgeladen. MaxEmanuel (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G7 was applicable at the time of nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of nondescript place, no location, no meaningful description, unusable. And likely screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Google Images produced a bunch of results, inlcuding this one since 2010. Very unlikely to be own work. FYI, this is a rather famous cave in Vietnam as it's tied to former president Ho Chi Minh. — Băng Tỏa 20:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Băng Tỏa. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
For some of my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. Also, the file is in use (COM:INUSE). --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion, and in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. Tiny thumbnail, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; the (unused) image might just be large enough to be used in an article, but all the other reasons for deletion apply. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep You already shared it back in 2020. Too late for courtesy deletion with no reason. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- You already shared it here in 2020. Keep unless there is some reason it should be deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- In 2020 you shared it here, and granted a perpetual free license. What changed since 2020? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep See previous request, also without any actual reason given. I'm open even to late courtesy deletions if there is a compelling reason, but just "dont want share it" isn't one when it's too late for a COM:CSD#G7. As I was the admin processing the previous request, leaving for another to close. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For my concerns Erfan rabiei (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: sorry, but unspecified "concerns" are not a valid reason for deletion. Upload was too long ago for a simple courtesy deletion (COM:CSD#G7), you would need to give an actual reason. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It is my photo and dont want share it Erfan rabiei (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- You already did share it, and free licensed it, back in October 2020. What has changed, why should it be deleted? (Say in any language if you wish, someone can translate.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: high quality, in scope image, several years past courtesy window, without a valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio, it's a screenshot from Google Maps : https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6686591,74.6499166,81109m/data=!3m1!1e3 vip (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Japan. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
this is my own work. it was a commemorative and ficticious CoA and is no longer being used tetraktys (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Вавилов Матвей Вячеславович (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook or smaller images that do not seem to be own work of uploader due to the sizes being all over the place, not similar style and no camera meta data.
- File:РОО «ТНКА Пензенской области».jpg
- File:Алюш рашит фото 11.jpg
- File:Зюзин Фаттих.jpg
- File:Зюзин, Фаттих Мухомятович.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mechanized battalion (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence in own work of Facebook sized images of tank warfare in the desert dating to the 1990s.
- File:A Task Force 1-41 Infantry, 3-66 Armor Battalion, M1A1 Abrams tank is destroyed during the Battle of Norfolk, February 1991.jpg
- File:Damaged Abrams.jpg
- File:Task Force 1-41.jpg
- File:Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Desert Storm 1991.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ahmad252 as no license (No license since) but it has a license - I am just unable to verify it. Hoping someone else can confirm or deny. It's been languishing in "no license" for months. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Paghalavan: Hi. I did ask the owner about the file and he agreed for me to use it in wikimedia. The only demand of the actual owner was to tag him. And I did, and also provide valid license info. But now its been suggested for deletion.
- I can even provide you with the screenshots. Paghalavan (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Paghalavan: Screenshots don't do it. We need simple email process described at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: requires VRT permission. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
No indication of own work on some old photos, a very small and low quality pair of color photos, one of of a building, the other of a person.
- File:Mtro. Javier Romero Molina.jpg
- File:Dr. Eusebio Dávalos Hurtado.jpg
- File:Edificio del INAH.jpg
- File:Diego Prieto.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I mispronounced this word Azerbaijani audiorecordings (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ohohnono80 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook or smaller images that do not seem to have been created by uploader, different white balances, restricted locations, etc.
- File:2018都市女聲 曾之喬 一個人在這裡唱歌給你聽 音樂分享會.jpg
- File:台南COACH快閃店.jpg
- File:高雄夢時代屈臣氏集點活動.jpg
- File:曾之喬1107.JPG
- File:曾之喬.jpeg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a raster copy of w:File:Australia Council for the Arts logo.svg, which is a fair-use non-free file. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Personal photograph Alonemayank (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
weird filename, low resolution, missing metadata, uploaded by a serial copyright violator Xunks (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
No indication that they uploader is the copyright holder. This image appears at https://www.womenfitness.net/corrie-yee/ CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Section 5 of the website's terms of use stipulates that "You agree not to copy, distribute, display, disseminate, or otherwise reproduce any of the information on the Service without our prior written consent." There is no other indication of licensing under an acceptable free license (such as CC BY). VRT permission is necessary for the file to be kept, but none was provided. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This image looks like a mobile phone screenshot. Original image author and date unknown. MKFI (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
No license from fotographer Philipp Schmidli. Same picture as deleted File:Finanzdirektor Reto Wyss.jpg Alpöhi (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of probably unfree artwork. Missing permission. A.Savin 15:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of probably unfree artwork. Missing permission. A.Savin 15:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of probably unfree artwork. Missing permission. A.Savin 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of probably unfree artwork. Missing permission. A.Savin 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of probably unfree artwork. Missing permission. A.Savin 15:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Redundant & smaller dupe of File:DC Comics logo.png --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Previously published photo: https://twitter.com/Breakingkw/status/597522720163631104, missing evidence of license Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyviol from http://www.diocesi.catania.it/node/3297 Antonio1952 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Color altered version of a copyrighted illustration Mbrickn (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Имеется дубликат - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%82_20-01-2022.jpg MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Francescodosi77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from photos/artwork.
- File:Cerimonia di premiazione 2019.png
- File:Premio Nazionale di Divulgazione Scientifica - Giancarlo Dosi.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from award. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of nondescript plant, no meaningful description, little educational value, out of scope. And likely not own work but screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused distorted image of an unidentified painting, no meaningful description, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: low-res/web-size screengrab image with FB code in EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The copyrighted coin of Cuba is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Cuba, the government has a perpetual copyright and according to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Map assume "Not Ok". — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 07:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Work by living artist, missing permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Low-resolution locator map of unidentified objects - Filename, uploader context and description are all giving no clue on what the map intends to tell Enyavar (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Size and metadata suggest this came in through Facebook, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ceraste1965 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Gallery claimed as own work. Two logos, several group shots, images of fighters, some overprinting. All very small size, low resolution images, the two with meta data are from different types of image creation. Highly unlikely own work.
- File:Viet-vo-dao.jpg
- File:Binhdinh1634776491598.jpg
- File:BInh Dinh.jpg
- File:Demo Viet Vo Dao.jpg
- File:Sa long cuong logo.jpg
- File:Vvd logo.png
- File:Vvd italia.jpg
- File:Gruppo bach mi giallo.jpg
- File:Truong Thanh Dang.jpg
- File:Maestro monaco.jpg
- File:Trương Thanh Đăng.jpg
- File:Vinh Xuan 2.jpg
- File:Maestro Lưu Phú.jpg
- File:1 Maestro fondatore.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adv.Varun.singh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons isn't a personal photo album. User seems to have only uploaded his photo.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Not sure if this is an official document where {{PD-RU-exempt}} would apply or not. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is Russian Orthodox Church document and church is separated from state in Russia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Unused image with a lot of Derivative Work behind the man in the striped jacket. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Uploader did not create items depicted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Files are claimed to be own work/CC-BY-SA and date to the 1970s. It's not implausible that they're own work, but they look like press photos.
- File:Evgeny Kibrik-1977.jpg
- File:Kuznetsov 1971.jpg
- File:Kuznetsov AP-1971.jpg
- File:Kuznetsov person-photo-1973.jpg
- File:Kuznetsov person-photo.jpg
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@MGON 2021: Can you please provide some more information about these images? Who is Salutova?
- File:MGON 1.jpg
- File:MGON 5.jpg
- File:MGON 7.jpg
- File:MGON 6.jpg
- File:MGON 3.jpg
- File:MGON 2.jpg
- File:MGON 4.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright violation. --Drakosh (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Not "own work" as claimed - this is an art asset from Toby Fox's video game Undertale. Alexandra IDV (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There are a few pixel art assets from commercial games on Commons (e.g.
) but I don't think this one is below the Threshold of originality. Dexxor (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Image depicts a current work of art. Regrettably, in the U.S. there is no freedom-of-panorama exception for such works. So, either a permission by the artist is obtained or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Same problem with File:Autoeater 1.jpg.
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
If the uploader says "this is a film seen still", then it is not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: photo has a big watermark of the АТН/ATN information agency making claims of "own work" very suspect vityok (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete See here; "own work" as claimed does not seem to be true. --Mosbatho (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Logo above COM:TOO and likely not own work. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Image taken from FB as per EXIF data, missing original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ne esiste una versione a molta maggiore risoluzione: file:Beatrice nella Pala Sforzesca.jpg Beaest (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Actually this file is superseeded by the one linked. --Sailko (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
ne esiste una versione a molta migliore risoluzione: File:Beatrice nella Pala Sforzesca.jpg Beaest (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Actually this file is superseeded by the one linked. --Sailko (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the wrong image. It's Nagahide Niwa, not Motoaki Takeda. And It's too small for use any purpose. Quark Logo (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Poor image quality 2600:100C:A203:D720:B821:B02E:D399:E85A 09:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: yes, very poor, but in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright term of Iraq is 50 years. If the image was published in the late 1980s then it is still copyrighted. Also no PD indication on the Iraqi State Television A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep.This image was extracted from one of very few public domain photos of this family. For the record, it appears that this deletion request was not made correctly. This image is NOT protected by copyright as the source of this image was the Iraqi News Agency, an organ of the defunct old regime. This is explained directly in the licensing section of the entry on Commons. Etamni 19:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saddam-family-Pre1995.jpg. —holly {chat} 22:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lewes_FC_Women_0_Sheff_Utd_Women_2_24_01_2021-246.jpg Victuallers (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Lewes FC Women 0 Sheff Utd Women 2 24 01 2021-248.jpg Victuallers (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion, only casting suspicion without any rationale. No older version found using TinEye. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- P199, here it is - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is clearly the same photo session, but not the same photo. So that website is not the source of the photo on Commons. And no credit given at the website, so we don't know where they took it from... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @P199 It is the same but converted one. The website is the official website of National Assembly of Azerbaijan. Photos belong to them. - Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Same photographer at same session, but clearly not the same photo (look at the lapel, the tie, the shadow of the jacket, etc.): in one he looks to the right, in the other to the left. Also, the Commons photo was uploaded in 2013; but no date on the website. And again, no credit on the website, so it is certainly not confirmed that the photo belongs to them. You could very well be right, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Maybe User:Eldarehmedzade is the photographer. If you can just find one more clue... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @P199, i dont think so. Photos of MP's are taken right after first session of the Parliament. It means it has been taken in 2010/2011 Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Same photographer at same session, but clearly not the same photo (look at the lapel, the tie, the shadow of the jacket, etc.): in one he looks to the right, in the other to the left. Also, the Commons photo was uploaded in 2013; but no date on the website. And again, no credit on the website, so it is certainly not confirmed that the photo belongs to them. You could very well be right, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Maybe User:Eldarehmedzade is the photographer. If you can just find one more clue... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is clearly the same photo session, but not the same photo. So that website is not the source of the photo on Commons. And no credit given at the website, so we don't know where they took it from... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
COM:Redundant Renvoy (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Uses COM:DERIV clipart (the purple character is from a Pixar film, https://insideout.fandom.com/wiki/Fear) and paragraphs of text pasted from other websites. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
questionable copyright status, used for self-promotion at wikidata.org Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and no longer used, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation assumed: [6] ProfessorX (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
File source "Mi Coleccion personal" means "my own collection". Probably not own work, but real photographer's copyright violation. Small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Not found using TinEye and Google Images. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
No source of this derivative work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Malangone77g (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two baseball cards are not own work of uploader.
- File:John Malangone Graded baseball card, New York Yankees minor league affiliate team, Three Rivers Quebec Canada.jpg
- File:John Malangone baseball card, New York Yankees minor league affiliate team, Three Rivers Quebec Canada.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: For what it's worth, the card itself (as reproduced in File:John Malangone baseball card, New York Yankees minor league affiliate team, Three Rivers Quebec Canada.jpg) is likely in the the public domain in Canada as a work of a corporation from before 1962. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- lets see the proof Assclepias 173.63.86.118 05:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean, 173.63.86.118? What point exactly do you believe needs what sort of proof? The photo was obviously created and published in 1952 in Canada. It was obviously published by Laiterie Laval. Laiterie Laval was obviously a corporation, as its corporate description "Laiterie Laval limitée" indicated. In the absence of anything indicating otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the photo was created as a work of that corporation under whose name it was published, and thus in the public domain per section 10 of the Copyright Act in force at the relevant time, but even if not, it would still be published without another name and then as an anonymous work it would be in the public domain anyway per section 6.1 of the Copyright Act in force at the relevant time. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Based on Asclepias discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- your answer does not prove anything. very weak to say the least. 173.63.86.118 22:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- leave the picture and let others enjoy it. 173.63.86.118 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Flag Map of the World (original map).png Cookie030307 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Мною сделана более совершенная карта Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Мною сделана более совершенная карта Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, superseded by File:Карта Древней Греции (северная часть)3.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Мною была сделана более совершенная карта Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, superseded by File:Карта Древней Греции (северная часть)3.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Bust of Nicanor Abelardo, per the description paper at the bottom, it was sculpted by w:Guillermo Tolentino who died in 1976 (still within the 50 years p.m.a. for artistic works). There is still no FOP exception here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
While there is no sculptor information in the image or the description, its style suggests the sculptor was also the sculptor of the bust at the image now nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MalacananMuseum9708 29.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since), but it seems to have an Indonesian license. Nominating for assistance verifying license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: resolved, source has been added. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, looks like screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). The author Robert Delmas died in 1984. http://www.francaislibres.net/liste/fiche.php?index=64234 Undelete in 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Мною была сделана более совершенная карта Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, superseded by File:Карта Древней Греции (южная часть)2.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
superseeded by vector file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HsH_Logo.svg Mkkagain (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't the logo. see File:HsH Logo.svg Mkkagain (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Appears to have been first published in the US in 1960, may be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The document is not reproduced completely, so I can't determine if there's a notice or not. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Przesłałem go przez pomyłkę Galaxynowy (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Depicted person was born in 1882, so the photo is made in 1920s, not in 1900s. First publication data and author's name, for example evidence of anonymous work is needed to determine copyright status. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate file Vaishakh1234 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Highly unlikely this is an "own work". It is logically impossible for the uploader to have taken this photo in 1867. This user has a history of uploading photos as "own work" that are clearly very dated. Either a proper justification should be added or the photo should be deleted. Indy beetle (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-old. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sevindiknesiboglu2008 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos, missing essential info: original author, source, date; and one DW, all missing permission.
- File:Qocaman səhnə ustası Sarabski.png
- File:Sarabski.png
- File:Sevindik Nəsiboğlu. "Geri qayıdaram, şübhən olmasın!".jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Azerbaijan for the two photographs, no opinion on the news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:EVID requires "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence" (underline added) and COM:L requires "the following information must be given on the description page [...] The Source of the material." (emphasis in original). No source or other evidence is on offer here to support purported dates or the referenced {{PD-Azerbaijan}}. "Anonymous," the utterly disingenuous concoction does not mean "I personally do not know the author.". --Эlcobbola talk 19:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images, published here prior to upload to Commons.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Per Facebook/Instagram code in metadata unlikely own work by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Iam the photographer. it´s my own work, yes. But I can upload the picture from my computer if you prefer. Thank you.
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing metadata, probably not own work.
Xunks (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
G7 for "author/uploader request" dronepicr (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion for files that were uploaded years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 22:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation - https://www.tigerofsweden.com/ Tournesol (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Jonteemil (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 1
[edit]Images all sourced from Facebook with permission statements along the lines of "photo publicly shared on Facebook with no restrictions" or "owner publicly uploaded photo and shared it without any reservations". A person or company sharing a photo publicly on Facebook does not mean that they deliberately released it into the public domain (or as is asserted in these uploads, under a CC-BY licence). They may not even have owned the rights to the image in the first place.
I tagged some of these as lacking any permission yesterday, when they just linked to a Facebook page as their source, and the uploader added "photo publicly shared on Facebook with no restrictions" to them as a statement of permission, removing the permission templates. I've pulled all the Facebook-sourced images into this single discussion, with and without that statement.
- File:Young Fulani bride and groom from Sierra Leone.jpg
- File:Fulani children in traditional attire.jpg
- File:Young adolescent Fulani girls from the Gambia.jpg
- File:Young Fulani woman in her Masters degree graduation portrait.jpg
- File:A Fulani girl with albinism (Guinea).jpg
- File:Fulani young woman seen milking a cow (Macina, Mali).jpg
- File:A Fula Elderly in Banankoro Keroune, Guinea.jpg
- File:Freetown, 1961.jpg
- File:Freetown, early 1900s.jpg
- File:Central Freetown Aerial View.jpg
- File:Mhd Kallon.jpg
- File:C.A. Kamara-Taylor.jpg
- File:Eastern Paddle.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be clearly misusing your priviledges. I will report you. Such baseless recommendations is not even funny. This is more than trolling my uploads. You think you're hurting me by doing this. If you're not happy with any earlier disagreement we had on Wikipedia or Meta why not take it up with me directly? Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hassanjalloh1: I'm protecting the photographers here by taking this up with you, and asking you to show that they have released these photos under a CC-Attribution licence. It is not enough to say that you found the photos on Facebook and the user didn't mention any restrictions. The photographer must confirm that they want to release their work like this. We can ask them if they'd like to, but we shouldn't make that choice for them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think your view about Commons policy is very narrow and this may get you into a lot of hurdles with other editors. According to you, if an image does not showw CC Attribution at source, there must be a direct confirmation from the author. Really?? Then it would be so ironical for you to ignore the thousands of images (including your uploads) that do not indicate a CC Attribution at source or confirmation from the author. Society is so complex to look at things in black or white. There is always a grey area. Always. That's why policies are overwritten and developed. The key here you should focus on are images that indicate "copyright" or (c) or a name credit. Facebook policy general indicates that when you choose the public upload option, you opt to release your rights to the image (except indicated otherwise). And in all the images that you flagged there is none that is copyrighted. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hassanjalloh1: I'm protecting the photographers here by taking this up with you, and asking you to show that they have released these photos under a CC-Attribution licence. It is not enough to say that you found the photos on Facebook and the user didn't mention any restrictions. The photographer must confirm that they want to release their work like this. We can ask them if they'd like to, but we shouldn't make that choice for them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, in order to host someone's image on Commons with a CC licence, we have to show that that person released it under that licence, usually by linking to a source page where they've said as much, or receiving an email from them where they've agreed to it. I always do this when uploading images.
- I don't know where you're getting the idea that all Facebook photos have all of their rights waived by default. Where did you hear that? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously, this your approach to how you flag people's uploads will create an unhealthy environment for editors, that's why I may raise this issue with admin. You think everything is cut and dried. In your terms: "no explicit indication of CC-Attribution at source; then author confirmation; or else delete". Really? There are thousands of images on Commons that have no indication of CC-Attribution at source or an author confirmation. You ignore the actual spirit of Commons, which is ATTRIBUTION! The underlying theme for all these policies is Attribution. Commons want all images to be attributed to their creators (which I did in all the images above where the author or creator is known). And then second most important is restrictions. Are there any copyright issues or restrictions or even potential restrictions for sharing the images above? Absolutely NO! According to Facebook's most recent terms of service: "...if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Meta Products you use." Simply when you choose the public setting, that indicates compliance with what Facebook states above. Here is the link. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- That gives Facebook/Meta the permission to store and share it. It does not give you, or Wikimedia Commons, permission to do so, and it does not release anything under a CC-Attribution licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- So clearly you are saying WP or any other sister projects don't fit the category of "...such as service providers that support our service"? That's why I said stop focusing on the fine print and ignoring the obvious. It would save you more time and problems or issues with others. Try searching for something encyclopedic on FB's search and let it display Wikipedia information for you, or just going through your timeline and clicking on the info icon of each media article, etc. You think everyting is black and white. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- That would be my take, yes, Facebook saying that they might share content with service providers does not allow Commons to host those images under a CC-Attribution licence as you have done here. I'll step back and let some other users give their thoughts on whether there is a suitable "found this on Facebook" copyright template, and whether we should focus on the fine print. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- So clearly you are saying WP or any other sister projects don't fit the category of "...such as service providers that support our service"? That's why I said stop focusing on the fine print and ignoring the obvious. It would save you more time and problems or issues with others. Try searching for something encyclopedic on FB's search and let it display Wikipedia information for you, or just going through your timeline and clicking on the info icon of each media article, etc. You think everyting is black and white. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- That gives Facebook/Meta the permission to store and share it. It does not give you, or Wikimedia Commons, permission to do so, and it does not release anything under a CC-Attribution licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously, this your approach to how you flag people's uploads will create an unhealthy environment for editors, that's why I may raise this issue with admin. You think everything is cut and dried. In your terms: "no explicit indication of CC-Attribution at source; then author confirmation; or else delete". Really? There are thousands of images on Commons that have no indication of CC-Attribution at source or an author confirmation. You ignore the actual spirit of Commons, which is ATTRIBUTION! The underlying theme for all these policies is Attribution. Commons want all images to be attributed to their creators (which I did in all the images above where the author or creator is known). And then second most important is restrictions. Are there any copyright issues or restrictions or even potential restrictions for sharing the images above? Absolutely NO! According to Facebook's most recent terms of service: "...if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Meta Products you use." Simply when you choose the public setting, that indicates compliance with what Facebook states above. Here is the link. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Lord Belbury I want to prove to you that you were really "going after my uploads" baselessly like someone who's in for a revenge on someone. For instance, these photos you included above:
ARE ALL OVER 50 years old, and no one knows the author. You were so trying to hurt me you couldn't even have time to check Commons Copyright Rules for Sierra Leone. And I clearly describe the photos (including the country). In addition to the above, you also went along and flagged these:
- File:Milton Margai (3).jpg (dead)
- File:Bailor Barrie.jpg (dead)
- File:John Karefer-Smart.jpg (dead)
- File:Siaka Probyn Stevens.jpg (dead)
All those photos were taken before or during the post-Independence era of Sierra Leone (c 50s - 60s). What you're doing is creating an unhealthy environment for users, some of whom may think that uploading photos to Commons is very much complicated, when in actual fact there are people like you that make things very complicated for others. Later I will highlight this issue with the admin noticeboard. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- As the opening discussion post says, these images were flagged because you took them from Facebook, asserted that the only proof needed for upload was that the poster hadn't said that Commons couldn't use them, and claimed them all to be CC-Attribution licenced. This page is a discussion where we can look at the situation and clear the problem up, working together. If you can show that some of these photos must be in the public domain, then that's helpful, thank you. To respond to your points:
- The photos that are "ALL OVER 50 years old, and no one knows the author": Commons:Anonymous_works#No_author_information cautions us to be careful here. We shouldn't conclude from an anonymous Facebook upload that nobody knows the author, or that they aren't scans from books. The 50 years isn't just from the date it was taken, either, it's "50 years from when it was made, first made available to the public or first published, whichever is last": we should try as best we can to find out where these images were first published. If someone in Sierra Leone scanned an old, previously-unpublished family photo and uploaded it to Facebook today, it would remain in copyright until 2072.
- The photos of people who are now dead: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone is about the death of the photographer rather than the death of the subject, so we should try to find out who the photographers were. Some of these people also died within the last fifty years.
- Please do try to assume good faith of other editors (see COM:GOODFAITH), though, assuming malicious intent just upsets both of us and makes it harder for me to care to continue this conversation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Someone uploaded to Facebook a photograph of a public figure taken over half a century ago by someone that is not known, according to your POV, that person has copyright over the photograph - so I have to seek their permission (as owner). This is unbelieveable. You have to understand that someone may upload someone else's work, but copyright always lies with the author or creator. In this case, the authors are not known. If you dispute that, then provide evidence that indicates that infact the authors are known. The burden of proof lies with you if you say I'm not saying the truth. You can't just "swing your hands" with no evidence and say it's not true. Most times what editors do is provide a link to where the copyrighted photo is uploaded, such as Getty Images or Alamin. You are really different and unbelieveable. This is why I'm saying you're engaging in traumatizing people with your baseless claims. If you dispute that the author is infact known, then it's your responsibility to prove the existence of the author. Not me. This is where you've been getting this whole thing all wrong. Can you prove to me that the photos I mentioned just now you can find them anywhere online or offline with an explicit indication of their authorship, ownership or copyright restrictions? If you can do this, then I can support deleting them, because even me I don't want copyrighted photos to be linked with my account.
- My advice for you is to stop making baseless claims and do proper vetting on photographs before tagging them or nominating them. Many editors do proper vetting before tagging photos, because unlike you, many care about not hurting other people. This is a serious issue. Not for me any more; I don't want you to traumatize other editors. As I noticed you've been doing this to others. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, the burden lies on you. See COM:EVID. And since you're continuing to insult me and misrepresent what I've said, I'll leave you to it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I will never insult you. I just had to point out the obvious for you to understand how I see it. By the way, I understand what you did in the case of the John Karefa-Smart photograph. Although I didn't get it from that website, but since it is indicated there as copyrighted (c) that I can understand. But all the other photos there is no legitimate basis for your actions on them, as far I'm concerned.
- When I stated that the burden of proof lies with you, I clearly understand the relevant Commons policy, and that's not about that. I actually meant in general terms. If someone makes a statement or claim and then you say it's not true, it's your responsibility to provide reasons as to why you say it's not true. If you say my statement is not true, then why did you say it's not true. You can't just simply say it's not true. I say the author is unknown, and you say it's not true just like that without any real reason except your best defense is "Commons cautions us to becareful". Really. That's your defense?
- You threatenting me with a block, following this series of disputes between us is totally against Commons:Harassment. here. And the fact that you take specific interest in my uploads with some unreasonable actions that have been done by you alone is also Commons:Harassment. For that I will take steps to report this matter with admin. I would like someone else to look into this matter. By the way this is what the policy states: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." IYou think any reasonable person may want to upload copyrighted materials that have a potential of complications? Obviously no. And it's not like it's an habit I do all the time. You're totally intimidating me, simply because I had the courage to tell you the truth. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, the burden lies on you. See COM:EVID. And since you're continuing to insult me and misrepresent what I've said, I'll leave you to it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Adding the following image from the same user to this deletion request:
It's sourced to Facebook and claims This photograph was publicly shared by Fatima Bio, first lady of Sierra Leone, on Facebook. Image has been reused here the same way it was shared (no edits on it)., but per the above conversation this does not mean the photo has been released into the public domain or under a CC-Attribution licence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per nom. Putting something on FB does not mean they have the rights to the photo - see COM:L. --Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Many (and presumably all) of these aerial drone shots of Freetown are uncredited YouTube stills. Some shots appear in a few videos, so may be copies of copies, but none of the ones I can find are CC-licenced.
Some examples of perfect matchups:
- File:Central_Freetown_M.jpg is taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=35 by Amed Mackie
- File:Aberdeen Bridge C.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=187 by Amed Mackie
- File:Queen Elizabeth II Quay, Freetown.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyNQhpi9MfE&t=77 by Amed Mackie
- File:Aberdeen Beach 5.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEBzINWVXs&t=403 by Africa We Love
- File:Freetown Roads 7.jpg from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxMgoaQfH0&t=45 by James Chusi
Uploader seems unlikely to be the original drone operator, if they've chosen to upload low-res screenshots which occasionally show the YouTube progress bar rather than using their original footage.
- File:Central Freetown M.jpg
- File:Aberdeen Bridge D.jpg
- File:Cape Sierra Leone.jpg
- File:Youyi Building C.jpg
- File:Aberdeen Beach 5.jpg
- File:Aberdeen Bridge C.jpg
- File:Queen Elizabeth II Quay, Freetown.jpg
- File:Sierra Leone Parliament, Tower Hill.jpg
- File:Aberdeen, Freetown C.jpg
- File:Beachside Resort.jpg
- File:Central Feetown N.jpg
- File:Aberdeen, Freetpwm B.jpg
- File:Aberdeen-Lumley Beach 3.jpg
- File:Aberdeen-Lumley Beach 2.jpg
- File:Eastern Police Intersection, Freetown.jpg
- File:Lumley 2 (2).jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 10.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 9.jpg
- File:Willberforce Street, Freetown.jpg
- File:Parliament - Tower Hill, Freetown.jpg
- File:Kambia.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 7.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 6.jpg
- File:Central Freetown aerial view.jpg
- File:Freetown's central business area 1.png
- File:Freetown's central business area.png
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you like delete all of them! I won't be traumatized by you for soleley contributing to society. All those were NOT copyrighted or copyright protected! You've practically forced me out of Commons. I will not allow you to continue harassing me. If you like even recommend my account for deletion too. Adios. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be happy if you just took the time to understand Commons:Licensing. Stills of other people's videos that you found online are not your own work, and if they're uncopyrighted you need to show evidence of that, at least by telling Commons where you took the stills from. It would be great to be able to extract higher quality stills, and without the progress bars, if you can remember where you found the videos. If you're unable or unwilling to tell us, though, the only option is to delete. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm exhausted, I'm tired. I'm in the hospital while doing all these. I'm happy because I intended doing something good, not because if it stays there - I told you this during our first convo. So thank you. I'm done. Do whatever you feel like doing. YOU WIN. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be happy if you just took the time to understand Commons:Licensing. Stills of other people's videos that you found online are not your own work, and if they're uncopyrighted you need to show evidence of that, at least by telling Commons where you took the stills from. It would be great to be able to extract higher quality stills, and without the progress bars, if you can remember where you found the videos. If you're unable or unwilling to tell us, though, the only option is to delete. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a war, I'm just checking whether an upload meets basic Commons policy, when it doesn't look right. You may think that publishing a drone operator's footage of Freetown under your own name without asking them is "good", but I doubt they would thank you for that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:Aberdeen, Freetpwm B.jpg even has a Youtube progress bar on it. Uploader does not understand Commons copyright policy. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 3 (FoP-related)
[edit]COM:DW of sculpture; no FoP per COM:FOP Sierra Leone
- File:SL National Peace Monument (3).jpg
- File:National Peace Monument (2).jpg
- File:SL National Peace Monument.jpg
- File:National Peace Monument.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
If because I had the courage to speak up and raised issues of concern, which has drawn the attention of others to extraordinarily scrutinize my account and uploads, I'm totally not worried about it. I just believe others will see what is going on here. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know what "issue of concern" you raised but this images are not allowed here by the country of Sierra Leone. It's unfortunate but that's the reality of the law in that country. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete images under commercial license violate sculptor's copyright. @Hassanjalloh1: your country unfortunately does not have a w:en:freedom of panorama provision that would have permitted free uses of public artworks (including architecture and sculptures) without the need of licensing permissions from the artists of those artworks. See COM:FOP Sierra Leone. Also, we routinely request deletions of public artworks from countries with no commercial freedom of panorama, see the following examples:
- Category:French FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Ukrainian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Malian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Ivorian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Guinean FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Moroccan FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Chadian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Ethiopian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Iranian FOP cases/deleted
- Category:Philippine FOP cases/deleted (our country)
- The only permanent way is for the country (Sierra Leone) to adapt the FOP provision, that states that photography, TV broadcasting, and cinematographic (movie appearance) of copyrighted works of art permanently placed in public spaces is not an infringement to copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- For information, the artwork is Sierra Leone Peace and Cultural Monument. According to [7], the sculpture is a byproduct of RSLAF Corporal Inah Dixon, who is also an artist himself, together with other Sierra Leonean artists Samuel Marco and Alusine Bangura, under the direction of now-retired Maj. Gen. Alfred Nelson-Williams. It was opened to the public in 2011. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 4
[edit]Uploader has requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siaka P Stevens.jpg that "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." and says they have now left the Commons project.
No sources are given for these, just that they are the own work of the uploader, which they aren't, or for File:RSLAF.png that they took a photograph of it, without saying what document was being photographed. These may not meet Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone, where government-created artwork isn't automatically public domain. Could be public domain if created more than fifty years ago anonymously, but the uploader hasn't told us where they came from.
- File:RSLAF.png
- File:Freetown City Council Seal.png
- File:Freetown City Council.jpg
- File:Seal of the President of Sierra Leone.png
- File:Coat of Arms - Mayor of Freetown.png
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- WOW! Desperate to wipe all my uploads out. Bringing a "fight" from Wikipedia to Commons. You won. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- You literally said "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." But these are all of questionable copyright status, and that should be looked at. You can help us to resolve that, or not. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Would note that you must be mixing me up with somebody else if you think that this is "bringing a "fight" from Wikipedia". I've never interacted with your account at Wikipedia. All I've done is fix or flag some of your images here on Commons, all of the proposed deletions being backed up by admins, so far. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. The claim of "own work" seems rather unlikely given the inconsistency of these uploads (varying file formats and graphic styles). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sierra Leone suggests that files like this could be in the PD after 25 years (applied art) or 50 years (copyright owned by a public corporation), but I'm not given any correct and properly evidenced dates to determine this. --Rosenzweig τ 13:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassanjalloh1 (talk · contribs) 5
[edit]Uploader has requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siaka P Stevens.jpg that "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." and says they have now left the Commons project.
These six images of Freetown's roads are either the uploader's own work which they want taken down, or they are (like the many dozens of other "own work" photos uploaded by this user which turned out to be from Facebook or YouTube or Twitter) taken from someone else without credit. Files with similar names (File:Freetown Roads 6.jpg etc) have already been found to have been lifted from YouTube.
If these images are used without permission they should be deleted. If they are actually the uploader's own work then we may as well honour their request to take them down.
- File:Freetown Roads 5.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 4.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 2.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 3.jpg
- File:Freetown Roads 1.jpg
- File:Lumley Beach area at Night.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're really funny. Basically stalking me. Even my own photos I took. This is crazy and funny. I never thought I'd encounter such a person online. Going ALL OUT TO ENSURE WHATEVER I UPLOADED GOT REMOVED. You want to wipe me out completely, simply because I seriously raised my voice and been telling you the truth that some may not say. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- You literally said "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- So that shows you wanted me out. You're virtually speeding up to delete my files the moment I said, without you following Commons policies for file deletion. Why are you so focused on me? Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I say in the deletion request here, these images are quite similar to the other "Freetown Roads" uploads from you, which you had taken from other people's YouTube videos without permission, and without telling us that's what you had done. After you literally asked Commons to "help me delete everyting I ever uploaded" and claimed to have left the project, I went ahead and flagged these for deletion. Either they're your photos and you asked us to delete them, or they aren't your photos and we must delete them.
- If you've changed your mind and want to keep these six photos on Commons, and are seriously claiming them to be your own work, just say that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- So if I decided to leave the project, your answer is to "erase me completely" by pulling ALL my uploads, even those I took MYSELF. I'm not sure there is any Commons policy that states once someone leaves the project, their files should/must be erased from the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I seriously can't understand why this is happening between us. I understand that you seem to be following Commons policies but this is unprecedented. I have never seen an editor so focused so deep on another user like this. I'm wondering what you might do next after you've gotten all my uploads deleted. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- So that shows you wanted me out. You're virtually speeding up to delete my files the moment I said, without you following Commons policies for file deletion. Why are you so focused on me? Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- You literally said "If anyone out there could help me delete everyting I ever uploaded I will very much appreciate it." --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- For the third time, you literally asked Commons to "delete everyting I ever uploaded". COM:CSD says that "For author/uploader requests for deletion of content that is older a deletion request should be filed", and there's the additional concern that these may just be six more photos you found on Facebook and thought it would be okay to use. If you had actually left Commons, as you announced at 2pm, there would be no way to find out whether you'd taken the photos or copied them from Facebook.
- If you've changed your mind about asking Commons to delete your uploads, that's okay, but you need to say that. It would also help if you could clarify whether you took these six photos yourself or not. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Older" is a comparative, it means there is something of an alternative that is been compared to. I believe what the policy means is that in the case of duplicated files, for instance, you could ask for one to be deleted. Plus you've been the only one to always seem to jump to "my rescue". These are all signs of user targeting. Here you seem to be basing your decision on just the simple fact I mentioned that I wanted my files deleted. You don't care whether there was no need for them to be deleted. This is a sign of trying to get rid of someone. I'm trying to show you all your "foot steps". Honestly, I admire your dedication, but fixation on a single editor is not a healthy procedure here. And I'm sure someday, sooner or later, there will be concerns about such a practice in Commons. Here, I have nothing else to do. That's why I said do whatever you feel like doing, and you've proven that you really want to get rid of me. I hope other editors are seeing all these. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- COM:HA#NOT states Commons policy on tracking a user's contributions for policy violations, Commons has no concerns when this is done in good faith.
- If you are unwilling to say that (unlike the other Freetown Road images) you genuinely took these six photos, and you also don't want to tell us not to delete these photos, it sounds like we should delete these photos.--Lord Belbury (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- What you've been doing to me is totally NOT tracking. Here is what the Commons' tracking policy says:"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Your actions go far beyond tracking especially as I have raised the issue many times, which would have been best for you, but instead you persisted.
- What you're doing to me, in normal life is what they call "excessive policing". And it is harasment. Whether you're trying to enforce a policy or law you don't suppose to persistently be targeting a particular individual when there are thousands of us in the community. Now I fear to even upload any file thinking that you may come up with any kind of justification just to make sure my file is deleted. This is what you've been doing to me: "excessive policing". And it normally happens as a result of profiling. You've already profiled me, probably among other things, as a user that can only upload copyvio files, when in actual fact not all my files are copyvio. Many others are seeing what you're doing to me. And some day, sooner or later, this issue will be a concern and something will be done about users taking on retaliatory tactics on other users just because they raise their voice which made them upset or angry or for criticizing them, and then decided to embark on retaliatory tactics all under the guise of trying to enforce Commons policies. You've been specifically targeting me - harassing me! And that's the truth.
- Here's the bold text of Commons harassment policy: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikimedia Commons unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing."
- What is written in that text is exactly what you've been engaging on, disguising your actions as enforcing Commons policy because that's what other editors can easily see that you're doing, and this in turn has resulted in me uploading files unpleasant thing for me now. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to talk about harassment, the thread at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Hassanjalloh1 is still open and is a great place to do that. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, there is nothing more I have to say about this issue. I'm only responding to whatever claim you seem to be making. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're not, my questions were just (a) have you changed your mind about asking Commons to delete all your photos, and (b) did you take these six photos yourself, or are they like the other Freetown Road photos listed in the earlier thread above, where you found them on YouTube or Facebook or somewhere and wrongly believe other people's social media content to be uncopyrighted? If you want to post paragraphs of text about how Commons admins should review my behaviour, do that in the Admin Noticeboard thread where they will see it. This thread is to discuss the six photos listed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why would you even ask me whether I took the photos myself, if I already indicated there I was the author? That's why I said you've already profiled me. And this is completely unethical and wrong. Do you do this to other users? This is making me really upset. You have no right to profile any user here. You have to follow Commons policies. YOU HAVE PROFILED ME AS A LIAR and this is totally unacceptable. You are not following policies here. And something really needs to be done about your actions. You're using Commons policies as a guise. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're not, my questions were just (a) have you changed your mind about asking Commons to delete all your photos, and (b) did you take these six photos yourself, or are they like the other Freetown Road photos listed in the earlier thread above, where you found them on YouTube or Facebook or somewhere and wrongly believe other people's social media content to be uncopyrighted? If you want to post paragraphs of text about how Commons admins should review my behaviour, do that in the Admin Noticeboard thread where they will see it. This thread is to discuss the six photos listed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, there is nothing more I have to say about this issue. I'm only responding to whatever claim you seem to be making. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to talk about harassment, the thread at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Hassanjalloh1 is still open and is a great place to do that. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Older" is a comparative, it means there is something of an alternative that is been compared to. I believe what the policy means is that in the case of duplicated files, for instance, you could ask for one to be deleted. Plus you've been the only one to always seem to jump to "my rescue". These are all signs of user targeting. Here you seem to be basing your decision on just the simple fact I mentioned that I wanted my files deleted. You don't care whether there was no need for them to be deleted. This is a sign of trying to get rid of someone. I'm trying to show you all your "foot steps". Honestly, I admire your dedication, but fixation on a single editor is not a healthy procedure here. And I'm sure someday, sooner or later, there will be concerns about such a practice in Commons. Here, I have nothing else to do. That's why I said do whatever you feel like doing, and you've proven that you really want to get rid of me. I hope other editors are seeing all these. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- You uploaded the other Freetown Road images (and many Getty Images photos, and pictures you found on Facebook, and the Freetown City Council Seal, etc) as your own work, but they were not, suggesting that you may have misunderstood the upload fields, or mistakenly believe that taking a screenshot of a YouTube video makes you the author of the file.
- Could you just confirm whether you took the photos yourself? A simple yes or no will suffice. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you keep on bringing up this on me after I simply stated above, "Basically stalking me. Even my own photos I took. This is crazy and funny" shows that you are "excessively policing" me and you have no right to do that. You have no right to keep on asking a user almost the same question over and over. That's harasment. It's not a normal behavior. No one exclusively assigned you to police me. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see what the closing admin makes of all this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said previously, all of my remaining photos, as long as it's you I am not going to waste my energy defending them anymore, because anything I say to you makes no sense. That's why you're only getting responses to whatever claims you're making. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see what the closing admin makes of all this. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you keep on bringing up this on me after I simply stated above, "Basically stalking me. Even my own photos I took. This is crazy and funny" shows that you are "excessively policing" me and you have no right to do that. You have no right to keep on asking a user almost the same question over and over. That's harasment. It's not a normal behavior. No one exclusively assigned you to police me. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hassanjalloh1: simple answer: yes or no answer. Are these your own self-photographed images or not? "Not" - if taken from other external image sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I already indicated to them categorically clear that I took the photographs. I really don't understand what impact a "yes" or "no" will do. This all makes me really feel upset how I'm being treated. And this is my final response to this thread. I'm really upset and not happy about how I'm treated - as if I'm some kind of alien. Thank you. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hassanjalloh1 I am slightly more lenient than several users here. I checked your six uploads above. While I may want to believe in your statement, the problem is that you imported your images from Facebook. The metadata information contains "FBMD" transmission codes. Therefore, you should have uploaded your originals instead of importing your images from your Facebook account. If that isn't possible, you need to send an email correspondence to Commons via COM:VRTS process to verify that you are the true copyright holder of the said six images. We tend to delete images of users imported from their Facebook accounts, see the following earlier cases (from our country): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DaxCordova and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NegrosSniper. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I already indicated to them categorically clear that I took the photographs. I really don't understand what impact a "yes" or "no" will do. This all makes me really feel upset how I'm being treated. And this is my final response to this thread. I'm really upset and not happy about how I'm treated - as if I'm some kind of alien. Thank you. Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PRP. Files taken from Facebook (per metadata) plus copyvios uploaded by this user suggest that these files might be copyvios too. The uploader has done nothing to corroborate his claim of own work (like upload original, non-FB files or contact VRT) despite being asked to do so in February. --Rosenzweig τ 13:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: credit in EXIF data not matching the uploader. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Righanred as Copyvio (db-f9) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of cc-by-sa-4.0 listence given. seems to have been ripped right off the univ's website. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please move to en if possible; we can fix the licensing info and use it under fair use. ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, change license from CC-BY-SA-4.0 to PD-textlogo: The country of origin for this work appears to be the United States (which has a high threshold of originality), according to the footer of their website. This image is comprised of a single letter (written in a well-known font) and a shaded, striped background, which is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States. COM:TOO United States lists many more logos that are more complex than this one, such as File:I heart my marine.png, File:Discover-it.png, File:DUB Magazine Logo.jpg and File:Best Western logo.svg. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: with {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per the precautionary principle, no source, conflicting information, not enough information to determine the copyright status of the file. --Rosenzweig τ 06:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). DE is Gnome 3, which is free. Background is [8] from CentOS 8. That package has a restrictive license that states "You are granted the right to use the Package only during the normal operation of software programs that call upon the Package. No other copyright or trademark license is granted herein." AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Software is is Gnome 3, which is GPLv2+. Background is [9] from CentOS 8. That package has a restrictive license that states "You are granted the right to use the Package only during the normal operation of software programs that call upon the Package. No other copyright or trademark license is granted herein." AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Musopen/European Archive files of Carmen
[edit]These files are not effectively sourced and are likely NOT public domain in the United States. While Musopen has properly dedicated to the public domain those recording which it has commissioned, these recordings, as indicated on the Musopen website, are actually sourced from the European Archive (later known, before it folded in 2018, as the Internet Memory Foundation. While the original source site is not available, according to the archive.org snapshot, recordings were not made available in the US due to copyright issues. This, combined with the information we know about the archive, indicates that the recordings were those which had fallen into the public domain in Europe. However, unless published before 1923, these are not in the public domain in the United States (see CLASSICS Act). The quality of the recordings indicates strongly that they were recorded (and thus published) after 1922. Unless someone can ascertain that the files were not just published as PD-EU-audio by the European Archive, and/or provide the actual sourcing for these files (and potentially also the performers' names if possible).
- File:Bizet - Carmen - 1 - Act 1 - Scene 5 - L'amour est un oiseau rebelle (Habanera).oga
- File:Bizet - Entr'acte to Act III from Carmen (Musopen).ogg
- File:Bizet - Entr'acte to Act IV from Carmen (Musopen).ogg
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Vase is PD-old-assumed, but it's a 3D object so photo is likely copyrightable. Appears to have been previously published as the cover to Musikgeschichte in Bildern - Griechenland by Max Wegner (1986). I'm not entirely convinced that was the first publication given that it's a music history book. w:uk:Файл:Earthenware antic.jpg claims the author to be Шевченко Анатолій Антонович in 1960-70. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. A slightly different version (probably closer to the original photograph) had already been published in a 1982 East German schoolbook. --Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
{{copyvio| 1=inccorrect license: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. URL= https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/img/10009570}} Mackle.td (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see if the original source released it under a CC-NC license, the link is broken, but a 1903 image is PD in the USA. When an image changes hands from the photographer to the client, it is published according to US copyright law. Published doesn't only mean appearing in a magazine. This is an example of stamping every image as CC, even those that are PD in the USA. We see this often in collections, they use one license globally without regard to the actual copyright status of individual images. We have a category called Copyright-fraud with other examples. This would be Copyright-laziness, rather than fraud. --RAN (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Db-g7}} Mackle.td (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep source link. Out of copyright. The en:w (and potentially other wikipedias) could use this image for their William John Marsh article, as at present there is a "fair use" image. If the nominator is nominating because of taking a second look notices on the source website, website assertions of copyright do not apply to mechanical reproductions of media which has already fallen into the public domain. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept per PD-old due to the age of the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Seems to exceed COM:TOO IagoQnsi (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete exceeds COM:TOO Taiwan -M.nelson (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a fairly unique design. So delete per COM:TOO Taiwan. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Source is pretty clearly labeled (C), what makes this image licensed as SA4.0? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: inferior duplicate of File:Campagna di Lassiti - Francesco Basilicata - 1618.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 11:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then created a redirect. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Superseeded by File:Washington Park I, II, and III overlay.png Angelgreat (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag), because no readable machine tag. Perhaps someone can help with an appropriate license for "Fotografia de dominio publico de Policia De Investigaciones de Chile" as stated in the template. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I do not see a reason to keep, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Chile. The police is not the same as the "state" imho. --Ellywa (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Black text logos
[edit]exceeding COM:TOO.
- File:Belfast Film Festival logo.jpg
- File:Blowsight Logo.png
- File:Brexit Party.svg
- File:BTEC by Al Miraz.png
RZuo (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:Blowsight Logo.png, File:Belfast Film Festival logo.jpg and File:BTEC by Al Miraz.png: The country of origin of File:Blowsight Logo.png appears to be Sweden and it is above TOO there. File:Belfast Film Festival logo.jpg originates in the UK and TOO is very low there. As File:Belfast Film Festival logo.jpg is in use in other wikis, they should be locally uploaded with fair use on wikis that allow local uploading. While I am not familiar with the copyright laws in Bangladesh, File:BTEC by Al Miraz.png seems to be complex enough for copyright protection in most countries and should likely be deleted in accordance with COM:PCP. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Although I believe File:Brexit Party.svg is above TOO in the UK, I am hesitant to make a decision on File:Brexit Party.svg in this deletion request as File:Reform Party UK.svg is substantially similar. It is best to move them to a separate deletion request together and be decided there. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also the Swedish logo. Per COM:TOO Sweden, the TOO might be considered low compared to the one in the United States. I consider this work above threshold, so it has to be deleted, as well as the other 3. --Ellywa (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC) @Ellywa: File:Reform Party UK.svg should be deleted. Panam2014 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Man Ray died in 1976, this photo is possibly only in the public domain if first published in the United States, but no source is specified. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This photo was reproduced in the article dedicated to McCown in The Little Review, Spring 1925, n° 11, with 3 reproductions of his work. The Little review (Jane Heap and Margaret Anderson ed.) was published in Chicago. Pariswasafeast (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. Even if this was published in 1925 in the US, it's a 1922 photograph by a photographer who was at that time based in Paris, France, so a publication in France before publication in the US is possible. The file can be restored in 2047. --Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:94046063
[edit]flickrwashing.
RZuo (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: @RZuo: please provide a clear explanation why you think this is flickr washing. Please ping me so I can reconsider my decision to not delete the image or to reopen this request. --Ellywa (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: did u even click into the files? 👎--RZuo (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RZuo: Of course I did look at the photos and the text of the Flickr reviews. But do you think you gave a clear explanation why these photos should be deleted? Perhaps I am missing something, I do not read anything but the word "flickrwashing". Please answer my question and provide a clear explanation why you think this is flickr washing. Ellywa (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This image was originally posted to Flickr by Qiao Tu Feng at https://flickr.com/photos/94046063@N04/31134309950. It has been reviewed on 2021-07-30 04:47:44 by FlickreviewR 2, who found the author on the bad authors list. This means that the Flickr user is known to upload images with possibly problematic license information. The image should be checked carefully because some Flickr users are blacklisted for only a limited portion of their uploads.
- @Ellywa: you surely didnt read the file.--RZuo (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Text is from an unauthorized translation of a recent novel. Unsure if Threshold of Originality and exemption for logos applies here. Mbrickn (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion there is too little text for it to be considered highly illegal, this is an excerpt, used here for information purposes at least. Anyway, the developer of the game has pronounced himself on this kind of modifications, he tolerates those that concern his work only (not the music for example), see here and the original text in Japanese linked there.
31NOVA (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of 31NOVA. --Ellywa (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Фотография защищена авторским правом, правообладатель - РИА Новости (http://visualrian.ru/media/2502625.html) MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Анонимное произведение, срок охраны авторских прав на территории Беларуси истёк. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belarus. --Ellywa (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi this photo was taken at a public event. Chiyuki238 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Commons:Freedom of panorama is allowed in Singapore Chiyuki238 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Contrary to Chiyuki238's assertion, FoP is not stated for painting, drawing, engraving or photographs in public areas, even if it is temporarily available to the public. The revamped Copyright Act 2021 has codified the circumstances in which FoP is allowed for under section 265 (which bears some similarities to section 62 of UK's Copyright Act). Given that Singapore's divorce from UK's judicial system was in 1994 with the appeal route to UK's Privy Council removed, the case laws stated in Commons:Freedom of panorama should be largely applicable to Singapore as well. Therefore, we should err on the side of {{FoP-UK}} (until a {{FoP-SG}} is created and utilised). Robertsky (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: we have {{FoP-Singapore}}. But I do not see any major differences to the Singaporean freedom of panorama notwithstanding the updated 2021 law: OK for 3D works and buildings plus works of artistic craftsmanship and not OK for graphic works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 thanks! I had assumed that the names of FoP templates were using the 2-letter iso code version. Now looking at the category of FoP templates, it seems that UK and US are the outliers. Robertsky (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: we have {{FoP-Singapore}}. But I do not see any major differences to the Singaporean freedom of panorama notwithstanding the updated 2021 law: OK for 3D works and buildings plus works of artistic craftsmanship and not OK for graphic works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. @Chiyuki238: , the Singaporean law only provides an adequate freedom of panorama for architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship – that is, those designed by craftsmen like stained-glass art, tiles, and mosaics. However, flat arts like murals are not covered. Thus even if situated in public space, this and all other Singaporean murals designed by muralists who are not yet dead for more than 70 years cannot be freely photographed to be licensed commercially. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- For
Info, the artist behind this artwork is Sean Lam as per the image description. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- For
Deleted: per nomination, discussion and COM:FOP Singapore. --Ellywa (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I consider the trophees "de minimis" and will ad a template to the image. --Ellywa (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep too small. Lyrische (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Per Lyrische. This looks like de minimis to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. cropped to deleted the advertisement boards and added a de minimis template. --Ellywa (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.non-free logos and Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to remove copyrighted parts and deleted copyrighted version. Added a de minimis template for the trophees, I consider these too small and not the major subject of the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.non-free logos and Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to remove copyrighted parts and deleted copyrighted version. Added a de minimis template for the trophees, I consider these too small and not the major subject of the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.non-free logos and Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to remove copyrighted parts and deleted copyrighted version. Added a de minimis template for the trophees, I consider these too small and not the major subject of the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.non-free logos and Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for all the same, super small! Lyrische (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to remove copyrighted parts and deleted copyrighted version. Added a de minimis template for the trophees, I consider these too small and not the major subject of the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
1944 documents of an interrogation of a French Resistance member. CC license is bunk, do the contents of these documents have copyrightable content and if so, when did or when will said copyright expire? @Yann: @Racconish:
Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The whole issue is when were they published? If they were never published before being uploaded, then they are OK. Otherwise, it is quite complicated. Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Either the author is dead less than 70 years ago and the work is still protected or the rule of posthumous publication applies (25 years protection after publication for the owner of the material copy of the work [10]). In this case, the documents are owned by Archives nationales [11] and there is no evidence they authorized the publication. From another perspective, the documents are accessible per the exception for National Archives but their publication is still ruled by the copyright law. — Racconish 💬 18:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and comments. --Ellywa (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Too small Lyrische (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark, I added a de minimis template. --Ellywa (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not only the trophee, but all logo's very largely present. --Ellywa (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
.non-free logos and Commons:TROPHY Maometto97 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped to remove copyrighted parts and deleted copyrighted version. Added a de minimis template for the trophees, I consider these too small and not the major subject. --Ellywa (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from a streamed video appearance at a virtual convention in 2021, but the source and copyright of original footage is unclear. Would need evidence that the broadcast was released as CC, public domain or similar. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The source is my own personal chat with the subject. According to the GalaxyCon Live FAQ, One-to-One / Group-to-One Video Chats are permitted to be shared. If you need direct evidence that this was from a one-on-one session and not a live stream (which are not sharable), I will provide it. Bluerules (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean the "Can I share my video chat recording on social media? Yes, you are able to share your own Video Chat recording on social media." FAQ question there? That sounds like it falls short of COM:LICENSING, if so, since Commons isn't social media. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The FAQ establishes that individuals who purchase video chats own the video chats. There is a key distinction drawn between the live streams (which cannot be recorded under copyright) and the private sessions. Other than being taken remotely, it's the same as convention photos taken with a subject. Bluerules (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? I can only see the social media thing. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it say it can't be shared? The FAQ is explicitly stating that it's the live streams, not the video chats that can't be shared. Would it be allowed if I uploaded the session to YouTube with a CC license? Bluerules (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? I can only see the social media thing. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The FAQ establishes that individuals who purchase video chats own the video chats. There is a key distinction drawn between the live streams (which cannot be recorded under copyright) and the private sessions. Other than being taken remotely, it's the same as convention photos taken with a subject. Bluerules (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean the "Can I share my video chat recording on social media? Yes, you are able to share your own Video Chat recording on social media." FAQ question there? That sounds like it falls short of COM:LICENSING, if so, since Commons isn't social media. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I studied the FAQ, and it states "Yes, you are able to share your own Video Chat recording on social media.". I think what is intended is the image of yourself, not the image of the person you are chatting with. they own imho the copyright, as they have installed the camera, adjusted the lighting etc. So this is a sort of selfie of Conor leslie and we would need her permission. Bluerules, please follow COM:VRT to obtain her permission. If succesful the image can be undeleted. -- Ellywa (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир
[edit]- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795).svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772).svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-1.svg
These are totally fake flags without any historical backing and absolutely no reliable sources supports their appearance, thus they are not useful for an educational purpose. It is absolutely clear that every piece of these flags are fake and were created by uploader Лобачев Владимир. Wikimedia Commons is not COM:NOTHOST and we are not allowed to upload fake things and label them as "real". User Лобачев Владимир clearly wants to defeat the purpose of this project and should be presented with strict sanctions for his disruptive activity. ---- Pofka (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The basis for the reconstruction is given in the description of each flag.
- The descriptions of the flags of the voivodeships are taken from the armorial Kasper Niesiecki.
- The coats of arms are depicted in Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1588, as well as on the seals of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4).
- The presence on the flags of the Chase is mentioned in Statute of the GDL of 1566. In the “Description of European Sarmatia” by Alexander Gvagnini (1579) about the banners of the Novogrudok Voivodeship, it is clearly stated that we are talking about the state emblem of the principality (lat. “Vexillum bicorne rubei coloris Stemmate Magni Ducatus, in campo albo insignitum in bello gestat”). The same phrase is quoted in the Polish edition of the Description in 1611 by Martin Paszkowski (Polish “Chorągiew o dwu rogach masci czerwoney taż co y Wielkiego X. Litew: Mąż zbroyny na koniu białym z miczem...”). Thus, the Pahonia was a symbol of statehood on its banner.
- An example of a voivodeship flag (Troksky) and a county flag (Grodno) are given in the book Herby Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. T. 4, „Pasy lite, ozdoby, chorągwie i proporce”, 1905.
- Also, the colors of the flags of the voivodeships were printed on 1918 postcard.
- Voivodeship flags are already present on Wikimedia Commons, as a reconstruction without citations: File:Banner of Viciebsk Voivodeship.svg, File:Banner of Miensk Voivodeship.svg. Based on the flag of the voivodship, there is the flag of Samogitia - File:Flag of Samogitia.svg. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The frame and the name of the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania (IOANNES CASIMIRUS DEI GRATIA REX POLONIAE MAGNUS DUX LITHUANIAE) were removed, as they were taken from the site of reenactors without reference to an authoritative source. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Prior to this, drawings of flags were used without any justification and references to the writing in authoritative sources. Their form is taken from the flags of the Teutonic Order during the Battle of Grunwald.
.svg)
- Here are some flags of the Teutonic Order:
- Here are some flags of the Teutonic Order:
- In the image File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg, there has already been discussion about deletion. See File talk:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg. Keep --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Provide historical sources which includes such design of Lithuanian flags. Teutonic Order flags are not related with Lithuania. Otherwise, all of them should be deleted because they have no educational value and are nothing else than your personal fantasy. Your arguments how you restored 16th century Lithuanian flags colors based on a random Belarusian postcard from 1918 is an absurd (there is no proof that author of this postcard knew the authentic colors) and only testifies that these flags are imaginary and have absolutely no educational value. The 1905 book is not much better for verification purposes and includes only two flags.
- Furthermore, the horse riders colors are totally random. You said that you based Lithuanian coats of arms on files in categories (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4), however all files in these categories are colorless, so it once more testifies that you colored the Lithuanian coats of arms randomly, based on your personal taste. Moreover, these horse riders are clearly computer-generated and were not taken from authentic sources. Here are authentic flags from the 15th century (pay attention to the horse rider's colors):
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_in_1416.jpg){kind=small}
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_from_1414_to_1418.jpg){kind=small}
- On the contrary, your fake creations reminds LEGO toys instead of authentic reconstructions based on historical sources. In this case COM:NOTHOST rule must be enforced to prevent such purposeful manipulations which have no educational value and only causes harm to users by confusing them. Not a single piece of these flags is authentic. -- Pofka (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the form of banners of the voivodships of the Commonwealth in the 16th century:
Here is the form of the military banners of the Commonwealth in the 17th century:
- Here is a description of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1:
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Mąż zbrojny w szyszaku (Petrasancta przydaje srebrny) na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym ; w prawej ręce jaka miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyžami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.
- Example 1. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Kiev Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Województwo Kijowskie, że się pomieścić może z starostwem swojem jużem namienił wyżej. Za herb nosi anioła bialego w czerwonem polu. Paproc. o herb. f.718. Gvagnin w Kronice Ruskiej fol. 24, powiada że chorągiew jego zielona o dwu rogach, w polu czerwonem, z jednej strony pogonią Litewską, z drugiej strony Niedźwiedziem czarnym, w polu białym naznaczona, atoli co się tycze pogoni pomylił się Gvagnin. Bielski fol. 9. krom anioła z jednej strony chorągwi, który w jednej ręce miecz goły, nadoł końcem spuszczony, w drugiej pochwy trzyma: na drugiej stronie, przywlaszcza mu Niedźwiedzia w bialem polu, u którego noga lewa przednia trochę do góry podniesiona.
- The banner of the Kiev voivodeship was green and had two horns Source: Stefan Kuczyński. Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje. 1993. S. 97. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Example 2. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Duchy of Samogitia from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają.
- Example 3. Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Vilnius Voivodeship from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
Herb województwa tego z jednej strony chorągwi czerwonej pogonia, jakom ją wyżej określił, z drugiej strony kolumny albo słupy, o których gdzie indziej mówić się będzie. Tegoż samego herbu i powiaty w tem województwie zostające zażywają, tylko że chorągwie powiatowe o jednym końcu, województwa chorągiew o dwóch.
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here is a description of the colors of the banners of the Brest Litovsk from the book Kasper Niesiecki Herbarz Polski. Tom 1 (in Polish):
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Herb tego wojewódziwa Pogonia zwyczajna (bo też do prowineyi należy) tylko że ubior błękitny na koniu i na rycerzu , w polu czerwonem. Paprocki fol. 718.
- Keep Historical accuracy is an issue, but they are educational and I see no copyright problems. How to use them on Wikipedia can be discussed there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Compare with the reconstruction of Lithuanian historians from Samogitia. The difference is small.
-1.svg)
- See Edmundas Rimša Atrėbutika (lt) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Lithuanian version (second) uses authentic Coat of arms of Samogitia (see: File:Grand Coat of Arms of Samogitia.svg), while the one uploaded by Лобачев Владимир uses a self-created fake bear. Moreover, it uses text "Zmudzka", which is non-Lithuanian word, but a Polish/Russian word meaning Samogitia (in Lithuanian it is called Žemaitija). The flag is 100% fake and as already stated previously – has absolutely no educational value, especially when a much more authentic version exists in Commons. By the way, the usage of a Polish/Russian word on a Lithuanian flag reminds some kind of political aims and violates WP:NPOV as no valid sources supports such claim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: In polish it will be "ŻMUDŹ" or "WOJEWÓDZTWO ŻMUDZKIE", if using adjective. But not "żmudzka" - this is russian. Author don't know lithuanian and polish as well, he is writing in russian using latin script. Hoa binh (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Yeah, probably this is fake Russian language used on flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Total propaganda. I request to put an end to Лобачев Владимир's actions which clearly violates good-will. -- Pofka (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: In polish it will be "ŻMUDŹ" or "WOJEWÓDZTWO ŻMUDZKIE", if using adjective. But not "żmudzka" - this is russian. Author don't know lithuanian and polish as well, he is writing in russian using latin script. Hoa binh (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Lithuanian version (second) uses authentic Coat of arms of Samogitia (see: File:Grand Coat of Arms of Samogitia.svg), while the one uploaded by Лобачев Владимир uses a self-created fake bear. Moreover, it uses text "Zmudzka", which is non-Lithuanian word, but a Polish/Russian word meaning Samogitia (in Lithuanian it is called Žemaitija). The flag is 100% fake and as already stated previously – has absolutely no educational value, especially when a much more authentic version exists in Commons. By the way, the usage of a Polish/Russian word on a Lithuanian flag reminds some kind of political aims and violates WP:NPOV as no valid sources supports such claim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Totally fake. There were no historically any signs at the flags. And in which language are this sings? Trocka, Witebska - this is not polish language (Witebska WHAT? Trocka WHAT? This is only single adjective without a noun, totally nonsense in polish). Author don't know polish language, this is russian language write in polish alphabet - it's even gramatically incorrect, voivodship was MIŃSKIE, not MIŃSKA - mińska is in russian. Hoa binh (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Exactly. Even the names on these flags are totally random and were never used in reality (this is some kind of pseudo Russian language), which once more confirms that these files has absolutely no educational value. By the way, user Лобачев Владимир is already well known for aggressively trying to Russify various topics of Eastern Europe. This is certainly one of these examples. -- Pofka (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Delete of course. They have no educational, nor any other value except personal - therefore they should be kept personal. It is a clear violation of COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST. This user Лобачев Владимир is even aggressively pushing his fake flags to historic pages claiming they areal (!!). For example he aggressively pushed his anime phantasy flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_1792.svg) as a flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litevsk%C3%A9_velkokn%C3%AD%C5%BEectv%C3%AD, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Ducado_de_Lituania, https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%8B%E9%99%B6%E5%AE%9B%E5%A4%A7%E5%85%AC%E5%9B%BD, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand-duch%C3%A9_de_Lituanie, https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groothertogdom_Litaue to name just a few. It is a disgrace and corruption of Wikipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- See Chorągiew Trocka:
-
- Chorągiew Grodzienska:
- No, no, and no. Someone has put in his book image of Grodno Voivodship military standard (not "flag"!) and put there explanation, that this is grodzieńska, id est: "Flag of Grodno Voivodship". This is just informational sign in the book, not part of the flag. Single "grodzieńska", "trocka" etc. doesn't has any sense in polish. You don't know polish language and making errors. Hoa binh (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Scientific Polish source using such words.Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje, Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993, S. 190:
Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Chorągwie trocka i grodzieńska tę czerwoną, tylko województwa trockiego i jego mają płachtę niebieską...
- Exactly: CHORĄGWIE trocka i grodzieńska - it means "Flags of Trock and Grodno". Single trocka and grodzieńska are just adjectives, and doesn't has any sense without a noun. So, as you show us, you don't know polish language. And you don't understand, what is written in this book. That's all, causa finita. Hoa binh (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Formally, these are not flags of voivodships, but banners militia of the nobility of the voivodeship (en:Pospolite ruszenie). They were used only during the war. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- All he does is creates fake flags with fake texts without any educational value and tries to pollute this project with them. Clearly malicious activity. Knowing this case, his upload history of various coats of arms raises strong further concern how much harm he has already done to this project. I suggest permanent IP BAN. -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: Yes, we need sanctions for russian missinformation in Wikimedia. We should ban Лобачев Владимир immediately. His boss Putin want to teach Ukrainians about ukrainian history, he want to teach us Polish and Lithuanians about history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No way. There he wrote, that Samogitian bear is Kiev bear. Hoa binh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: Exactly. He is clearly working for the Internet Research Agency or a similar Russian structure and spreads Russian propaganda, false information on a daily basis in Wiki projects. -- Pofka (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Pofka: Yes, we need sanctions for russian missinformation in Wikimedia. We should ban Лобачев Владимир immediately. His boss Putin want to teach Ukrainians about ukrainian history, he want to teach us Polish and Lithuanians about history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No way. There he wrote, that Samogitian bear is Kiev bear. Hoa binh (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly: CHORĄGWIE trocka i grodzieńska - it means "Flags of Trock and Grodno". Single trocka and grodzieńska are just adjectives, and doesn't has any sense without a noun. So, as you show us, you don't know polish language. And you don't understand, what is written in this book. That's all, causa finita. Hoa binh (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Scientific Polish source using such words.Stefan Krzysztof Kuczyński Polskie herby ziemskie: geneza, treści, funkcje, Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993, S. 190:
- No, no, and no. Someone has put in his book image of Grodno Voivodship military standard (not "flag"!) and put there explanation, that this is grodzieńska, id est: "Flag of Grodno Voivodship". This is just informational sign in the book, not part of the flag. Single "grodzieńska", "trocka" etc. doesn't has any sense in polish. You don't know polish language and making errors. Hoa binh (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST Gdarin (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC).
- Delete No historical value, no educational value, might be by mistake taken as an illustration in wikipedia article or wikidata item. Paelius
discussion17:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) - Delete, like Gdarin and Paelius. Nadzik (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Chorągiew Grodzieńska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu grodzieńskego).
Chorągiew Słonimska (Chorągiew pospolitego ruszenia powiatu słonimskiego).
-
Chorągiew grodzieńska. 1615 -
Chorągiew słonimska. 1588—1633
Chorągwie powiatu grodzieńskiego i słonimskiego z 1 poł. XVII w. Muzeum Wojska Polskiego w Warszawie, nr inw. 24254, 24255 (The banners of the Grodno and Słonim poviats from the first half of the XVII century. Museum of the Polish Army in Warsaw, No. 24254, 24255)
See Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1764-92
[edit]-
Original -
Vector version
.jpg)
.svg)
Here is the original from the heraldic book. Next is the vector version. If someone draws closer to the original, I will only be glad. Isn't vectorization forbidden on Commons? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)
[edit]The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai voivode district.
Source: REBORN AFTER DESTRUCTION. Dedicated to the Flags of the Lithuanian Army (vdkaromuziejus.lt). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Remove those fictional flags. These flags are intended to imitate modern Belarusian state symbolism and are in conflict with the basic rules of the heraldry tradition system. The blason of coat of arms says exactly how the Lithuanian coat of arms looks like, regardless of whether deviations have occurred, however, deviations are not suitable for presenting any state symbolism. It is worth mentioning that Лобачев Владимир also inserted into several wiki-projects that Belarusian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the "Slavic paganism" was it's the main religion which is completely untrue-evident hoax. If the "Slavic paganism" were practiced at such a late time, there would be archeological sources and artifacts of it in medieval Lithuania, but they are not and especially Slavic religion was extinct. It is clear why these changes have been made when they lack any sources. All these edits are to represent the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the primary ethnic Slavic state and the predecessor of modern Belarus, which means they are not for educational purposes, but for the needs of Belarusian nationalist propaganda to rewrite Lithuanian history. I think such attempts are a threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. Dragovit (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is, you refer to my wrong political position, which is the reason for deleting files? And the sources describing the flags and their image in solid sources, as well as the preserved originals of the historical museum, do not play a role. Did I understand correctly? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- For example, here are two images:
-
Original from the Polish Army Museum
-
My drawing
.svg)
- Do you doubt that such a flag exists in the museum, or that my drawing clearly distorts the original? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not talking about this flag of Grodno powet. Note that I do not mention Grodno powet anywhere in my comment, so why do you mention it? I write especially about your flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which you insert in many articles as a state flag, even though it contains obvious deviations from the heraldic model (red or white Vytis instead of blue etc.) which was introduced by Jagiellonians, but imitates the symbolism of modern Belarus, therefore this file
is not suitable for use as the state flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This your answer about flag of Grodno powet is intended to divert the topic although in my post it is clear what I mean. What do you say to why you prefer this flag instead of others? Because it suits to your national/ethnic attitudes as well as other your edits that add Slavic language and the Slavic paganism? To present medieval Lithuania as Slavic?! Dragovit (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, here's another example: the militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship. I redid it.
- Description of banner 1: The coat of arms of the Trakai Voivodeship was the Lithuanian Pogonią in a red field. Based on the color of the banner, the Voivodship parliamentary uniform was created, which was a scarlet robe, green lapels and a white jacket. (Source 1)
- Description of banner 2: The banner of the Trakai Voivodeship with two horns contains the coat of arms of the Grand Duke of Lithuania: an armed man on a horse with a sword, in a red field. (Sourse 2)
- I am not talking about this flag of Grodno powet. Note that I do not mention Grodno powet anywhere in my comment, so why do you mention it? I write especially about your flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which you insert in many articles as a state flag, even though it contains obvious deviations from the heraldic model (red or white Vytis instead of blue etc.) which was introduced by Jagiellonians, but imitates the symbolism of modern Belarus, therefore this file
- Do you doubt that such a flag exists in the museum, or that my drawing clearly distorts the original? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.svg)
- Are there any complaints about this image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, as you said it's a "militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship", if that's true, that's enough, because "militia banner" means it's not a real flag. Military nor personal banners are not state flags and cannot present a state, region or district, they're just banners of some troops or belongs to a person, that's all, so the names of these banners (not flags) are at least inaccurate and misleading, also you present them incorrectly. User Hoa binh says the same thing. These banners contain names and titles (Sigismund III, duke of Lithuania) and apparently belongs to one monarch although in their names are political entities like voivodeships with use since the Middle Ages, which does not make sense, it's weird. Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that "flag" should be replaced with something else. For example, "standard" or "banner". The Russian Wikipedia article and category has been renamed. But here, until the end of the discussion, I cannot rename the files. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are, as you said it's a "militia banner of Trakai Voivodeship", if that's true, that's enough, because "militia banner" means it's not a real flag. Military nor personal banners are not state flags and cannot present a state, region or district, they're just banners of some troops or belongs to a person, that's all, so the names of these banners (not flags) are at least inaccurate and misleading, also you present them incorrectly. User Hoa binh says the same thing. These banners contain names and titles (Sigismund III, duke of Lithuania) and apparently belongs to one monarch although in their names are political entities like voivodeships with use since the Middle Ages, which does not make sense, it's weird. Dragovit (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are there any complaints about this image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Pay attention that user Лобачев Владимир continues to upload new versions of these files with significant modifications. This only proves how fake these images really are. -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This allegation is an attack on an objectionable participant. I ask administrators to pay attention to unfounded accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is the description of the flag in Russian sources:
Образованное в 1506 году Витебское воеводство имело на своем гербе образ воина на белом коне в шлеме с поднятым над головой мечом и щитом с шестиконечным крестом, так называемым "Крестом прп.Евфросинии Полоцкой". <...> О том, как выглядела витебская хоругвь во второй половине ХVI века, можно узнать из книги итальянского волонтера Александра Гваньини "Хроника Европейской Сарматии". Он служил в витебской крепости с 1569 по 1587 г.г. Ротмистр Гваньини писал: "Стяг, на конце раздвоенный, зеленого цвета с гербом Великого князя в белом поле". Однако витебская печать 1559 года — всего лишь за 10 лет до начала службы итальянского волонтера ? имела образ Спаса нерукотворного. Расхождение символических образов городских хоругви и печати позволяет усомниться в том, что "Погоня" была древним городским гербом.
Source: Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание (geraldika.ru)
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)После административной реформы 1564–1566 гг., когда возникли воеводства, каждое из них получило из великокняжеского скарба (казны) знамя определенного цвета с изображением государственного герба. Известно, что воеводство Полоцкое имело знамя желтое («сикоража»), в белом поле Погоня; воеводство Новогрудское — полосатое («пелистое»), в белом поле герб; воеводство Витебское — зеленое, герб в белом поле; воеводство Берестейское — голубое («блякитное»), в красном поле герб; воеводство Минское — «гвоздиковое» (нежно-красное), в белом поле герб; воеводство Мстиславское — желтое знамя, в «чирвоном полю» герб. Имелись также и знамена поветов, городов с изображениями Погони.
Source: https://news-21-by.turbopages.org/turbo/news.21.by/s/society/2009/10/12/381215.html
- Unreliable sources. Turbopages? Really? -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- The link contains excerpts from an article by Mikhail Tkachev, a Belarusian historian, archaeologist, local historian, heraldist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Lecturer at Grodno State University. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source with likely distortions. There is a clear consensus that all these flags you created are totally fake and has no historical value. You was the only one who requested to keep it (by the way, voted in favor of yourself twice, but probably that's the way of authoritarian democracy). -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Not a reliable source with likely distortions." Personal opinion, not based on anything. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source with likely distortions. There is a clear consensus that all these flags you created are totally fake and has no historical value. You was the only one who requested to keep it (by the way, voted in favor of yourself twice, but probably that's the way of authoritarian democracy). -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The link contains excerpts from an article by Mikhail Tkachev, a Belarusian historian, archaeologist, local historian, heraldist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Lecturer at Grodno State University. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for mass-deletion of these images imho. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. A considerable subset of these images is in use on the projects today, so they have to be maintained. I did not see a reason to only delete some of them, but you are welcome to nominate the unused images again, so another admin can make an additional decision. --Ellywa (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир (2)
[edit]See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1508-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795).svg (moved to File:Banner of Vilnius Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg)
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Vilnius Voivodeship (1413–1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Trakai Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Polotsk Voivodeship (1504-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795).svg (moved to File:Banner of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg)
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1569-1795)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772).svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1566-1772)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Minsk Voivodeship (1566-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1529-1569)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793).svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Kiev Voivodeship (1569-1793)-1.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795).svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-2.svg
- File:Flag of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1566-1795)-1.svg
Created after the initial rejection to stop this disruptive user:
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618)-2.svg
- File:Banner of Nowogrudek Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Mstsislaw Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Brest Litovsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Minsk Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618).svg
- File:Banner of Polotsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-2.svg
- File:Banner of Vitebsk powet (1609–1618).svg
- File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg (here the second version was uploaded just in order to purposefully erase one of the main national symbols of Lithuania: Double Cross of the Jagiellonians on a blue shield)
He also uploaded even more worthless modified versions to these older files above. For example, see: this file which has 10 different versions of which 6 versions are completely different from each other. This is a perfect illustration how fake and how worthless these files really are.
The clear majority of the community, including Polish Wikipedia administrator, said at Commons:Deletion requests/Imaginary flags created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир that these files should be deleted and presented valid arguments because they have ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE. I request for a review of this decision by other administrators. Ellywa declined to delete them just because they are used in multiple projects, but they are so widespread NOT because they have any value, but because of the aggressive policy of the uploader Лобачев Владимир to insert these worthless flags into many wiki projects everywhere. Removal of them results in intensive day-to-day edit warring with the uploader and it is impossible to remove them with the intervention of the administrators in all the wiki projects as it requires long explanations in tens of different languages. The job must be done here because they violate one of the main Commons' rules: COM:NOTHOST and that is more than enough. The only way to stop this Russian propagandist bad faith edits, uploads is to delete all of them and to block him because this Russian user is using Wikimedia Commons as a platform to spread fake news about other countries national symbols, flags and the recent Ellywa's decision only encouraged him to create more of these fake flags and to pollute the Wikimedia projects with them. Seeing what is happening in Ukraine, Russian propaganda about other countries should be met with strict sanctions. Please show him that the Wikimedia Commons is not lawless and that bad faith edits, uploads are not welcome here. Pinging other users who also said that these files should be deleted: @Микола Василечко: , @Hoa binh: , @Ke an: , @Gdarin: (Polish Wikipedia admin), @Paelius: , @Nadzik: , @Dragovit: . Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries. Pay attention that real and truly valuable flags, banners cannot have 6 completely different versions uploaded in a short period of time. That is a clear proof of WP:HOAX and bad faith (violation of Commons:Assume good faith). ---- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The sources for each flag are given in the description of each file. These are historical works of Polish heraldists and modern research in Polish, Belarusian and Russian. Moreover, one historical banner of the voivodeship is available almost in its entirety in National Museum of Lithuania, and the full banner was reconstructed by Vytautas the Great War Museum:
-
The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania -
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum -
Updated version
.jpg)
- For many voivodeship banners, articles have been created in the Russian Wikipedia, where all sources are listed in detail. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Pofka:
I ask the administrators to stop such baseless accusations. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Listen to their arguments, not to Лобачев Владимир's walls of texts with which he try to mask his true aims to pollute Wikimedia projects and to distort flags, symbols of other countries. The uploader likely belongs to the Russian Troll Factory and his paid tasks are to harm Russia's neighboring countries.
- @Ellywa: Can't find any previous discussion on this. Help me? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Example:
-
The surviving part of the banner of the voivodship. 1615. From National Museum of Lithuania
-
The reconstruction of the flag of Trakai Voivodeship from Vytautas the Great War Museum
-
Updated version
-
Falsification
Falsification!
The shape of the horse is wrong: legs, head, tail.
Not such a knight: sword, head, armor.
Not the blanket on the horse.
This is not a scientific copy, this is the author's vision. And this is not what was in the original! Fantasy!
Others are probably the same fictions and fantasies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you draw a rider and a horse better, I will only be glad. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Banner of Vitebsk powet (1609–1618):
-
Original -
Vector drawing -
The rider is taken from here
.svg)
- This is not a drawing! It is the copying of the wrong horse and rider that led to the falsification of the flags! If you can't draw, don't make fake copies. --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I draw your attention to the fact that until the 19th century there were no reference images of flags and coats of arms. Description (blazon)) was considered the main one. And each artist painted the flag or coat of arms in his own way, strictly following the description. Therefore, the height of the raised leg of the horse or the length of the sword is not significant. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here you need to understand the difference in the image of a banner based on a picture and an exact copy of a specific picture. I didn't try to make a 100% copy of the drawing. This is only a general idea of the banner of the voivodeship, based on existing images and descriptions. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg (here the second version was uploaded just in order to purposefully erase one of the main national symbols of Lithuania: Double Cross of the Jagiellonians on a blue shield)
The coat of arms or the Jagiellonian Cross has changed throughout the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At first, his lower crossbar was larger, he was golden and he was located on a blue shield. Later, the crossbars became equal in length. Then the color of the shield turns white, and the cross turns yellow or red. Even later, the shield becomes red, and the cross becomes white or yellow (silver or gold). Although the coats of arms of the Polish nobles and armorials often retained the early colors (golden cross on a blue shield).
-
Herbarz Kaspra Niesieckiego Берестейское.svg -
From Armorial Lyncenich. 15th century -
Coat of arms on the gravestone of Jagiello. 1435 -
Fragment of the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1416 -
Fragment of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 1536 -
From Stemmata Polonica. 16th century -
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555 -
Shield with cross from Jagiellonian tapestries. 1555 -
From the coat of arms on the gates of Vilnius Gate of Dawn. Late 16th - early 17th centuries -
Coat of arms from the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1764
.svg)
,_which_was_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_in_1416.jpg)
_crop.svg)
_Yellow.svg)
_Red.svg)
Bernhard Karl von Koehne clarifies that during the time of Kasper Niesiecki (the author of the drawing of this coat of arms), the rider's shield was red. At the same time, Bernhard Karl von Koehne claims that the blue shield was the main color for the rider.
Even in the Republic of Lithuania there were different versions of the coat of arms
-
1940 -
1990 -
1991
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- This reply of Лобачев Владимир is a proof of his mass manipulation and purposeful falsification of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. All files he purposefully listed here are inaccurate interpretations by the authors or his own falsifications. The Coat of arms of Lithuania did not change over the years and always had a blue shield with yellow or gray cross. See this gallery:
-
Flag of Vytautas, 1416 -
Flag of Jogaila, 1416 -
Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty, 1440 -
1492 -
1548 -
1555 -
1550-1609 -
1601-1700 -
1764-1795 -
1793 -
Banner with emblem of November Uprising, 1830-1831 -
Since 1918 -
Since 1991
-
Authentic coat of arms (with blue shield) on the wall of Wawel Castle in Krakow -
On the wall of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow -
Coat of arms of John III Sobieski crowning the royal chapel in Gdańsk -
Authentic coat of arms of Augustus II the Strong, 18th century -
Ceremonial (coronation) sword of Stanisław Augustus Poniatowski, who was the last Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland in 1764-1795
,_1440.jpg)
.jpg)
,_1550-1609.jpg)
_with_the_Double_Cross_of_the_Jagiellonian_dynasty,_1601-1700.jpg)
,_1764-1795.jpg)
.jpg)
,_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania,_designed_by_Antanas_%C5%BDmuidzinavi%C4%8Dius.jpg)
-POL,_Krak%C3%B3w.jpg)
- Simply compare 1416 flags with the sword from 1764. Here is a proof how Лобачев Владимир falsified one of the main elements of the coat of arms, but if you check the upload history of these files nominated for deletion you will find much more random falsifications, interpretations that even contradict each other. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Banner of Vilnius Voivodeship
[edit]Banner of Pospolite ruszeniu of the Vilna Voivodeship in 1615.
-1.svg)
-2.svg)
SOURCES
In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodeships on the front side of the banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia" (Дубенецкий Н. Витебский герб: культурный фетиш или напоминание – ru).
Original-pl: "Woiewodztwo Wileńskie vżyma Pogoniey z iedney strony na choragwi/ a z drugiey strony słupow/ iest choragiew czerwona/ o dwu koncach / barzo wielka. Sa też w tym Woiewodztwie cżtery powiaty dosyč niemałe: iako Osmanski/ Welkomirski/ Braclawski/ y Lidzki/ z ktorych kazdy ma choragiew swa z osobná/ lecż o iednym koncu tylko." (Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597)
Translation: Vilnius Voivodeship had Pahonia on one side on the banner / and on the other side Columns of Gediminas / red banner / double-ended / very large. There are also four good powiats in this voivodship: such as Oshmyansky / Vilkamirski / Braslawsky / and Lidsky / of which each has its own separate banner / with only one end.
Vilna Voivodeship. ... on one side of the red banner - Pahonia, on the other - Columns or Pillars (Wincenty Sarnecki. Obraz stosunkow zachodzacych miedzy Polska Litwa i Rusia, 1869, P. 77).
Kasper Nesetsky in Roll of arms (1728) describes the coat of arms Pogonya as follows: "In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross." (Niesiecki К. Korona polska przy złotej wolności…. — Lwów, 1728. t.1. — 692 s.). B. Köhne specifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Кёне Б. В. О литовских гербах / About Lithuanian coats of arms, 1847 — С. 224).
A characteristic feature was the designation of the povet or voivodship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. Source: Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok : 2018, P. 496 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Banner of Duchy of Samogitia
[edit]-2.svg)
Two sources about the banner are given in the file description. I can explain in more detail here.
A white cloth with two braids, having on one side the Chase - the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield, and on the other - a rising black bear in a silver (white) collar on a red shield - the coat of arms of the Duchy of Samogitia. (Source).
The Pahonia in the Roll of arms of Kasper Nesetsky (1728) is described as follows (source):
Original-pl: Mąż zbrojay w szyszaku na białym koniu, do biegu niby zapędzonym, siodło na nim i czaprak czerwony, aż do kopyt końskich rozwlekły, z trojaką złotą frandzłą, w polu także czerwonym; w prawej ręce miecz goły wyniesiony w górę, jakby do cięcia trzyma; w lewej zaś, czyli raczej na barku jego tarcza, ze dwiema krzyżami złotemi w jeden spojonemi.
Translation: In a red field, a pursuing armed rider in a shishak (helmet) on a white galloping horse, the saddle on the horse and the blanket are red, the blanket with three ends and gold fringe hangs down to horse hooves; in the rider's right hand is a naked sword raised up, as if to strike; and on his left shoulder is a shield, with a double golden cross.
B. Köhne clarifies that at that time the rider's shield was red. (Source)
In connection with the active Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Statute of 1566 established that all voivodships on banners have the grand ducal coat of arms "Pahonia". (Source)
Alexander Gvagnini reports that the voivodeship usually has the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Pursuit on a red shield on a white banner with two braids.
Original-pl: Gvagnin fol. 30. w kronice Zmudzkiej i Inflantskiej, pogonią zwyczajną Litewską na chorągwi białej w polu czerwonem, naznacza za herb temu księztwu; atoli Bielski fol. 9. i Paproc. o herbach, lubo na jednej stronie chorągwi o Pogoni wspominają, na drugiej jednak stronie, niedźwiedzia czarnego, w białej obróży, przedniemi nogami do góry wspiętego, w czerwonem polu, za własny iej ziemi zaszczyt przywłaszczają. (Source 1, Source 2)
Marcin Bielski in his "Polish Chronicle" (1597) and Bartosz Paprocki in his book "Coats of Arms of the Polish Knighthood" (1584) report that on one side of the gonfalon there is a Chase, and on the other side there is a rearing black a bear in a white collar, in a red shield, as a symbol of his land. A similar description of the flag was repeated by Kasper Nesetsky in the 18th century. (Source).
A characteristic feature was the designation of the voivodeship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. (Sourse)
A similar reconstruction, but without indicating the territory and the name of the monarch, is given in two sources: vexillographia.ru and zemaitiuzeme.lt.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_-_1955_(prior_to_PGA_tournament)_-_1953_pickup.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_cats_2018-04-05.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
2.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cover_of_booklet.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_-_1955_(prior_to_PGA_tournament)_-_1953_pickup.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_1955_(prior_to_PGA_tournament)_-_1953_pickup.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_1955_(prior_to_PGA_tournament)_-_1953_pickup.jpg){kind=link}
_-_1955_(prior_to_PGA_tournament)_-_1953_pickup.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_cats_2018-04-05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_with_cats_2018-04-05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_with_cats_2018-04-05.jpg){kind=link}
_with_cats_2018-04-05.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
3.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.png){kind=link}
2.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
2.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[8]](https://github.com/CentOS/centos-logos/blob/c8/backgrounds/c8/default/standard/c8-hue-6.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_painted_in_1875.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2.svg){kind=link}
-1.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
All known images of banners from 1609-1618 have inscriptions with the name of the monarch and the territory.
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
To the end
[edit]- Keep There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. Also, I don't think the clearly bad attitude of the nominator should be encouraged by deleting the files. It seems like they nominated them for deletion as a way to grind an axe more then anything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: "there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime" no there is no evidence. These files are a pure imagination/falsification of the same uploader. See example by Микола Василечко above. If anyone will be allowed to create flags about other countries without any historical backing then we will soon turn this valuable project into a comedy. But that is exactly what this user is trying to do - to defeat the purpose of Wikimedia, Wikipedia in presenting actually valuable, educational content. National symbols is not a toy, therefore mass falsifications should not be tolerated. Check how many times he modified each of these files in a few months by drastically changing symbols, figures, texts, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Uumm yeah there is. The drawings are based on real flags. Also, none of the flags I checked are being used on Wikipedia. So your assertion that these somehow defeat the purpose of Wikipedia is obviously hyperbolic nonsense. Same with calling them "mass falsifications" or saying that their existence will turn the project into a comedy. There's a whole category of unofficial flags, Category:Special or fictional flags, that literally no one cares about except for a couple of fringe fear mongers who can't seem to make a real argument for why the flags are an issue. So they just attack the uploaders and play into fake panic about Russian propaganda or whatever. IMO these are no different then fan art.
- @Adamant1: "there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime" no there is no evidence. These files are a pure imagination/falsification of the same uploader. See example by Микола Василечко above. If anyone will be allowed to create flags about other countries without any historical backing then we will soon turn this valuable project into a comedy. But that is exactly what this user is trying to do - to defeat the purpose of Wikimedia, Wikipedia in presenting actually valuable, educational content. National symbols is not a toy, therefore mass falsifications should not be tolerated. Check how many times he modified each of these files in a few months by drastically changing symbols, figures, texts, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- You could do exactly the same fear mongering, war drum beating about an image like Air Rush.jpg and how it's spreading false information about My Little Pony or whatever and that the uploader is anti-My Little Pony troll that should be blocked for mass falsification of My Little Pony characters or whatever. No one gives a crap about fan art being hosted on Commons though. Let along does My Little Pony fan art make Commons look like a comedy. With fictional flags specifically, there was an RfC about it awhile ago and there was zero consensus that they shouldn't be hosted on Commons. Same goes for the "propaganda" argument. Plenty of things that could be considered propaganda are hosted on Commons. Again, no one cares and it's not really an issue.
- Personally, I could give a crap myself if Commons host "propaganda" or not, but there'd have to be a better argument about why such things should be deleted then conspiracy theory laden tirades about Russian trolls or whatever. I think your getting into some extremely questionable territory by going on propaganda witch hunts though. It could set a extremely bad precedent if files were deleted simply because someone thought they were misinformation. Really, Commons is better off as a project if it stays natural on such issues. It's the job of a file host to fight, or take sides in, ideological nationalistic wars. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- What you are saying is that we should ignore one of the main rules of the Wikimedia Commons COM:NOTHOST which clearly states that "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection". I see absolutely no possibilities to use fake flags, coats of arms for an educationally useful purposes. Uploading such files only does harm to the project. Sorry, but I have nothing else to discuss because I respect rules and according to this rule it is not allowed to pollute Wikimedia Commons with trashy files. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection." My bad, I didn't know these were photographs of someone's vacation. Those kinds of blatantly wrong and bad faithed statements are exactly why I think the images should be kept. There's zero reason anyone should side with your opinion if you can't make a reasonable argument and do so without using obvious strawmen. Same goes for the nonsense about the images causing harm and polluting Wikimedia Commons with trash. You can yell such things into the void all you want, but you've provided zero evidence that the files cause any harm or are trash. So why I should care? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- What you are saying is that we should ignore one of the main rules of the Wikimedia Commons COM:NOTHOST which clearly states that "all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Wikimedia Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection". I see absolutely no possibilities to use fake flags, coats of arms for an educationally useful purposes. Uploading such files only does harm to the project. Sorry, but I have nothing else to discuss because I respect rules and according to this rule it is not allowed to pollute Wikimedia Commons with trashy files. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I could give a crap myself if Commons host "propaganda" or not, but there'd have to be a better argument about why such things should be deleted then conspiracy theory laden tirades about Russian trolls or whatever. I think your getting into some extremely questionable territory by going on propaganda witch hunts though. It could set a extremely bad precedent if files were deleted simply because someone thought they were misinformation. Really, Commons is better off as a project if it stays natural on such issues. It's the job of a file host to fight, or take sides in, ideological nationalistic wars. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: I combined the second DR with the first. No need for a new name and I deleted the addition "(continues his dirty work)." Please remember to assume good faith. Ellywa (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin statement here (see above) that these are "fake flags with strange signs without any educational value, clear violation of COM:NOTHOST" is clearly an authoritative neutral opinion regarding this problem. It should not be allowed to pollute Wikimedia and other Wikipedia projects with trashy files and cause edit warring in every of these projects when somebody tries to remove your fake files. Your decision to keep these files encourages the uploader to cause even more edit warring in other wiki projects and to continue polluting the Wikimedia Commons. Please strongly reconsider your initial decision or another administrator reading this please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics. -- Pofka (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Without wanting to take a position between you, I will only explain the position of Commons and our rules. Commons is a repository for files. On Commons, we do not decide whether an image is correct or not, whether it is fantasy or real. That should be done on the projects. An admin like myself can delete images that are out of scope per COM:SCOPE, or images which are not educational useful. If an image is used on the projects (and there is no problem with the copyright or privacy) we will keep the image. A discussion of correctness of images should take place at the projects, e.g. Polish, Russian etc. Wikipedia, because on these projects the experts work together to obtain consensus. Currently, many images on the list are in use. On Russian WP, there even exists an article about one of the banners, ru:Полоцкая_хоругвь. Why is it not deleted if - as you say - it is a "fake flag"? Finally, if the uploader appears to be a problem-user involved in editwarring op Wikipedia (I did not check this, and I will not, it is not my task), a solution should be found on the Wikipedia, not here. So please solve the problems on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I ask the administrators to take action to restrict me from unfounded accusations and unethical behavior of this user. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)please finally put an end to this user's pollution in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish topics (Pofka)
- It was confirmed here by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin that your are an offender, so there is no need to falsely pretend a victim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly this whole thing just comes off like a bad faith, TENDENTIOUS attempt to get your way by using Commons to skirt around Wikipedia policy. You should really just deal with this on their end instead of trying to use Commons' deletion process as a way to win a disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was confirmed here by the Polish Wikipedia administrator Gdarin that your are an offender, so there is no need to falsely pretend a victim. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- these are based on real flags in the meantime this isn't true. Bordure is imaginary, same with the text "Sigismundus..." and "Mińska..." they are taken from completely different flags, banners of so called "wojsko powiatowe", as the name itself suggest these were flags of regiments (not lands!) from powiats (not voivodeships!). Emblems and colors are based on rather vogue descriptions. Flags that are based on primary sources shouldn't be allowed, only those based by reconstructions made by professional historians or vexillologist should be allowed. Literally Wikipedia is the only place you can find maps like this. Marcelus (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about the rules for writing Wikipedia articles. But here we have to rely on the rules of Wikimedia Commons. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Negative educational value. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Лобачев Владимир is great-russian propagandist. All this flags are ahistorical fakes. They were not flag of voivodships of the Polish-Lithuanian Commolwealt. But Лобачев Владимир is still uplodading them with many new variants and puts them on Wikidata (like here), so then he can say that "there are in use". Hoa binh (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: I have given below some sources for files reconstruction:
- Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566
- Alexander Guagnini
- Marcin Bielski
- Bartosz Paprocki
- Kasper Niesiecki
- National Museum of Lithuania
- Vytautas the Great War Museum
- Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego : spisy : w X t. / Inst. historii Pol. akad. nauk ; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa, 2003–2022
- Can you name the authors and research papers that dispute the sources cited? Or give a different description and drawings of the banners of the voivodeships? I hope you don't act like in the Polish Wikipedia, where they simply asked the administrator to remove the page with my arguments. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page didn't have any value, and you know it. You are creating talk pages with gallery of multiple of yours graphics, without any commentary or with commentary from Google Translator, which doesn't have any sense. Why, for what? No one knows. Hoa binh (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand correctly that you do not have counter-arguments based on scientific sources? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source where we can find such a flag of let's say Vilnius voivodeship? So far you are giving primary sources that don't even have images of the flags Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page didn't have any value, and you know it. You are creating talk pages with gallery of multiple of yours graphics, without any commentary or with commentary from Google Translator, which doesn't have any sense. Why, for what? No one knows. Hoa binh (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hoa binh: I have given below some sources for files reconstruction:
- Your example from Wikidata is based on an actual flag design. Sure, it's not a 1/1 recreation of the original design, but it's not ahistorical fake propaganda by any means either. There's nothing with creating an SVG image of a flag when the original is low quality or otherwise hard to make out. The amount of personal attacks the uploader has received for doing so is rather extremely ridiculous. It would be a BS standard if no one could make a drawing of a flag without being accused of being a Russian propaganda peddler or whatever. Obviously there should be actual evidence to that being the cases besides just "Their spreading propaganda by recreating a flag as an SVG file." Especially if it's going to be used as a justification for deleting the images. Seriously, the whole thing is completely absurd. I could make a much better argument that this whole thing is being fueled by bad faithed Russiaphobia. Viciously attacking someone simply because they are Russian and trying to get their files deleted for the same reason has to at least go against https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-discrimination policy if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete You know, it's absolutely true that this file has several uploaded versions different from each other. And at all times, the description of the file has stayed the same. No source has been brought to justify each of these different versions. It seems to truly be fictitious fabrications. Fictitious flags are allowed in Commons as far as I know, but if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. At least some of them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. Shouldn't that be Wikipedia's thing to do deal with? Like would we seriously delete an image just because "So and So Rando Vexillology Blog" is miss-using it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, another option would be going through 30 Wikipedia projects and starting discussions in each one of them to remove the images this user is adding. But understandably that's not the most desirable thing to do for anyone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the material was collected, more and more nuances became clear. Therefore, changes were made. For example, it became clear that banners changed over time. Therefore, I decided that it is necessary to specifically indicate in what period of time any image existed. Most of all, including visual material, was for the period of the Russian-Polish war of 1609-1618. When enough material had accumulated, the last edits were made and articles were created indicating all sources: ru:Виленская хоругвь, ru:Витебская хоругвь, ru:Жемайтская хоругвь, ru:Киевская хоругвь, ru:Новогрудская хоругвь, ru:Полоцкая хоругвь, ru:Трокская хоругвь. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is one of these:
- 1. You hadn't read the source fully but still uploaded a work based on it, and as you later continued reading it you realized your work was inaccurate and had to correct it. Several times, and starting from November 2021 to July 2022.
- 2. You found new information with other sources, but did not add them into the file or in the edit summaries when uploading the new versions. Therefore, the source in the description that you gave and is still there, "General view of the flag as described by Kasper Nesetsky", is wrong and outdated and only valid for the first version or versions.
- Neither favors your credibility as an editor here in this case. Although I might have understood it wrongly. Correct me if such is the case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's figure out the banners in more detail. Take, for example, the Trokai Voivodeship, whose banner of 1615 has survived, although not in full.
- We know a description of the banner of 1566 from Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566), another description of 1578 (Alexander Guagnini), and other image of banners of two Lithuanian museums (National Museum of Lithuania, Vytautas the Great War Museum).
- Lithuanian Metrica 1565-1566: the banner of the voivodeship is blue, the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is located in a white shield.
- There are several old heraldic sources of 16-18 centuries, where similar descriptions of the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are given, several is known: Marcin Bielski (Kronika polska, 1597), Alexander Guagnini (Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, 1578), Bartosz Paprocki (Gniazdo cnoty, 1578), Kasper Niesiecki (Korona Polska, 1738).
- Kasper Niesiecki is based on a description of the work of previous authors. The most detailed description of the banner of the Trok Voivodeship is given by Alexander Guagnini 1578: The banner was a two-sided rectangular panel of azure fabric of thirty-five ells with with two braids. The front side depicted the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on a red shield. All versions (all new file versions) are fully consistent with this description. But the banners continued to change.
- National Museum of Lithuania has the preserved part of the banner. Based on the preserved part and description of the heraldic literature of the 16-18 centuries Vytautas the Great War Museum made reconsotation.
- In order for the banners of all voivodeships of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to be comparable (on the same date), they are all now made in the reconstructed form of 1615 (Polish–Muscovite War (1609-1618)).
- We cannot say that one of the heraldists of the past was wrong, since this is not in scientific sources. To say that the previous versions did not match the descriptions of heraldists is also impossible.
- If there is a desire, you can study modern Polish studies in 10 volumes - Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa (Województwo Trockie XIV-XVIII wiek, V. 2). -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's rather hyperbolic. I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 Wikipedia projects. Maybe four or five at the most, but it's not like there isn't just as many or more deletion requests and AN complaints about this already. Personally, if it were me I'd just deal with it on Wikipedia's end since it's not like someone can't just do an un-deletion request if this turns out to be nonsense or the files can't alternatively be uploaded to Wikipedia. More so because there's already multiple administrators who are saying they won't delete the images if they are still being used on Wikipedia. There's no way your going to be able to edit war the files off the various projects so they can be deleted without it eventually turning into an RfC or ANI complaint. Not to mention this is an ongoing, recurring problem anyway. I'm sure you'd agree that going through this same nonsense every time someone uploads an image of a flag isn't a functional way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's several ways to do it. We could at least get from this deletion request to mark certain files as inaccurate or fictitious. That way nobody in those Wikipedias could defend the use of these files as they would have these tags. This would save several discussions and make editors more prone to your suggestion of going throughout several Wikipedias as there'd be less work to do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. Although I think it also needs to be dealt with on Wikipedia's side at some point, but at least that would settle things on Commons end in the meantime. I would also suggest doing an RfC about fictional flags to finally put the issue to rest on Commons' side, but I think there was one recently that people are already ignoring. So I'm not going to waste my time on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's several ways to do it. We could at least get from this deletion request to mark certain files as inaccurate or fictitious. That way nobody in those Wikipedias could defend the use of these files as they would have these tags. This would save several discussions and make editors more prone to your suggestion of going throughout several Wikipedias as there'd be less work to do. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the material was collected, more and more nuances became clear. Therefore, changes were made. For example, it became clear that banners changed over time. Therefore, I decided that it is necessary to specifically indicate in what period of time any image existed. Most of all, including visual material, was for the period of the Russian-Polish war of 1609-1618. When enough material had accumulated, the last edits were made and articles were created indicating all sources: ru:Виленская хоругвь, ru:Витебская хоругвь, ru:Жемайтская хоругвь, ru:Киевская хоругвь, ru:Новогрудская хоругвь, ru:Полоцкая хоругвь, ru:Трокская хоругвь. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, another option would be going through 30 Wikipedia projects and starting discussions in each one of them to remove the images this user is adding. But understandably that's not the most desirable thing to do for anyone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- if this user attempts to spread the use of these flags throughout multiple Wikimedia projects, deleting them is the only possible solution. Shouldn't that be Wikipedia's thing to do deal with? Like would we seriously delete an image just because "So and So Rando Vexillology Blog" is miss-using it? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure about how hoaxes are handled on Commons, but I recognize many trustworthy editors from Polish Wikipedia in that deletion discussion. It seems extremely likely to me that this images are, in fact, mislabelled to the point of being hoaxes or outright fabrications Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Adamant1, There's zero consensus that Commons shouldn't host fantasy flags and there's plenty of evidence that these are based on real flags in the meantime. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a zero evidence they are based on actual flags. If they are imaginery they should be renamed and moved to proper categories Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Marcelus There's images of real flags that the PNGs were based on all over this deletion request. Just to give one example of the many that have been provided, File:Flag of Grodno powet (1413-1795).svg is obviously based on File:Chorągiew grodzieńska.JPG. Anyone can look at Лобачев Владимир's flags and see which original flags they are derivatives of. Really, claiming that his drawings of the flags are completely made up and/or otherwise fictional is just bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heraldic sources and depictions in the two museums are listed above.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир I am asking for the source of for example Vilnius voivodeship flag. And no, a primary historical source isn't enough (either way none of the sources mention bordure or any text on the flag), I need actual vexylology book that clearly says that this flag looked exactly that. Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- See Kronika polska Marcina Bielskiego, 1597, Niesiecki K. Herbarz Polski. Tom 1, 1839 — S. 134; Łopatecki K. Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), Białystok 2018, P. 496;
- Urzędnicy Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Spisy / Inst. Historii Pol. AKAD. nauk; pod red. Andrzeja Rachuby. - Warszawa. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can not read this things, you are still puting here titles of works in polish, but you can't read them and understand. You are using translator while you are writing in Polish Wikipedia, and what you are writing, don't have any sense in Polish ("Jaki jest winowajca wizerunków historycznych herbów?" - no sense, this is not polish language). You don't know polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian... But you are want to write polish, lithuanian, belarussian, romanian history by your own. In russian, of course. Hoa binh (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Niesiecki and Boniecki are primary sources. I was asking about the secondary source which that provides exact same reproduction as yours. The fact that you refer to Łopatecki's book shows that you do not know the Polish language and do not know what you are talking about. It's a book on the "pospolite ruszenie" and it talks about the flags used by troops called up from the powiats. There is nothing there about what the banners of the voivodeships were like. A voivodeship ensign is not the same as a powiats troop ensign, are you able to understand that? Voivodeship flags were kept in the treasury and only used for special occasions - rulers' funerals, coronations etc.Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир I am asking for the source of for example Vilnius voivodeship flag. And no, a primary historical source isn't enough (either way none of the sources mention bordure or any text on the flag), I need actual vexylology book that clearly says that this flag looked exactly that. Marcelus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The flags that became the model for these reproductions are not voivodeship flags, but the flags of the troops of the so-called 'powiat troops'. These were troops called up by local sejmiks to defend a territory or for a war expedition when the nobles themselves had little desire to fight or found themselves too weak. The first such troops in the Grand Duchy were appointed for Sigismund III's Moscow expedition, which is why his name and titulature are there. As for what the voivodeship banners really looked like, two of them have reached our times: the Bełz and Poznań banners. As we can see, these are simply the coats of arms of these provinces without any additions. Thank you and I would ask you not to publish the products of your own imaginationMarcelus (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about the banners of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. And we are discussing the banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They are not necessarily the same. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to me how much leeway people on the delete side give each other to be wrong things. But then their more then willing to fly off the handle about nationalist propaganda spreading or whatever if someone on the keep side so much as gets a fact even slightly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived, so these are closest to the orginals Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived Doesn't that just bolster the idea that this doesn't really matter since there isn't a 100% historically accurate way to draw the banners in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is false. Some authentic banners of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania survived (see: 1, 2) and they differ in colors, details. We cannot simply create random images of the non-surviving banners without any historical backing because such creations by Commons users are simply worthless and violates the COM:NOTHOST rule as they have no educational purpose. By tolerating such an absurd we will come to a point when somebody will be creating medieval flags with Mickey Mouse. -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived Doesn't that just bolster the idea that this doesn't really matter since there isn't a 100% historically accurate way to draw the banners in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the GDL voivodeships banners survived, so these are closest to the orginals Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to me how much leeway people on the delete side give each other to be wrong things. But then their more then willing to fly off the handle about nationalist propaganda spreading or whatever if someone on the keep side so much as gets a fact even slightly wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2) and in the third (see: 3) he described it as "Principality of Lithuania and Russia" (use translator for this one). We all know that Russia is a state which counts its history only since the second half of the 16th century (see: Tsardom of Russia) and Muscovy (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to Ruthenia (present-day Belarus and Ukraine). Moreover, he removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3, as well as 4, 5, 6), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of propaganda troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. His actions have clear bad faith aims and they are not random mistakes. There is another a bit similar nomination (see: HERE) in which he also aggressively try to distort the Lithuanian symbols by falsely presenting a Belarusian city coat of arms as the Coat of arms of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- When arguments come to an end - attacks on the user begin. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This image does not bother anyone--Mar545 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. See my previous decision. Since then (July 2022) no other admin bothered to look at this deletion request. Again - at least one of these images, File:Banner of Vitebsk Voivodeship (1609-1618)-1.svg is used on several projects. --Ellywa (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
-1.svg){kind=link}
_cover_of_booklet.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cover_of_booklet.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I have had grave concerns about the copyright of the film poster of Zindagi (1940), supposedly released under CC-BY license. I previously discussed this with the admin/uploader Yann, who didn't reply. I was reluctant to nominate this for deletion at that time; after all, Yann is... an admin of all admins. I was hoping that Yann reconsidered. Now the poster has still remained. COM:India#Durations must apply to this.
_cover_of_booklet.png){kind=link}
Months after talking to Yann in 2018, an anonymous editor considered the poster an anonymous work that would've expired in 1991. However, the artist who made the poster was identified as "J. Khatri" (seen at lower-left corner). This put anonymity out of the window. Consider the artist's lifetime: the poster would expire sixty years after the lifetime (1957 Act), especially when a 1992 Amendment to the Act potentially subsisted the copyright. Speaking of the artist, I've searched for sources covering the artist without avail, let alone his life span.
I recently discussed the poster at COM:VPCOPY. Another admin Jeff G. said: Not anonymous, permission doubtful, probably a copyvio. Jeff tagged this as lacking proof of permission, but Yann reverted the tagging. Furthermore, Yann assumes the poster's copyright claimant to be a film company New Theatres, but the 1957 Act doesn't mention much about works for hire, like the US law. Furthermore, the 1957 Act seemingly treats a work like that of an identified or anonymous author and doesn't say much about whether the copyright belongs to a film company or an artist. Speaking of US law, assume that, with identity of an artist and India's lifetime rule, the poster was still copyrighted in 1996 in India. Its US copyright would've been restored by the URAA. Nonetheless, the URAA thing would be moot if CC-BY licensing release is determined as authentic.
_cover_of_booklet.png){kind=link}
Regarding the CC-BY license, I'm unsure whether it's authentic or not. A Flickr user claimed that the National Film Archive of India (NFAI) put the poster in the public domain by agreement. Uncertain whether the artist or the film company (which might not have existed anymore?) agreed to transfer the poster's copyright to the NFAI, or another company prior to NFAI. Unsure also whether NFAI actually put this under public domain or agreed with the CC-BY licensing by a Flickr user. George Ho (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC); corrected, 06:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
_cover_of_booklet.png){kind=link}
Unsure, we can discount the CC license on the Flickr source page because the Flickr user's 'about' page[12] does not indicate any connection with the film or with "J. Khatri". This is either public domain or it is a copyright violation. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)- Keep The most likely senario is that the company hired an artist, and thus owned the copyright, which expired, in 1990, 50 years after publication (before India extended its copyright to 60 years). There is also the slim possibility that the artist owned the copyright, but died before 1962, taking into account life expectancy at the time. Overall there is no significant doubt that this file is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- You won't close this discussion as you did on the other DR discussion you directly participated in, will you? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, because I uploaded the file, but I question your sudden interest for the copyright status of this file, taking into account the current issue with the Australian Aboriginal flag. This is especially surprising as there are a lot of film posters from India. Yann (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- You won't close this discussion as you did on the other DR discussion you directly participated in, will you? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Almost forgot: If the artist died in 1961, the poster's US copyright still would've been restored by the URAA in 1996. Fifty years didn't pass at that time. I'm uncertain whether you have proof that the artist's death year is 1940 or 1941. I doubt it, but I can stand corrected. Furthermore, COM:India doesn't say much or at all to this date about works-for-hire and about ownership by a company or an entity. George Ho (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- The license on Flickr, while wrong, is a further indication that this is OK on Commons. The Film Archive of India certainly knows the copyright status, and intended to say that the file is out of copyright. Yann (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- NFAI thinks it's out of copyright, but I'm uncertain whether the institution's word can be taken seriously. As of date, no sources verifying the copyright transfer have been found. Also, I don't think either {{PD-old-assumed}} or {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} applies. George Ho (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- The license on Flickr, while wrong, is a further indication that this is OK on Commons. The Film Archive of India certainly knows the copyright status, and intended to say that the file is out of copyright. Yann (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as not anonymous, permission doubtful, probably a copyvio. @George Ho: I am not an Admin here. Yet. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. this is not an anonymous work, so it will be copyrighted until 60 years after the death of the author, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. Apart from URAA, it will be in PD 110 years after the image was created, so in 111+1940=2061. . --Ellywa (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
_cover_of_booklet.png){kind=link}
Files found with Special:Search/Znachek gvardia
[edit]This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Likely created c. 1917, may be PD.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The image of the emblem is reproduced from a book of 1935. Per Template: PD-Russia-1996 this work is now in PD it appears. “This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication.” So both images can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
abbandonato l'uso da parte mia, che sono il creatore e colui che ha creato il file MatiasMenabue (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Personal creation, no obvious educational purpose. -M.nelson (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark. Not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Likely would be below TOO in the US since the w:Star of Life is PD as a common symbol, with the possible exception of the wavy cloth. Based on COM:TOO Peru it looks free in Peru as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of AntiCompositeNumber. --Ellywa (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Kadıköylü as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://m.turkcell.com.tr/kampanyalar/yeni-turkcell-musterisi/yesil-beyaz-tavsiye-kampanyasi. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Kadıköylü (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete - No clear guidance at COM:TOO Turkey, so leaning delete per COM:PRP. -M.nelson (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: To determine whether a logo is below TOO is always a bit subjective. Imho this image bears the characteristics of creator, per COM:TOO Turkey, especially the subtle colors. Therefore I decided to delete the file. --Ellywa (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Uploader has now applied a CC-all license tag, but a black-and-white version was previously published https://www.flickr.com/photos/145334538@N08/30885784553/in/album-72157677842512326/. The copyright holder should contact COM:VRT AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like the uploader might be the photographer (large filesize, has exif) but its earlier publication on Flickr means we need additional proof. @Percmaestro: if this is your own photo, per the instructions at Commons:But it's my own work!, please upload this version to Flickr under a free (CC) license, or provide permission for the photo to Commons via COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. @Percmaestro: please closely follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the copyright holder/photographer to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image can be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). First published in the US in 1961, needs to be checked for copyright notice & renewal AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Renewed daily issues started in 1962. --RAN (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We would need evidence to show the publication in in PD. So please be more exact, RAN, thanks. Please read COM:EVID. --Ellywa (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Who is Meader? Andre Engels (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, questionable if in scope, also named photographer + FB metadata in Exif. --Rosenzweig τ 09:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
portrait of underspecified (only first name Benedikt) person Andre Engels (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: member of German band de:Monobo Son. --Rosenzweig τ 11:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
screenshot from a non-notable film Andre Engels (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Rosenzweig τ 11:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No useful content Andre Engels (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: could be in scope if we had a place in the description, a category or GPS data, but without all of these, not in scope. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
