Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/12/01
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
I uploaded it by mistake Nasirmazumder (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy; G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. — Haseeb (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Не відповідає дійсності та потребує корегування Iryna Hulevata (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This appears to meet criteria COM:CSD#G7. Marbletan (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Потребує коригування фотографії Iryna Hulevata (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This appears to meet criteria COM:CSD#G7. Marbletan (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I would like to use another one using this name. ChemPol (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Small file w/o camera EXIF; dubious own work. --E4024 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like a selfie of a notable professor. AGF on this one. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ChemPol as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: not the correct year and/or person AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This photo is taken by me and not copyright free. Please remove it ASAP. 129.125.13.6 11:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This photo is taken by me and not copyright free. Please remove it ASAP. Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per as a copyvio of https://edurank.org/uni/university-of-bayreuth/alumni/ #9; see also COM:HD#How to get a picture with copyright violation removed?. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: That's not the source. The image on Commons is much bigger than on that site. Yann (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: May we consider this a courtesy deletion of a selfie by the subject, as per the post by 129.125.13.6 above? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree if it weren't in use. May be the subject can propose another image to replace this one? Yann (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: May we consider this a courtesy deletion of a selfie by the subject, as per the post by 129.125.13.6 above? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: That's not the source. The image on Commons is much bigger than on that site. Yann (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion; subject has supplied a preferred image: File:Katja-Loos.jpg. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination: Revert to the original file (Taipei 101, not 101 Tower in Ukraine)--A1Cafel (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Quantum Politics (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Quantum Politics (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Autobiographical picture that was added to en:Nazari; the person has not demonstrated notability Fayenatic london (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- با سلام احترام لطفا فایل رو حذف نفرمایید زیرا این هنرمند در ایران دارای محبوبیت میباشد و این موضوع با مراجعه به صفحه [http://www.Instagram.com/jvad.nazari اینستاگرام جواد نظری] کاملا قابل اثباط و احراز میباشد باسپاس 5.74.254.239 10:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- سلام من مخالف حذف هستم
- زیرا چنانچه این فرد قابل توجه نبود پنل نارنج در گوگل برای
- او تشکیل نمیشد
- Maryam6969 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, lock evasion, by sock of LTA c:Category:Sockpuppets of JavadNazari. --Achim55 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Created by LTA JavadNazari. Out of scope. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:جواد نظری.png Silikonz (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Krd deleted. Silikonz (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 22:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afolabi bisola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like promotional content for a questionable notable person. Probably out of scope.
GeorgHH • talk 19:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afolabi bisola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional photos from disparate sources based on EXIF, falsely claimed as own work. For example, File:Norbert Simonis 2.jpg is copied from Facebook and File:Norbert Simonis 5.jpg is from https://wealth.norbertsimonis.com/health-wealth-coaching. Others are from Instagram. Only used on a promotional Wikidata item that is also nominated for deletion.
- File:Norbert Simonis 4.jpg
- File:Norbert Simonis 5.jpg
- File:Norbert Simonis 2.jpg
- File:Norbert Simonis 1.jpg
- File:Norbert Simonis 3.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afolabi bisola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. Unused or used in promotional Wikidata items.
- File:SerevrNet 02.jpg
- File:ServerNet 01.jpg
- File:ServerNet 2.png
- File:ServerNet 1.png
- File:ExploreMyPC.jpg
- File:Airconist.png
- File:Explore my pc.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination--part of xwiki disruption (UPE and sock). --DMacks (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afolabi bisola (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Rachel Sanders 2.jpg
- File:Rachel Sanders 1.jpg
- File:Rachel Sanders 3.jpg
- File:Parbhis Rehan.jpg
- File:Mina Luna 1.png
- File:Mina luna.png
- File:Sanders.png
- File:R Sanders.png
- File:Rachel S.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; f10 and likely copyvios - most had no exif. --Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
should be deleted because otherwise it leads to weird double inclusions by the bots: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Panther&diff=13105110&oldid=12724310#English Fytcha (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Fytcha. The redirect is currently in use on some projects. Please change it into the correct file on the projects and nominate the file again. Currently no problem on Wiktionary. --Ellywa (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
should be deleted because otherwise it leads to weird double inclusions by the bots: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Panther&diff=13105110&oldid=12724310#English — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: As you've told me above, I've changed "De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg" to "De-Panther.ogg" on all projects where I could find it (which was actually just ja.wiktionary). Please tell me how I can find out where else it is used (if it still is). To expand on the deletion rationale, if somebody adds "File:De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg" to a page, then User:DerbethBot could additionally add "File:De-Panther.ogg" to that same page even though they're referring to the same file, which is obviously undesirable and which has happened on en.wikt. The easiest solution is to just get rid of this useless redirect. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Fytcha, the redirect is still used as you can see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg . Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per request and "ignore all rules". Redirects of a certain age should be retained, per Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects, because the file can be used outside the Wikimedia projects. Without a redirect the original source is impossible to find. @Fytcha: I hope this situation will not occur more often. In that case another solution to the problem should be sought. But the file is deleted for now. --Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Out-of-scope and unlikely uploader owned logo. Furthermore, a File:Technoxian Logo.jpg from the same author has been deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:TX LOGO.jpg” under ticket:2022120210002402. — Tulsi 24x7 05:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: VRTS permission received. — Tulsi 24x7 05:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Max Handelman and Actor Elizabeth Banks Talk with President George W. Bush Before the Screening of "Seabiscuit" at the White House.jpg
[edit]wrong photo EmiliaITČA (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake. Risoshi (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep We need a png and a jpg. --RAN (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 15:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
This is copyrighted by Associated Press. AP images are not CC! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Does the takedown notice explain how you can revoke an irrevocable CC 4.0 license? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Permission is revokable when right holder did not initially have permission to grant a worldwide license. Right holder is incorporated in France, only that territory was authorized, only the copyright laws of that territory apply, any permission granted worldwide is subject to copyright infringement. X-Cite Records (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- @X-Cite Records: you can't revoke a Creative Commons license. See the Creative Commons FAQ. Pretty clear open-and-shut case, so probably a Speedy keep. {userpage! | talk!} 22:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Permission is revokable when right holder did not initially have permission to grant a worldwide license. Right holder is incorporated in France, only that territory was authorized, only the copyright laws of that territory apply, any permission granted worldwide is subject to copyright infringement. X-Cite Records (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Uploader added this note to the file description: Cover artwork copyright granted to Wikipedia, courtesy of X-Cite Records (record label). It seems clear that they don’t know what they are doing, at least as far as copyright is concerned. Brianjd (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ruthven as user who added VRT tag. Brianjd (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- VRT ticket #2018040810005421. Brianjd (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Permission is revokable when right holder did not initially have permission to grant a worldwide license. Right holder is incorporated in France, only that territory was authorized, only the copyright laws of that territory applies, any permission granted worldwide is subject to copyright infringement. X-Cite Records (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- @X-Cite Records No need to add the same comment three times. Brianjd (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Permission revoked by copyright holder X-Cite Records. Contact X-Cite Records directly for further legal inquiries and complete takedown notice. X-Cite Records (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose Magnatyrannus (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete trollish page decoration from new user who is pushing the limits of good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Serves little to no educational purpose at all. Magnatyrannus (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete disruptive user’s “humor” upload that serves mostly to annoy and confuse others. Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Little educational purpose, outside of project scope, etc. Magnatyrannus (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete it’s reasonable that an established user might upload a drawing of their “fursona” as a userpage decoration but the uploader has barely done anything constructive and also engages in borderline vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Superseded by vector Caleb39411 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unused image superseded by vector.
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio: passes off an artwork by ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)/M. Kornmesser (ESO) and claims to have created it without credit. Original image from https://www.space.com/19100-alien-planet-birth-alma-telescope.html Nrco0e (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio passing off as own work without credit. Original artwork is by QUB Astrophysics Research Center from: https://www.universetoday.com/137119/exoplanet-hunting-aliens-looking-earth-right-now/ Nrco0e (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. Celestialobjects (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatantly stolen artwork originally from a YouTube video by V101 Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h68eS8MHxEc Nrco0e (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio and stealing V101 Science's rendering from his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxetIkth51I Nrco0e (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. Celestialobjects (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio and stealing from V101's rendering from his youTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t058TdfH-4w Nrco0e (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio; stolen image cropped from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzervega20130108.html without credit Nrco0e (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Qatar. The crop may fails de minimis A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a spelling mistake JoanSMF (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Qatar. The image focus too much on the modern skyscrapers, not a general skyline view A1Cafel (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP in Kuwait. The image focus too much on the modern buildings, not a general skyline view A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The tower was completed in 2012 by Dar Al-Handasah. There is no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia, permission from the architectural firm is required A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The tower was completed in 2012 by Dar Al-Handasah. There is no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia, permission from the architectural firm is required A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Saudi Arabia. The tower is too prominent that fails de minimis. Also, the image was being used in multiple Wikipedia site to illustrate the tower = Not an avoidable elements of this photo A1Cafel (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want my old works to be seen through Google Image Search. Herdimasanggara (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no reason. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Oman A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kalabria100 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploads by another Emiliana Rai/Christian Agricola's sockpuppet. Either low-quality files, hoaxes, soapboxing, unclear source/author, lack of any educational purpose.
- File:Nobleza.jpg
- File:Smossan1.jpg
- File:SanGiorgioCavalieri.jpg
- File:Smossan.jpg
- File:Compagnia dei Cavalieri di San Giorgio.jpg
- File:Sovrano Ordine della Compagnia dei Cavalieri di San Giorgio.jpg
- File:Agricolasmossan.jpg
- File:TimbroAgricolaChristian.jpg
- File:Timbro Agricola Christian (1) pa.jpg
- File:Aristocrazia.jpg
- File:STEMMA FAMIGLIA AGRICOLA - timbro.jpg
- File:STEMMA FAMIGLIA AGRICOLA - timbro.pdf
- File:StemmaIBNDChristian.jpg
- File:StemmaChristian.jpg
- File:ChristianAgricola.jpg
- File:Rosario Logiacco.jpg
Vituzzu (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nannapat Boonsup (talk · contribs)
[edit]These appear to be screenshots of a copyright video game, not "own work" as claimed.
- File:Snake animal.png
- File:Beach Bonanza.jpg
- File:Banana-kong-snake-1000x462-1.jpg
- File:Banana-kong-upgrades-1000x462-1.jpg
- File:Turtle animal.jpg
- File:Cave chase.jpg
- File:Toucan animal.jpg
- File:Boar animal.jpg
- File:Underwater Misadventures.png
- File:Treetop Trampolines.png
- File:Banana-kong-rocket-1000x462-1.jpg.webp
- File:Banana Kong1.jpg
- File:Banana Kong 2.jpg
Voice of Clam 10:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
a "fake election diagram" is certainly not needed here. Looks like someone uploaded the result of toying around with the Parliament Diagram tool. MF-W 10:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. — Haseeb (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Karel Janeček's (Czech presidential candidate in the 2023 elections) identity document; originally released by Mr Janeček himself, but the document is out of COM:SCOPE anyway; specimens can and should be used to show how Czech IDs look like, and there is no need to store identity document of any living person, even if originally released by the ID holder themselves Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Personal ID of a living person, out of project scope. --Harold (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the rationale. Kacir (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete He posted his ID to show the ID number in a row with the ministry over being denied a ballot spot but that is a marginal tidbit, we don't need to host it. It was briefly used on cswiki and skwiki without that context, just for the sake of it, which is very unusual.--TFerenczy (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of File:O'Regan and Macfarlane 2468.jpg Schwede66 07:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In the future, use {{Duplicate}} only. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE, out of scope funplussmart (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Unusable, outside project scope Poliocretes (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No meaningful exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Found here https://ritademiranda.wixsite.com/mulheresguerreiras - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No exif, unlikely to be own work as claimed. PCP Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No meaningful exif, found here https://www.drchristabella.com/about, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Found in a pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54c90d0de4b09a86c40e788c/t/5cd5eb18c830255eeed54528/1557523227363/The+Unchosen+Ones+Exhibition+Proposal+-+FINAL+PDF+-optimized.pdf - unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CristianDiors (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Same as his twitter profile pic - https://twitter.com/robredding - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Why does that matter? Gregpolk (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Gregpolk: You claimed the photo as your own work. As this is his twitter image that claim is in doubt unless you can prove you took the photo via the COM:OTRS process Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is my own work. Looks like he is using the image elsewhere. 2603:7000:9900:5B51:CC12:9CE5:8ED4:FA7A 18:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Like the user's other upload, looks like someone uploaded the result of toying around with the Parliament Diagram tool. MF-W 10:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
low quality blurred out selfie Mjrmtg (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
screenshot from an app Mjrmtg (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
possible copyvio, photo by Peter Müller M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
possible copyvio; photo by Timo Lindeman M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No meaningful exif, google finds this on twitter. Needs OTRS IMO Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused Webp logo, should be SVG if useful. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably taken from https://www.rubikon.news/autoren/robert-scheer - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
no free license --Abalg (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
as requested in english description and filename Ivanbranco (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Useless page decoration from editor with competence issues Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
low quality + as requested by filename Ivanbranco (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
as requested by filename Ivanbranco (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
as requested by filename Ivanbranco (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zablydilsa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Фото Абдувалиева Сарафроза Россия.jpg
- File:Фото Абдувалиева Сарафроза в Москве.jpg
- File:Фото Абдувалиева Сарафроза.jpg
Mitte27 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ілона Семенча (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Pretty obvious COM:FLICKRWASH. From a Flickr account that reposts album covers. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No source information Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Photographer: André de Loisted - no evidence of permission. Needs OTRS Skivsamlare (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement.
- File:Мост мони скрин.jpg
- File:The evolution of MM.png
- File:2019ММ.jpg
- File:2019 MM.jpg
- File:2017 ММ.png
- File:2015 ММ.jpg
- File:Анхны смарт утсан дээрх зураг.jpg
- File:Анхны гар утсан дээрх зураг.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Promo photos. Seems to be Flickr-washing.
- File:サイトリニューアル画像.jpg
- File:Shibuya O-EASTでのライブ(2016年).jpg
- File:3曲同時発売した内の1曲『グリズリーに襲われたら♡』のジャケット写真(2019.07.26).jpg
- File:塩見きらの加入が発表された豊洲PITでのライブ(2019.04.29).jpg
- File:「うみぽす♡大好き」のMV(2017年).jpg
- File:2015年の神宿.jpg
- File:デビュー当時の神宿(2014年).jpg
- File:2周年ライブの衣装(2016年).jpg
- File:神宿(2021年).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism. Fake title. Lost in subtitles (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Unidentified species, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. — Haseeb (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
not useful Xocolatl (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out-of-scope and unlikely uploader owned logo. Furthermore, a File:FT Logo.png from the same author has been deleted. Pierre cb (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Personal art from a non-contributor. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saifullahi Isyaku (talk · contribs)
[edit]This user has uploaded some out of com:scope pictures of themselves and low red professional photos that are very likely not their own work.
- File:Zpreety (5).jpg
- File:Zpreety (4).jpg
- File:Zpreety (1).jpg
- File:Safzor02.jpg
- File:Safzor01.jpg
- File:Safzor03.jpg
Vera (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's also a watermark in File:Safzor02.jpg Vera (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation? Image appears to be taken from the internet Kershatz (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Per Commons:FOP Qatar, architectural works are considered copyrighted in Qatar. This is a crop of a photo that isolates the building. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep People nomitaning these sort of files for deletion just don’t understand FoP. There actually is no copyrighted content in this file.Tvx1 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work judging by the big watermark. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
~Cybularny Speak? 01:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Qscwdvefbrgnthmyjukilop (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The range of the Stenodus nelma..png, these low-quality screenshots have no proper licensing; taken from https://www.iucnredlist.org/ where I don't see a compatible license.
- File:The range of the Epinephelus bruneus..png
- File:The range of the Parahucho perryi..png
- File:The range of the Hucho ishikawae..png
- File:Range of the Hucho hucho.png
- File:The range of the Hucho bleekeri..png
- File:Hucho taimen range.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
"FBMD" Metadata indicated that the image was published on Facebook or Instagram before uploaded to Commons, original source and license was missing A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Uploader admits that the image is not his "own work", but rather "made by a friend" [2]. Archer1234 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation; source doesn't claim commons licensing ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation: relatively low resolution, missing EXIF data, black uneven borders, file names containing "Screenshot"... these look like images shared over social media, which the uploader took screenshots of and cropped a bit. Together with the various copyvio notifications on the uploader's talk page, it is unlikely the uploader owns the copyright to these images. Permission from the original photographer(s) is needed (and preferably the original files).
- File:Screenshot 2015-10-28-23-23-08 mh1446042306920.jpg
- File:Screenshot 2015-10-28-23-23-42 mh1446042285894.jpg
- File:Screenshot 2015-10-28-23-23-51 mh1446042264834.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Taken from "wowturkey.com" as can be seen on the watermark. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Although vaginal use of objects is in scope, this image is in low quality and unused, and can be replaced by many alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Low resolution (417 × 317) and lack of camera metadata suggest copyright violation. Brianjd (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Maps and logos of a fictional state
Enyavar (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope, amateur drawing Piastu (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LuciusCaesar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Personal images of dubious quality: at least the series with the arc de triomphe is a forgery with the kid's head shopped onto the body of an older politician (it's rather obvious here)
- File:Lordfrasertheblack.jpg
- File:Cassandrobuonaparte.jpg
- File:Cassanderb3.jpg
- File:Cassanderb3b.jpg
- File:Cassanderb2.jpg
- File:Cassanderb1.jpg
- File:Cassandertaormina.jpg
- File:CassanderArc3.jpg
- File:Cassanderarc2.jpg
- File:Cassanderarc.jpg
- File:SandroBonaparte.jpg
- File:Cassandre Bonaparte.jpg
Enyavar (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Not own work. (https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/siyaset/kemal-kilicdaroglundan-suc-duyurusu-aciklamasi-keske-ifade-ver-deseler-1999847) MarinaMann (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
no source no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- This image should remain, and it added to 4 Wikipedia articles Zzuupk (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Not own work: creativesarabs.com, deezer.com, 2022discountsale.ru, spotify.com, asiaplustj.info and some hits on youtube. --Achim55 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Per warning of the template: Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Argentine FanFest Announced during the 2022 FIFA World Cup - West Lanús, Buenos Aires, Argentina.jpg
[edit]No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not own work, but work of UAE Space Agency. Maybe this is copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Uploaded for self-promotion, user's last remaining contribution. In addition, author and source are not mentioned, this is not called own work. The mentioned external site is dead. Taivo (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro A1Cafel (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Russia. Artist Olivier Strebelle died in 2017, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatantly stolen artwork originally by Mark A Garlick / University of Warwick. This is misattributed to Barnard's star; it should be Kepler-438b. [3] Nrco0e (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. Celestialobjects (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatantly stolen artwork from ESO/M. Kornmesser. Nrco0e (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. Celestialobjects (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in France {userpage! | talk!} 21:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celestialobjects
[edit]Individually nominating this user's files individually is quite a hassle, so I'm listing all of them that I find problematic due to scientific inaccuracy, artistic and self-promotional purposes out of Commons' scope, and copyvios in which these are edited reuploads from original artworks and photographs without giving credit. Artistic retouching has no educational value here on Commons and Wikipedia. Nrco0e (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 hour into compiling this list, I think it's better to delete all of this user's images. 99% of them aren't worth keeping for the reasons above. Nrco0e (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistically-retouched galaxy & nebula reuploads
[edit]- File:Icarus.png
- File:El gordo cluster.png
- File:Pandoras cluster.png
- File:Bullet cluster.png
- File:ESO593-8.png
- File:Hoags object.png
- File:Arp194.png
- File:Cartwheel.png
- File:Mayalls object.png
- File:Arp147.png
- File:Tadpole galaxy.png
- File:Ngc7319.png
- File:Ngc5256.png
- File:Ngc2936.png
- File:Mice galaxies.png
- File:Atoms for peace galaxy.png
- File:Ngc1614.png
- File:Ngc6745.png
- File:Virgo cluster.png
- File:Hydra cluster.png
- File:Centaurus cluster.png
- File:Medusa merger.png
- File:Fornax cluster.png
- File:Ngc1300.png
- File:Butterfly galaxies.png
- File:Messier100.png
- File:Virgo cluster.png
- File:Powehi.png
- File:Eyes galaxies.png
- File:Cetus a.png
- File:Ngc 2841.png
- File:Antennae galaxies.png
- File:Ngc 4314.png
- File:Ngc3628.png
- File:Sombrero galaxy black background.png
- File:NGC6744.png
- File:Sunflower galaxy.png
- File:Pleiades open cluster.png
Artistically-retouched Solar System object reuploads
[edit]- File:Arrokoth.png
- File:Charon moon.png
- File:Pluto black background.png
- File:Triton (artistic impression).png
- File:Oberon.png
- File:Titania.png
- File:Umbriel.png
- File:Ariel.png
- File:Miranda moon.png
- File:Iapetus.png
- File:Titan.png
- File:Rhea moon.png
- File:Dione.png
- File:Tethys.png
- File:Callisto.png
- File:Ganymede.png
- File:Europa moon.png
- File:Io moon.png
- File:Vesta black background.png
- File:Ceres black background.png
- File:Deimos black background.png
- File:Phobos moon black background.png
- File:Moon black background.png
- File:Earth black background.png
- File:2020AV2 black background.png
- File:Halleys comet black background.png
- File:Sun black background.png
Scientifically inaccurate or misleading artworks
[edit]Artworks that cut-and-paste & retouch other existing photographs/artworks without credit
[edit]- File:Antares black background.png
- File:Polaris.png
- File:Tonatiuh.png
- File:Bellatrix.png
- File:Ogma star.png
- File:18 Delphini.png
- File:Veritate.png
- File:Ogma star.png
- File:Gacrux.png
- File:Ogma star.png
- File:Castor star system.png
- File:Arcturus.png
- File:Pollux.png
- File:Delta pavonis.png
- File:61 cygni.png
- File:Epsilon eridani.png
- File:Lalande 21185.png
- File:Wolf 359.png
- File:Arcturus.png
- File:Rogue Planet WISE 0855-0714 imagery.png
- File:Alpha centauri system.png
- File:Oort cloud.png
- File:Oumuamua.png
- File:Salacia.png
Blatantly reuploaded (stolen) art without credit
[edit]Uncredited SpaceEngine renders
[edit]
File:Aldebaran star.png is derivative of other artwork as well, from [4]. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted, here is the designer's website: https://mariannawybieralska.pl/projekty/przykladowy-projekt-2/ Per COM:PRP and COM:TOO Poland we should remove it. Wanted (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Scientifically inaccurate and self-promotional artwork. This image incorrectly depicts the Big Bang as an "explosion" in the middle of an empty void--that is a common misconception of the Big Bang, which is more of an expansion of space itself. Nrco0e (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nrco0e Speedy keep I suspect it’s also a common way of depicting it. More to the point, this file is in use at wikibooks:it:Filosofia del Cosmo/Prefazione, oc:Big Bang and ro:Lista epocilor. Brianjd (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- And it wasn’t added to those pages by the uploader, so I assume that the uses are legitimate. Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to update file descriptions to explain any inaccuracies you notice. Brianjd (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Misleading artistic depiction of the star Icarus; artistic retouching of pre-existing files is out of scope of Commons. The rendered star in Icarus's place is shown to be much brighter when it is extremely faint in reality. See original image: File:NASA-Icarus-MostDistantMainSequenceStar-20180402.jpg Nrco0e (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nrco0e Speedy keep In use at wikiversity:Radiation astronomy/Lensings.
- Files that are legitimately in use are automatically in scope and not eligible for deletion for quality issues. Feel free to update file descriptions and use templates like {{Factual accuracy}}.
- Please check all your existing DRs for in-use files. Brianjd (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouching and recoloring of an existing image is out of Commons' scope. Blatant self-promotion as well. See original image: File:Hubble weighs “the fat one”.jpg Nrco0e (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouching and recoloring of an existing image is out of Commons' scope. Blatant self-promotion as well. Nrco0e (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouch of an existing image passed off as own work without credit. This is beyond scope and there is self-promotion See original image: File:Hubble_Interacting_Galaxy_ESO_593-8_(2008-04-24).jpg Nrco0e (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouch and wrongful mirroring of an existing image passed off as own work without credit. This is beyond scope and there is self-promotion. Nrco0e (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouch and wrongful mirroring of an existing image passed off as own work without credit. This is beyond scope and there is self-promotion. Nrco0e (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Artistic retouch and wrongful mirroring of an existing image passed off as own work without credit. This is beyond scope and there is self-promotion. Nrco0e (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatantly stolen artwork from a YouTube video thumbnail by V101 Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G4XdM53SjE Nrco0e (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see where it matches the video. Can you provide a timestamp? It is one of Budassi's images (I found it in a couple composites though not yet the original), and they produce enough graphics that I wouldn't think they'd need to steal screenshots from YouTube. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sorry I want to clarify this may not be my rendering. It might be a photoshop collage of textures in photoshop and they found my image on internet and used it for their thumbnail. But I don't remember because I did many uploads fast and many were indeed uncredited or even copyrighted material. The safe action here is to delete it. Celestialobjects (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it! The thumbnail doesn't appear on my default browser. It flashes by for a quarter second on another I tried. Yeah, that does look like the same image, and it predates your upload.
- I've removed it from all wikis that used it. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio and stealing from V101 Science's YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmxB6Y_Q4qM Nrco0e (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
That's Vesta, not Pallas. Misleading image + Self-promo + out of scope Nrco0e (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio and stealing of artwork originally by John Whatmough [5] Nrco0e (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I understand this is copyrighted and doesn't belong to Wikimedia. Celestialobjects (talk) Celestialobjects (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Misleading image: That is NOT Halley, that is literally a stock photo of a generic comet. See original source and credit: https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2016/017405/comet-star Nrco0e (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an edited image originally by NASA https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Sun-Image-source-NASA_fig1_344339852 Nrco0e (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Pointless edit of File:221831main PIA10368.png + wrong license Nrco0e (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality edit of File:Deimos (NASA) - 02 (4997048422).jpg + wrong license Nrco0e (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In use, and not that bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've read your remarks about this uploader's images. Is this license wrong in such a way that the photo can be deleted even though it's in use, or would it have to stop being in use first? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The only license issue is that no credit is given to the original source. The original image is under CC-BY, which doesn't put restrictions on the license of derivative works. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. So that could be rectified as long as it's in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've read your remarks about this uploader's images. Is this license wrong in such a way that the photo can be deleted even though it's in use, or would it have to stop being in use first? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Pointless edited reupload of File:Ceres - RC3 - Haulani Crater (22381131691) (cropped).jpg + wrong license Nrco0e (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Firestone News (Gastonia, N.C.) July 25, 1954, edition 1 (2014236862) 19540725 (cropped).jpg
[edit]Duplicate of other extracted images from original image. Risoshi (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is the largest file size. --RAN (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of other extracted images. Risoshi (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be a bug, either with the Crop Tool or the Nominate for Deletion process.
- I have a screenshot that shows there are multiple extracted images from the original so I have gone to them and nominate for deletion except for one, which I hoped to keep.
- However, the Nominate for Deletion process has applied the template to ALL extracted images so I now don't know what to do. Risoshi (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This one is in use. --RAN (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-Italy}} applies only to simple photographs, the rest of works (including paintings, like this case), according with the Italian law, are protected for 70 pma years, something that it's impossible for a painting created in the 1980s. 83.61.243.178 20:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. MatviiFediura (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- This image appears to be either a badly edited photo, a render of a low quality model or a badly edited render of a low quality model. Note ridiculous shapes of buttocks and vulva and missing anus. MatviiFediura (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Seizure trigger, if this is actually somehow useful it would be best as a video so you can warn people before they play the flashing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Kadı Message 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Aunque poseo los derechos de propiedad y uso de esta foto prefiero que no estén en Wikimedia Commons. MorenaClara (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022120110007731 regarding File:Marta Querol Benèch 01.jpg . Impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- La autoría sí se ha acreditado, al igual que los permisos, mediante envío de una comunicación directa del propio autor de la fotografía y de la propietaria de los derechos, que soy yo, pero el procedimiento requiere más burocracia y no resulta operativo estar molestando a la gente cuando ya han dado su autorización. EL autor no entiende que sea necesario tanto formulario, por lo que he solicitado el borrado de las dos fotografías de su autoría. Que no es lo mismo que no poder verificar la autoría (cuando además las fotos van firmadas). Gracias. MorenaClara (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Para aclarar: no hay forma de verificar el contrato; el cliente no desea contactar al fotógrafo para "no molestarlo" y el permiso del fotógrafo se lo dio a la fotografiada para uso, pero no podemos asegurar que esté de acuerdo con el uso comercial por terceras partes. Así que sí, hay "pruebas suficientes" de la autoría del fotógrafo y de la autorización para que el sujeto de la imagen la use, pero no hay evidencia alguna de que esté de acuerdo con el uso comercial por terceras partes de la imagen. Además, la imagen dice que el autor es "User:MorenaClara", quien no es el fotógrafo, y una captura de pantalla de una conversación en la cual no se incluye ninguna licencia no es válida, sin mencionar que no aceptamos permisos reenviados. De allí la causa del rechazo del permiso.
- To clarify: There's no way to verify the contract; the client avoid to request permission to the photographer for not to "bother" him, and his permission is granted to the subject of the file, but we can't assure the commercial use by third parties. So yes, there is "proof enough" of his authorship and the authorization of use, but there's not evidence at all that the photographer consent the use by third parties for commercial use. Besides, the file says author is "User:MorenaClara", who is not the photographer, and the evidence it's a screenshot of a conversation in which no license is named. And we don't accept forwarded permissions. That's the reason of the rejection. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Correcto. Por eso yo misma solicité el borrado de las dos fotos de mi propiedad realizadas por Victor Cucart. Gracias.
- Exactly. That is (quite accourate) why I did ask myself to retire the two pictures of my property did by Victor Cucart. Thank you. 81.202.10.20 00:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- La autoría sí se ha acreditado, al igual que los permisos, mediante envío de una comunicación directa del propio autor de la fotografía y de la propietaria de los derechos, que soy yo, pero el procedimiento requiere más burocracia y no resulta operativo estar molestando a la gente cuando ya han dado su autorización. EL autor no entiende que sea necesario tanto formulario, por lo que he solicitado el borrado de las dos fotografías de su autoría. Que no es lo mismo que no poder verificar la autoría (cuando además las fotos van firmadas). Gracias. MorenaClara (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Para evitar problemas. To avoid problems MorenaClara (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @MorenaClara what sort of problems? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought this issue was already closed. Commons decided to delete the picture because of reasons above. I agreed. Then the permissions were right, and restored and told me my reasons were not enoough to delete. I have explained it many too many times to too many people. Thank you for your interest. Do as you wish. MorenaClara (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Photo cropped in a way so that the logo is not COM:De minimis. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- This image was found in Shiv Sena Andheri Poster Diamond Leveler (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims).
- No machine-readable author provided. Soman assumed (based on copyright claims).
- Diamond Leveler (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter who took the photograph, it's a photograph of a non-de minimise logo. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- The picture is licensed under {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated|Cc-by-2.5}} and as No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims)
- There is no point of Non de minimise logo Diamond Leveler (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Diamond Leveler I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm saying that the license is invalid because, even though we assume the uploader took the photo, it's the photograph of a logo so it's a derivative work, and therefore copyrighted. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter who took the photograph, it's a photograph of a non-de minimise logo. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by krd. --Kadı Message 19:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
globally replaced by Image:Krones Logo.svg WIKImaniac 18:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: we don't delete raster images just because there's now also a vector version available. --Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
globally replaced by Image:Krones Logo.svg WIKImaniac 18:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: we don't delete raster images just because there's now also a vector version available. --Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. Tagged as PD, any reason to disbelieve? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- The license is specific for any municipality in Florida - they all belong into public domain. This news release from last month states the city's logo is a statue of David (also shown at the footer of the website). The Grid (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, is anything additional needed to help your dispute on the PD claim? The Grid (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Floridian government work. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Sarasota is a FL municipality. No reason to doubt PD tag. Glrx (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --✗plicit 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Per warning of the template: Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Per warning of the template: Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
COM:DW and there is no freedom of panorama in Japan. This is a photograph of an advert in a Tokyo Metro station. The photographer does not own the rights to it. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 00:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Mass uploading Romanian TV logos with default source/license without regard to the COM:TOO – seems to be a DUCK of Iulipopa97 / Danut100. Not including File:Antena 1 Logo (2022-present).svg into this DR as it seems there was a decision (see here) that this specific logo does not exceed the TOO.
- File:PRO TV (1995-2003).svg
- File:PRO TV (2016-2017).svg
- File:PRO TV Logo (2015-2016).svg
- File:PRO TV Logo (1993-1995).svg
- File:PRO TV Logo (1995, prelaunch).png
- File:PRO Cinema HD Logo (2022-present).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2017-2022).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2022-present).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2014-2017).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2004-2006).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2009-2014).png
- File:PRO Cinema Logo (2006-2009.png
- File:PRO Arena Logo (2017-2022).svg
- File:Pro Arena Logo (2007-2009).png
- File:Pro Arena Logo (2009-2017).png
- File:Pro Arena Logo (2003-2007).svg
- File:PRO Arena HD Logo (2022-present).svg
- File:PRO Arena Logo (2022-present).svg
- File:PRO TV Internațional Logo(2017-present).svg
- File:Știrile ProTV Logo (2020-present).svg
- File:Pro TV HD Logo (2017-present).svg
- File:PRO TV Logo (2017-present).svg
- File:Antena Play Logo (2022-present).svg
- File:ZU TV Logo (2014-present).png
- File:Antena Group Logo (2022-present).svg
- File:Antena 3 CNN Logo (2022-present).png
- File:Antena Srars Logo (2022-present).png
- File:Happy Channel Logo (2020-present).svg
- File:Antena Internațional 2022.png
Gikü (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Most are exclusively text so, while trademarked, are not copyrightable. A few are complex graphics, but they need to be nominated on their own. Citing some Romanian case law would be helpful on what courts have ruled to be copyrightable. The guide Commons:Threshold of originality, that you use as the rationale for deletion, has no information or case law on Romania. --RAN (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to also point out that none of these images have a source attached; on rowiki we have recurring upload campaigns of TV channel logos of questionable authority (read: designed by fans). Gikü (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - mass uploading fake Romanian TV logos. --Sîmbotin (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep None are clearly above TOO. Many are clearly below. Only those in the grey area should be nominated. --Headlock0225 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: most are below the threshold of originality. Deleted the painfully obvious complex logos only. --✗plicit 00:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This diagram is based on an image that is nominated for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Clit.png for details. MatviiFediura (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 01:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wizzito2006 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Re-uploads after Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG logos of television channels and networks of Romania
- File:Jurnalul TVR (2004).svg
- File:TVRi (2004).svg
- File:TVR 2 (2004).svg
- File:TVR 1 (2004).svg
- File:TVR (2004).svg
- File:TVR Cultural (2004).svg
Gikü (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio of somebody else's work and passing off as own; this is a retouched and rotated version of the original artwork by ESO/A. Roquette at File:Artist’s impression of a gamma-ray burst.jpg. Nrco0e (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a cropped artistic retouching of Bootes Void originally depicted in File:Galaxy_superclusters_and_galaxy_voids.png, passed off as own work without credit. Additionally, self-promotion. Nrco0e (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Qaulity level below any acceptable standard, ther is a better image Fotothek df tg 0003842 Pneumatik ^ Blasebalg.jpg Peli (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
low quality duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tdp(1).jpg Ivanbranco (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Does this really have a realistic educational purpose that outweighs the risk of giving people seizures? Dronebogus (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, and the Streisand effect made it seen by more people. --RAN (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Then what is the supposed use? Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Some people might suggest that people at risk of seizures shouldn’t click on random links, especially those accompanied by a warning. But the advice I remember seeing on MDN Web Docs is that websites should take more responsibility for this issue, giving clear warnings and controls on each page with problematic material. What does the Commons community think? Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think seizure-risk material should only be in video format and always have “(photosensitivity warning)” in the title. This goes beyond COM:NOTCENSORED as a genuine, objective health risk. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus I added this DR and several others to the newly-created categories Seizure risk-related deletion requests/pending and Seizure risk-related deletion requests/deleted. But, incredibly, I also added one to Seizure risk-related deletion requests/kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Status.gif. That DR has extensive (but very old) discussion. Perhaps it’s time for a new discussion. Brianjd (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think seizure-risk material should only be in video format and always have “(photosensitivity warning)” in the title. This goes beyond COM:NOTCENSORED as a genuine, objective health risk. Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus The educational purpose is given in the description (emphasis added):
- This is a very quick cycle of colors. It can be used to fix "stuck pixels" on displays. There is a 30 millisecond delay between each frame, meaning that the frame rate is about 33.3 frames per second. The colors are flashed in the following order: blue, red, and green.
- But is this realistic? Can this quick cycle actually fix stuck pixels? I have no idea. Brianjd (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s sufficient reasoning, and once again it does not need to be a gif. It could be a video which doesn’t automatically play. Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus I advertised this DR at Commons:Village pump#Seizure risks. Brianjd (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s sufficient reasoning, and once again it does not need to be a gif. It could be a video which doesn’t automatically play. Dronebogus (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin Reason? Brianjd (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not really educational. I don't think that "fixing stuck pixels" is among Commons' primary goals. —capmo (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Capmo The idea that stuck pixels can be fixed a certain way (if true) is clearly educational. Brianjd (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "risk of people getting seizures" isn't a reason for deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Tuvalkin, Capmo, and Enhancing999: Seizures are not merely uncomfortable; they are a serious medical issue that can require hospital treatment. Given the comments above, I wonder if anyone except Dronebogus understands that. Brianjd (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep me out the shame list, I didn't add any comment. Thing is, looks like I know way more about seizures than you know about file formats: The idea that a 33⅓ Hz GIF can be replaced with a video is ludicrous. (On the other hand: Can even a GIF fix stuck pixels? I am not sure.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin A vote with no comment could be seen as an implicit endorsement of relevant discussion above the vote. I never said that GIFs have to be replaced by videos – that was Dronebogus. I only said that we need to agree on some measures to reduce seizure risks. Finally, even you seem to be admitting that this file might not be in scope. Brianjd (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- People with that risk need some coping strategy. Deleting the internet doesn't really sound like an efficient one. Browser plugin? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- We’re not “deleting the Internet”. Stop being so dismissive and inconsiderate. It’s like saying wheelchair users should have contraptions to climb stairs so you don’t have to put in a ramp. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see you proposing a ramp. We are trying to delete every image that might be an issue, aren't we? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- No my “ramp” is proposed at the village pump. And there aren’t many images, and they aren’t very useful. Dronebogus (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see you proposing a ramp. We are trying to delete every image that might be an issue, aren't we? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- We’re not “deleting the Internet”. Stop being so dismissive and inconsiderate. It’s like saying wheelchair users should have contraptions to climb stairs so you don’t have to put in a ramp. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- People with that risk need some coping strategy. Deleting the internet doesn't really sound like an efficient one. Browser plugin? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin A vote with no comment could be seen as an implicit endorsement of relevant discussion above the vote. I never said that GIFs have to be replaced by videos – that was Dronebogus. I only said that we need to agree on some measures to reduce seizure risks. Finally, even you seem to be admitting that this file might not be in scope. Brianjd (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep me out the shame list, I didn't add any comment. Thing is, looks like I know way more about seizures than you know about file formats: The idea that a 33⅓ Hz GIF can be replaced with a video is ludicrous. (On the other hand: Can even a GIF fix stuck pixels? I am not sure.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. According to https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-software-solutions-to-fix-a-stuck-pixel-on-your-lcd-monitor/ , flashing colors may fix stuck pixels. Glrx (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Without looking for that I claim PSE users have animations disabled (via some browser plugin) and will need to click on the image to enable animation. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-gifs-from-auto-playing-in-your-browser Glrx (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kai Burghardt and Glrx: MDN (cited above) suggests that this is not best practice.
- Also, from the cited PCMag article:
- Firefox: Either click through a deliberately scary warning screen, or install an extension that merely stops existing animations.
- Chrome: Choose from two extensions that have been removed from the store or two extensions with version numbers less than 1, no updates since 2015, no privacy declaration (despite there being a prominent section for this in the store) and complaints that they either don’t work or break sites.
- Opera: Used to have a built-in option for this, but now you have to do it the hard way: download an extension to install Chrome extensions, then install one of the dodgy Chrome extensions mentioned above.
- Internet Explorer: (no longer supported)
- Edge: Not possible
- Safari: Use an old extension that may not work.
- I tried searching the Mozilla add-ons site; the first relevant add-on I found was Toggle Animated Gif. But it also sounds scary:
- This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing.
- It claims to be a very simple Addon, yet it needs to read and modify browser settings and may also ask to access your data for all websites.
- Maybe this is just normal add-on stuff, nothing really scary. But people who aren’t computing experts don’t know that. And that still leaves the question of how we know this add-on (or any other add-on) can be trusted. Brianjd (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: I think a DR, a deletion request – plainly removing content, is the wrong venue to address any issues users may face when using Commons. As far as I see Commons: Village pump#Seizure risks you started has already been archived. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 20:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kai Burghardt But the issue was addressed both in the nomination and in multiple subsequent comments, including one by you, without anyone saying that this is the wrong venue. The issue was addressed in many previous DRs as well, hence the category. Brianjd (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree @Brianjd: As far as I understand it’s Dronebogus’s primary objection to this file: Risk of PSE-trigger outweighed any potential COM: EDUSE. Still none of the Category: Seizure risk-related deletion requests/deleted DRs appear to have been solely based on health concerns. It would set a precedent to consider the realm of media consumers, specifically any secondary effects. We do already host some seriously disturbing materials, yet I don’t (propose to) delete them despite knowing we’re complicit in causing psychological distress in some individuals. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 21:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kai Burghardt But the issue was addressed both in the nomination and in multiple subsequent comments, including one by you, without anyone saying that this is the wrong venue. The issue was addressed in many previous DRs as well, hence the category. Brianjd (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: I think a DR, a deletion request – plainly removing content, is the wrong venue to address any issues users may face when using Commons. As far as I see Commons: Village pump#Seizure risks you started has already been archived. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 20:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-stop-gifs-from-auto-playing-in-your-browser Glrx (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This image is firmly within COM:SCOPE and has a valid educational use with respect to stuck pixels, as has been established above. It also does not appear to be a copyright violation nor a violation of any other sort of U.S. law. There is nothing else in the deletion policy that could plausibly justify deleting this, so this file should remain on Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. https://trace.umd.edu/photosensitive-epilepsy-analysis-tool-peat-user-guide/ Glrx (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: more people than not feel that this is in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Es gibt in commons ein identisches Bild Dateiname: Blomesche Wildnis Kremper Rhin 20150125.jpg Barghaan (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The nominated picture was uploaded in 2015. The mentioned File: Blomesche Wildnis Kremper Rhin 20150125.jpg was uploaded in 2022, but has double its resolution. Why did you apparently not upload the full resolution in the first place? Or simply overwrite the now nominated file if its identical? There is still one use in w:de:Rhin (Elbe). ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
File uploaded with incorrect source and license. See: [6] (paragraph 3) INDT (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Harold as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243060 Yann (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Truth and Copyrights as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Original research, the file usage has been declined/rejected in all Wikipedia pages Kadı Message 19:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Source website does not indicate a Creative Commons license. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable company, only used for promo. See also: d:Q115474829 Gikü (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. No use in Wikimedia. James2813 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Does not look like the person depicted in this photograph consented to having their picture published as an example of abdominal obesity Vera (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If the photo was taken in a public place where he couldn't expect privacy and there's no law prohibiting the distribution of such a photo in Australia, I'm afraid he doesn't have control over how it is categorized on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looks to be taken at a shopping centre, so it might be a open to the public but is located on private property Artslaw Information Sheet (see: Photography on private property) and most owners/operators now prohibit photography within the centre.
- Bidgee (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- If that law applied in 2020, the photo should presumably be deleted. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Bidgee and Ikan Kekek: I was under the impression that Commons does not care about non-copyright restrictions, including those discussed here (which are not laws). Certainly there are issues around identifiable people, but those have nothing to do with whether the photo was taken on private property or what rules the property owner sets. Brianjd (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- If that law applied in 2020, the photo should presumably be deleted. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje (and others): Would it be acceptable to simply obscure the subject’s face? Brianjd (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I listen to the en:Maintenance Phase podcast in which the host talks openly about her life as a fat person in a fat phobic society. One of her terrors in life is ever spotting her own body in those "headless fat people walking down the street" montages that were regularly on the news during the hight of the panic about a supposed obesity crisis. The person in this picture will likely still be able to recognize themselves even when we obscure his face. It's not nice if this picture is used in a Wikipedia article when there are pictures that have been taken with far more consent. Vera (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje Do those montages include non-consenting people? Brianjd (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, of people just out in public, like this person. Vera (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje The fact that the news can get away with regularly showing such montages suggests that they are generally accepted in society. I find it odd that something should be generally accepted in society but not on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to something that was done in the '90s and 2000s. Society evolves to be more mindful of other people's feelings, hopefully. You weren't when you uploaded this picture. Vera (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje I have seen such montages, as well as all sorts of other questionable footage (sometimes including identifiable subjects who could not possibly have consented), much more recently than that. Perhaps society is not evolving to be more mindful of other people's feelings; perhaps society has weighed up such feelings and decided that the benefits of publishing such footage are more important.
- I didn’t upload this picture, nor did I name, describe or categorise it; I merely included it in a user page gallery with a reference to its existing categorisation. Brianjd (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Bidgee, Ikan Kekek to make sure they are aware of these comments as well. Brianjd (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies Vera (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've read your comments; thanks. My feeling, though, is unless this man gave affirmative consent, we should probably delete the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies Vera (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Bidgee, Ikan Kekek to make sure they are aware of these comments as well. Brianjd (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to something that was done in the '90s and 2000s. Society evolves to be more mindful of other people's feelings, hopefully. You weren't when you uploaded this picture. Vera (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje The fact that the news can get away with regularly showing such montages suggests that they are generally accepted in society. I find it odd that something should be generally accepted in society but not on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, of people just out in public, like this person. Vera (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @1Veertje Do those montages include non-consenting people? Brianjd (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I listen to the en:Maintenance Phase podcast in which the host talks openly about her life as a fat person in a fat phobic society. One of her terrors in life is ever spotting her own body in those "headless fat people walking down the street" montages that were regularly on the news during the hight of the panic about a supposed obesity crisis. The person in this picture will likely still be able to recognize themselves even when we obscure his face. It's not nice if this picture is used in a Wikipedia article when there are pictures that have been taken with far more consent. Vera (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and not notable, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by CambridgeBayWeather as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image says copyright 1990. Yann (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Follow quoted Source and it's a different photograph. Can we be sure that this PD-SerbiaGov ? Headlock0225 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moumou82 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: taken from https://toutelaculture.com/musique/classique-musique/matthieu-stefanelli-chroma/ That's not the source, HR with EXIF data, so proper DR is better. Yann (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: That might not be the source but it was on that site before the upload date. Needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Dubious "processing" of Kerberos; this user does not specify how this image was processed to bring such inordinate amount of detail. I am unsure whether these details are fictitious or not, but considering this user's history of overwriting existing files with their own obvious "enhancements" (worst case scenario see Nix), I have doubts that this way of processing is scientifically accurate. As a result, this image may be misleading to viewers if used on Wikipedia. Since Commons is for hosting reliably-sourced files, this image qualifies for deletion. Nrco0e (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- im sorry for the misunderstanding Italyoz484 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nrco0e: Pretty sure this is a sock of Flopbean. If you look at my contribs you can see I have been reverted by a couple other socks as well. CutlassCiera 19:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: fair-use material not allowed on Commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Medical_Association_logo.png. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --✗plicit 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. COM:TOO]? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Morocco has a relatively low threshold or originality. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. Below COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:TOO France. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Not free image of a living person Leokand (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Leokand, why "not free"? I indicated the link from where I took it, the license СС. https://youtube.com/watch?v=io2PKv4XqrQ. Нейроманьяк (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I confirm that the video on Youtube, from which this still was taken, is under a CC-BY license. --Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seconded. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I confirm that the video on Youtube, from which this still was taken, is under a CC-BY license. --Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: source is freely licenced. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Visibly coming from the same photoshoot as File:Pierre Cazeneuve Député des Hauts-de-Seine.jpg (tweet). Dubious ownership claim with no identity, no permission and lack of metadata. Gyrostat (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Aunque poseo los derechos de propiedad y uso totales de esta foto, prefiero que no estén en Wikimedia Commons. MorenaClara (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022120110007731 regarding File:Marta Querol-VC.jpg. Impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- As I have already mentioned in the other photograph by the same author, there is proof enough of their authorship (every picture is signed by him) as well as the authorization of use, given that they were transferred to me by contract in 2008, but according to the Wikimedia Commons criteria, more bureaucracy is needed and the photographer considers that what was sent is sufficient to facilitate its upload to Commons. That is why I have requested its deletion, I am not going to bother him farther more. It is not necessary to keep these pictures in the Wikimedia Commons repository. MorenaClara (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Para aclarar: no hay forma de verificar el contrato; el cliente no desea contactar al fotógrafo para "no molestarlo" y el permiso del fotógrafo se lo dio a la fotografiada para uso, pero no podemos asegurar que esté de acuerdo con el uso comercial por terceras partes. Así que sí, hay "pruebas suficientes" de la autoría del fotógrafo y de la autorización para que el sujeto de la imagen la use, pero no hay evidencia alguna de que esté de acuerdo con el uso comercial por terceras partes de la imagen. Además, la imagen dice que el autor es "User:MorenaClara", quien no es el fotógrafo, y una captura de pantalla de una conversación en la cual no se incluye ninguna licencia, sin mencionar que no aceptamos permisos reenviados. De allí la causa del rechazo del permiso.
- To clarify: There's no way to verify the contract; the client avoid to request permission to the photographer for not to "bother" him, and his permission is granted to the subject of the file, but we can't assure the commercial use by third parties. So yes, there is "proof enough" of his authorship and the authorization of use, but there's not evidence at all that the photographer consent the use by third parties for commercial use. Besides, the file says author is "User:MorenaClara", who is not the photographer, and the evidence it's a screenshot of a conversation in which no license is named. And we don't accept forwarded permissions. That's the reason of the rejection. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- As I have already mentioned in the other photograph by the same author, there is proof enough of their authorship (every picture is signed by him) as well as the authorization of use, given that they were transferred to me by contract in 2008, but according to the Wikimedia Commons criteria, more bureaucracy is needed and the photographer considers that what was sent is sufficient to facilitate its upload to Commons. That is why I have requested its deletion, I am not going to bother him farther more. It is not necessary to keep these pictures in the Wikimedia Commons repository. MorenaClara (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Marta Querol-VC.jpg” under ticket:2023020310008565. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: permission received and verified. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Para evitar problemas. To avoid problems MorenaClara (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @MorenaClara what kind of problems? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have been talking about this with another users by email for very long. I will try to summarize. Everytime someone uses one of those pictures they are falsely accused of selfpromotion, having nothing to do with the picture. The pictures have become a weapon against the people who use them and against the person that appears in the picture. No pictures, no problem to anyone. I uploaded them without been aware that could happen. Thank you. MorenaClara (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The file is COM:INUSE. --Rosenzweig τ 11:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Mediocre bot-uploaded COM:PORN, little educational use. Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Keep Surely this has just as much educational use as anything else in the category Upskirt (on purpose); there are no comparable images in that category. Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously educationally-valuable. 2804:388:5071:A18A:9CD:9648:B171:8DC0 04:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Beyond COM:TOO US. Complex logo. SCP-2000 04:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep Below TOO in my opinion. Simple arrangement of geometrical shapes.--Headlock0225 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep I think a good comparison is this file, which is explicitly given as an example of a logo below COM:TOO US - both are reasonably complex, making use of colour, shapes, fonts and imagery. It's difficult that there's no clear standards, and it seems as though the bar is decided on a case-by-case basis, but I think there's a good case for COM:TOO US here which means we should err on the side of Keep. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
File was based on a PNG and I converted it to an SVG, see here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Smallpox_vs_chickenpox_de.svg Sandstorm de (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, but no reason to delete the PNG version. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 10:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung - als Urheber wird der Verlag genannt, ein Urheber kann aber nur eine natürliche Person sein, daher keien gültige Lizenz Lutheraner (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Perhaps that is true in German law that only an individual can own copyright, but Commons does not require that people identify themselves or their photographs with their real names. The file has full EXIF data and the file description seems to have an accurate date which matches up with the Frankfurt Book Fair. There is no reason to think that the photographer is not the person who created the account which uploaded the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - even if the accountname indicates a publishing house, there is a person behind it, who is the copyright owner. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
el arbol se actualizó el 29 de Noviembre de 2022 Jvaltoro (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unused text diagram, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
la información no está actualizada, la imagen actualizada se subió el 29 de Noviembre de 2022 Jvaltoro (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unused text diagram, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Per warning of the template: Post-1975 Italian image, still under copyright in USA A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for indoor works in Germany A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- No. It is a public tunnel of the city of Hannover. Regards. --2A02:3030:401:7FFC:1:0:95D:1C62 13:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Tunnel is not indoor area? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep @A1Cafel: The question for COM: FOP in Germany is not “is it indoor?” but “is it in public?” And yes, I confirm the Friederikentunnelis a publicly accessible pedestrian tunnel. However, 59 Ⅰ 1 UrhG requires attribution, 63 Ⅰ 1 UrhG. Another image of the same subject by the same uploader indicates a certain Philipp von Zitzewitz as the artist. We’ll need to add this more prominently than the mere categorizations. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep @A1Cafel: The question for COM: FOP in Germany is not “is it indoor?” but “is it in public?” And yes, I confirm the
- Question Tunnel is not indoor area? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Kai Burghardt. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for indoor works in Germany A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- No. It is a public tunnel of the city of Hannover. Regards. --2A02:3030:401:7FFC:1:0:95D:1C62 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Tunnel is not indoor area? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep @A1Cafel: The question for COM: FOP in Germany is not “is it indoor?” but “is it in public?” And yes, I confirm the Friederikentunnelis a publicly accessible pedestrian tunnel. However, 59 Ⅰ 1 UrhG requires attribution, 63 Ⅰ 1 UrhG. Another image of the same subject by the same uploader indicates a certain Philipp von Zitzewitz as the artist. We’ll need to add this more prominently than the mere categorizations. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep @A1Cafel: The question for COM: FOP in Germany is not “is it indoor?” but “is it in public?” And yes, I confirm the
- Question Tunnel is not indoor area? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Kai Burghardt. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
there is already the same file Mohd Zaenuri (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Subi uma versão SVG, melhor para visualizar. Marsjo.santos (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The SVG (File:Odd11.svg) has higher quality and usefulness and there are no attribution issues associated with deleting the superceded image because the author/uploader is the same. Deletion would be consistent with the last statement at Commons:Project_scope#Examples. In addition, it appears that COM:CSD#G7 applies as well. Marbletan (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Marbletan. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Missing licence for the background image. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin Considering that the uploader is offering posters for sale, I assume that the background image is the uploader’s own work.
- On the other hand, I just noticed that both this file and Icarus.png are claimed to be Own work by Pablo Carlos Budassi, despite being uploaded by different accounts. There’s nothing on their user pages that explains this. Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- You assume that someone who’s main interest seems to be Astronomy had somehow access to a scanning electron microscope and to the necessary tools and techniques to create this image of congealed erythrocytes? I think not: I spent 7 years in the Lisbon University studying Biology and I can count by the fingers of one (human, non-polydactylous) hand the times I could have been remotely able to achieve something like this (and it was dust mites, too: blood is way harder to work with). Mask off the text and pass this to Tineye or Google Lens, and it will surely reveal a copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin No, I don’t think that assumption is credible anymore considering the apparent link between the two uploaders. Celestialobjects’ apparent record of copyright infringement and plagiarism doesn’t help, and Unmismoobjetivo’s self-promotion seems like a serious problem in itself. Brianjd (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be derivative of an image from the Science Photo Library, used for instance on this Facebook profile (right click on the header image to see the complete version). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix QW (talk • contribs) 2023-02-02T17:53:09 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin No, I don’t think that assumption is credible anymore considering the apparent link between the two uploaders. Celestialobjects’ apparent record of copyright infringement and plagiarism doesn’t help, and Unmismoobjetivo’s self-promotion seems like a serious problem in itself. Brianjd (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- You assume that someone who’s main interest seems to be Astronomy had somehow access to a scanning electron microscope and to the necessary tools and techniques to create this image of congealed erythrocytes? I think not: I spent 7 years in the Lisbon University studying Biology and I can count by the fingers of one (human, non-polydactylous) hand the times I could have been remotely able to achieve something like this (and it was dust mites, too: blood is way harder to work with). Mask off the text and pass this to Tineye or Google Lens, and it will surely reveal a copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Nieaktywny, do tego zła kolorystyka - nie heraldyczna. Grafika jest bezużyteczna. Jestem autorem tej wersji pliku. Bytkowianin (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused file, superseded by File:POL Bańgów (dzielnica Siemianowic Śląskich) COA.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely misidentified image of Arrokoth. Arrokoth's lobes were not resolved like this in New Horizons' imagery on the date when this image was purportedly taken, which makes this image misleading to the viewer. Nrco0e (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This is the original image, taken at 2018-12-30 01:46:05. The legend states "Ultima Thule [ed.: Arrowkoth] is near the center of the frame but is hard to see. You can download the image and adjust the intensity scale to bring out Ultima and background stars better." but it is difficult to know which point of light near the center they are referring to. So it is a legitimate image, but yes, it's hard to know if *this* enlargement is actually that of Arrokoth. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I probably misidentified Arrokoth here. I don't have a problem with this being deleted. Ardenau4 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Just update the description of use {{Fact disputed}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded this image a very long time ago before I had a solid understanding of spacecraft imagery - Probably the object depicted in this crop is not Arrokoth. Ardenau4 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not yet: The image is still COM:INUSE. I agree, from what's been stated in the previous deletion request, and from looking at the image itself, that this is not an image of Arrokoth. See what they think about it on eo.wikipedia.org and ro.wikipedia.org. If they don't need the image then I see no reason to keep it. Renerpho (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The image is no longer used in Wikipedia spaces. Nrco0e (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Bonjour, ma contribution ne partait pas d'une mauvaise intention, y a t-il un moyen de le garder publié mais de le passer en licence de marque déposée (je ne m'y connais pas assez dans les copyrights) ? Je crois qu'un utilisateur à fait ca pour le logo de la communauté d'agglomération.
- Cordialement. Spayk83 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No license given for performance/recording. The composition itself may be public domain, but we need license for performance/recording, which may be copyrighted. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since this file has been taken from the website of the w:Executive Yuan, it might be applicable for the Government Website Open Information Announcement (GWOIA). For extra-ensure, however, I have mailed them for this question. Maybe we could wait for their reply.--Bowleerin (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Kept, fixed by Bowleerin. Taivo (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 沈澄心 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This file is restricted to non-commercial use ([7]: 本樂曲係由著作權人國立中正文化中心附設國家交響樂團及國立實驗合唱團所演奏及演唱,經同意授權僅供非營利下載使用。). Yann (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Dubious permission, added by non-VRT member. No evidence this map was uploaded to the armenica.org before 2007 as stated by the uploader, most likely it was in 2012: [8] Xunks (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Dubious permission, added by non-VRT member. No evidence this map was uploaded to the armenica.org before 2007 as stated by the uploader, most likely it was in 2012: [9] Xunks (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from modern art.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Роботи на трьох світлинах є творами сучасного мистецва, автори яких є ті, про кого вказано в Вікістатті. Поясніть чому вони номіновані на видалення? дякую F7108 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- published under a free license https://www.facebook.com/drozdova.elvira/posts/pfbid02W7ZDfsLyxV4zzEsbT4oH38rkQmuvyx4Fp4wDuUTpDEqrZ6ccc7kXSMTpT6HkXzLkl F7108 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- published under a free license
- <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdrozdova.elvira%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0dCdBTAhwcZVQqSBMhcyGZAMk5PxqcWN2UbvugTnuyUvGeW7vKQUfgmQS4ZXiEebNl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="454" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>
- and <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdrozdova.elvira%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0jVH1Ce8KbiT1aeQyXMA8uyM8mNoBHfa3TgRHLYRPwf6xyLq5DhSkN2AhEDvpnXqEl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="743" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>
- <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdrozdova.elvira%2Fposts%2Fpfbid02U7aK8dpL2oYyETwZTWgE2rEk2mnx6W4qYp2wZL7xGwmSeWuMWnEXhTqVn7AXH9wLl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="761" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe> F7108 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I have trouble opening this file, I downloaded it normally from the source website, I have downloaded the file multiple times to get the same result, can someone else confirm that this issue isn't just related to this device? If this issue doesn't happen on other devices then I withdraw this nomination, if this issue does persist then I ask someone else to overwrite this file with another PDF from the source link and if the issue persists then I would like for the file to be deleted on the grounds of it being unusable. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Apart from the technical issue (I am also unable to open the file), there is also a question of copyright. The tags applied currently seem to assume that the text is anonymous, but the articles are actually credited to various people, all of which would have to have passed away by 1947 for this tag to be applicable. This is not at all obvious for a 1938 publication. Felix QW (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. COM:TOO? And also:
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Proof of copyr. notice can be found on page 10. Proof of renewal can be found here. Enters PD in 2025. {userpage! | talk!} 22:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The copyright notice is: “COPYRIGHT 1930 BY/CHARLES C THOMAS.” The renewal was in the name of “Howell, Alfred Brazier.” As the renewal was not in the name of the proprietor of the copyright, as required by the Copyright Act of 1909, but in the name of author (who did not own the copyright), the renewal was invalid, and this work is thus in the public domain (per the terms of
PD-US-not renewed
as if there had been no renewal at all). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)- @TE(æ)A,ea., the renewal was in the name of "Charles C. Thomas". The link to the copyright renewal log I've posted says © Feb 27 1930 [...] Charles C. Thomas. Look to the right of the copyright sign (©) below "Brazier" --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- user: That’s not a renewal list, that’s a copyright list (from 1930, when the book was published). This book was actually not renewed at all, and is thus
PD-US-not renewed
for that reason. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- @TE(æ)A,ea., so this is {{PD-US-defective-notice}}, because [the] [n]otice does not include a named claimant or does not name the actual copyright holder? --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 21:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- user: That’s not a renewal list, that’s a copyright list (from 1930, when the book was published). This book was actually not renewed at all, and is thus
- @TE(æ)A,ea., the renewal was in the name of "Charles C. Thomas". The link to the copyright renewal log I've posted says © Feb 27 1930 [...] Charles C. Thomas. Look to the right of the copyright sign (©) below "Brazier" --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- user: No, I think the notice is valid (and in the name of Charles C. Thomas). There was no renewal, so this is
PD-US-not renewed
. The HathiTrust CCE issue you provided is from 1930, and shows the initial copyright registration; it does not show a renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- Oh, ok, thanks for the clarification! I thought it was a renewal, not a registration. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 22:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- user: No, I think the notice is valid (and in the name of Charles C. Thomas). There was no renewal, so this is
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. —howcheng {chat} 20:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
On behalf of the subject of this page, Ariana Reines, she requests this image file be deleted, it was not taken and shared with permission of the subject, Ariana Reines, this low quality, unflattering image inadequately represents a public figure such as herself on wikipedia. We have an approved author photo that can replace this image. Thank you for your time. Eagleeyehaver (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This photo was apparently taken at a public event, and because it is in use on two Wikipedias and a couple of other pages, it cannot be preemptively deleted. That said, I'm certainly sympathetic to your request, and if you upload a better photo and it is linked on the pages in question, I would at that point support a courtesy deletion of this blurry photo on the basis you lay out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Can you please give me a list of all the pages in question so I may upload the replacement image? Eagleeyehaver (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works. The replacement image should be uploaded to Commons under a separate filename. To be clear, as long as the other photo is in use, particularly on Wikipedia pages, it will not be deleted from Commons, but as you said, it is not a high-quality image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK. So I will upload the high quality replacement image to Commons under a separate file name and then what should I do next? Eagleeyehaver (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Post the link, and thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- here it is! Eagleeyehaver (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleeyehaver This file has several copyright issues:
- Published elsewhere: normally requires evidence to be provided via VRT.
- The description explicit permission to publish on the Wikimedia Commons for use on wikipedia and the internet at large combined with the default license CC BY-SA 4.0 makes me suspicious that you and the author don’t understand how copyright licensing works.
- The claimed author is also the subject, but the photo does not look like a selfie. Copyright is almost always owned by the photographer, not the subject.
- There is no EXIF data.
- But worst of all, this looks like a remarkably low-quality photo by 2022 standards. Brianjd (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ikan Kekek. Brianjd (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagleeyehaver This file has several copyright issues:
- here it is! Eagleeyehaver (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- This photo's quality is better than the other's, but I agree that it looks about 14 years old. I agree that it's a problem for the photographer not to be identified, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- This photograph was taken by the subject, Ariana Reines, in 2021. Eagleeyehaver (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- This (new) file has been tagged for speedy deletion due to missing evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Brianjd (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- And now deleted for that reason. Brianjd (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Post the link, and thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not the way it works. The replacement image should be uploaded to Commons under a separate filename. To be clear, as long as the other photo is in use, particularly on Wikipedia pages, it will not be deleted from Commons, but as you said, it is not a high-quality image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Sometimes users will quietly remove files from pages in an attempt to have them deleted. It is a good idea to include a list of pages using the file in such comments. I added such a list below. Brianjd (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator here has done nothing wrong. But I always add such a list, or at least representative examples from the list (if the list is too long), as a matter of principle. Brianjd (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding scope, this file is currently in use at arz:اريانا رينيس, en:Ariana Reines, en:Wikiproyecto:Mujeres/Artículos faltantes/Poetas 2, es:Wikiproyecto:Mujeres/Artículos faltantes/Por institución educativa/Barnard College and wikidata:Q17516991.
- But perhaps the bigger issue is copyright. Although this image is a decent resolution (1,440 × 2,560), it is in PNG format and therefore lacks EXIF data. The uploader has also uploaded some other files in PNG format, such as Aimée Verret au SLM 2015.PNG (which is also low resolution: 250 × 239). @Bull-Doser: Can you explain all this? Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; we can revisit this when we have a better photo. —howcheng {chat} 20:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)