Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/08/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
誤ってアップロードしたため セブン＆アイ・ネットメディア (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
誤ってアップロードしたため セブン＆アイ・ネットメディア (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
QQSPEED is an online game product produced in mainland China. The design of the image is likely to exceed the threshold for copyright protection. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Published alongside 3 other personal looking photographs by L'Algérie d'Aujourd'hui: https://x.com/AlgAujourdhui/status/1820407022686224602. Unclear that the uploader is also the author of the picture. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Kaylia Nemour Gold Medalist Paris 2024.jpg” under ticket:2024041210007981. —MdsShakil (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Permission received. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Author Shatulyaganov Sanjar Copyright holder Shatulyaganov Sanjar Yann (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
F10. Personal photos by non-contributors LostplanetKD73 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- i marked it with CSD F10,
Speedy delete modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
F10. Personal photos by non-contributors LostplanetKD73 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- i marked it with CSD F10, Speedy delete modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: images used to support fantasy content in userspace.
Omphalographer (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Jeanne Griffin (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
did ojd didjc vkidfjf f f 96.4.231.7 11:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 07:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ishwar Bhagwan Sai Baba (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I made mistakes when selecting the file type Sokol01295 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
D ddbdbdbhdhbdbddhdudydy 198.203.84.10 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 07:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright Wolfman5678 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright Wolfman5678 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Copyright Wolfman5678 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Unused private photo, out of project scope. Quick1984 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- i marked it with CSD F10. Speedy delete. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Guy9t64e85034543-54309 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obvious nonsensical uploads, OOS and unlikely to be from said source either.
SHB2000 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola talk 10:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Flag12
[edit]- File:Nigerian High Commission Gaborone.png
- File:Embajada de Ecuador en Bogota.jpg
- File:Royal Norwegian embassy, Kathmandu.jpg
- File:Turkish embassy Abuja.jpg
- File:Swiss embassy Nairobi.jpg
- File:Embassy of Austria in Indonesia.jpg
- File:Italy embassy in Brazil.jpg
- File:Egyptian embassy in Lisbon.jpg
- File:Belgium embassy India.jpg
- File:German embassy Muscat, Oman.jpg
- File:Switzerland embassy in Abidjan.jpg
- File:French embassy Haiti.jpg
Collections of pictures gathered from the Internet. Not own work. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
personal, unused low-quality snapshot, useless without context Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
File:Kaohsiung Mayor election candidate Han Kuo-yu's campaign advertisement on a bus 20181014.jpg
[edit]No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Low quality graph that's unused, out of scope. Jonteemil (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
This 1920 German Notgeld (emergency money) bill is a work of Lauritz Thaysen, who died in 1974. So it is not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2045. Rosenzweig τ 09:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small size, missing EXIF, watermarked MS Photography. 0x0a (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused tiny thumbnail of nondescript theather, no location, unidentified and unidentifiable, little distinguishable and unusable. Likely not own work anyway. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
This 1921 German Notgeld (emergency money) bill is a work by de:Frido Witte, who died in 1965. So it is not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2036. Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
A version found here - https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-after-hours-mahesh-gupta-chairman-kent-ro-systems-2300600/ - unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Likely taken from https://sites.google.com/site/scientiaestpotentiaplus/rodopsina-uma-revisao-bibliografica , no evidence of free license. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused text image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:DW, unknown copyright status of artwork and text. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And likely above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of fireworks, no context/location, little educational use, redundant to innumerable better alternatives already on Commons. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused photo of a text book page, no clear purpose, uncertain copyright and out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Taken from website, fails COM:LR. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused random "art" photo of nondescript beach, no context/location, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. And likely above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. As this is 1969 sculpture, the copyright cannot be expired. Taivo (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
File:Slope stability Slope Stability(SRM) INCR=2 (FOS=0.7000) Displacements TX TRANSLATION (V) Current.png
[edit]the author's desire, low information content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayratayrat (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, this image is the logo of a sports company, which is placed without considering the terms of fair use and with the wrong license AMiR SLiDER (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- COM:TOO Iran is supposedly very low so it's possible that this logo is too complex to be hosted on Commons. It has however been used on fa:یوسف جامه which has been repeatedly deleted for promotion/ad. So Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G10. Jonteemil (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- May be PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: LTA, DENY, not used. --Yann (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
MRSignature.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Page supprimé elle existe plus IcebergBlack (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Page supprimé définitivement IcebergBlack (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Courtesy deletion requested by uploader soon after upload. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I wanted to make a page in honor of my grandfather and I didn't finish publishing it when it was deleted because, to say the least, secondary sources were missing while I was in the process of take care of it. Please delete it. IcebergBlack (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
All of these images appear to be amateur portraits of random, questionably notable or clearly non-notable people. Although all the images apparently have VRT permission, but that's a separate issue then if they are actually educationally valuable or not and I have serious doubts that they are. So the images should be deleted as OOS unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
Unused files
- File:Agu Remmelg majandustegelane 99.jpg
- File:Ahti Kallaste riigiametnik 99.jpg
- File:Annika Tallo sotsioloog 99.jpg
- File:Erik Loide Nägemispuuetega Inimeste Fondi asutaja 99.jpg
- File:Ivo Mahhov advokaat 99.jpg
- File:Kalle Pedak jurist 99.jpg
- File:Koit Uus investor 99.jpg
- File:Kristjan Rebane MTÜ tegelane 99.jpg
- File:Madis Kallion jurist 99.jpg
- File:Mart Missik vandeadvokaat 99.jpg
- File:Olavi Kärsna koolitaja 99.jpg
- File:Priit Männik jurist 99.jpg
- File:Riho Rõõmus riigiametnik 99.jpg
- File:Tarmo Lepp kirikutegelane 99.jpg
- File:Toomas Mang mööblitööstur 99.jpg
- File:Tõnu Naestema riigiametnik 99.jpg
- File:Uno Silberg majandusteadlane 98.jpg
- File:Urmas Tamm omavalitsustegelane 99.jpg
- File:Vahur Lokk konsultant 99.jpg
Files being used on Wikidata
- File:Andres Haamer ettevõtja 99.jpg
- File:Jasper Zoova, kunstnik 99.jpg
- File:Margus Kurm prokurör 99.jpg
- File:Riho Soonik sporditegelane 99.jpg
- File:Toomas Sepp jurist 99.jpg
- File:Urmas Kaarlep audiitor 99.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do I get this right: here we have a lot of images nominated for deletion, without even checking before, if they are used, and the claim is that they are of non-notable people? Well... even the 1st image on the list is for a person who has an article in two language versions... and that is the only image of him. And there are images like that and that, what are way more used. And yes, some images are not used, as we have other photos of those people (one example), and few of those depicted don't indeed have an article (but that doesn't mean these images are about some nobodies... nor is there a ban on having photos of people who don't (yet) have a Wikipedia article about them). And those photos are made in the 1990s and made with analog camera... as such, they are of very good quality and have historical significance. And thay were made for book published in 2000 about notable people back then.
- That kind of activity of wasting others' time by making that kind of deletion nominations should not be tolerated at all. This is clear vandalism! Kruusamägi (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- without even checking before, if they are used, and the claim is that they are of non-notable people? Well... @Kruusamägi: Where did I say I didn't check to see if the images where used before I nominated for deletion?
- even the 1st image on the list is for a person who has an article in two language versions I don't see that file on the list. The other images you linked to don't seem to be included in this either. So can you please point them out so I can remove them?
- Nor is there a ban on having photos of people who don't (yet) have a Wikipedia article about them Sure, but then I didn't say I nominated the images for deletion because the people have Wikipedia articles either. So what's your point?
- Those photos are made in the 1990s and made with analog camera Gosh, my bad. I didn't know that photographs taken in the 1990s with analog cameras were inherently educational. Can you point out where the guidelines say that so I don't make the same mistake again? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The original nomination had all the files there and that is what I replied. I just had to be 1h away from the Internet and could not save my reply earier. I see that the list has changed significantly, but the same comments are very much relevant. Now for example the 3rd image on the list is this. Not used? And based on what is the assumption that those people have not been relevant? Kruusamägi (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah well, it included a couple of images that I didn't intend to include because my computer is having issues. They were removed imediately after this was opened though. Its not a crime to make an editing mistake due to a computer issue. I actually thought I had removed the image for Aili Aarelaid-Tart ajaloolan with the other files. I removed it though. As to the "revelency" thing, there's a difference between eductional value and "revelency." We're here to judge the former, not the later. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The original nomination had all the files there and that is what I replied. I just had to be 1h away from the Internet and could not save my reply earier. I see that the list has changed significantly, but the same comments are very much relevant. Now for example the 3rd image on the list is this. Not used? And based on what is the assumption that those people have not been relevant? Kruusamägi (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ou really? And what about:
- Removing files 1h after nominating is not what I would call immediatly. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It took a while to get the issue with my computer that caused the problem to begin with worked out. It usually takes at least of hours for people to comment anyway and that's if they even do to begin with. Most DRs don't get any comments. So I'm not super concerned that it took me a while to fix my PC. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- These images in question are way less amateur than many of the images we have here in Commons. Not to say this claim that they are amateur portraits is insulting to the author. There is nothing amateur about them, especially considering the time period they were taken.
- Claim that the images are random is just total BS. They were taken for a book and there is nothing random. And I have also explained, that those people are notable and is not that difficult to verify that.
- So have a bunch of photos about notable people from a period we have very few photos in Wikimedia Commons. And even the quality is pretty good. And the claim is that this content has no educational value?!? It is very clear, that the educational value is there. This nomination is clear vandalism! Kruusamägi (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you need to take a step back from this and calm down. Nothing your saying has anything to do with why I nominated the images for deletion and throwing an angry tantrum about it really isn't helping. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Going around and nominating stuff for deletion without any good reasoning is very clearly disruptive to the project. There could not be a justification for that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said the reason is that the images aren't eductional, which your free to disagree with, but it doesn't mean I didn't give one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I put it short. These are good photos by notable photographer, they depict identified people, who are or have been public figures. Any claim that this content is not educational and falls outside of the project scope is either ignorant or malicious. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Or its just a simple disagreement between two people about what makes an image eductional or not. I could just dismiss your comment as coming from an over previlaged thin skinned snob who can't stand the slightest diagreement with their opinion, but I'm not going to do that because assuming good faith is a thing on here. I'd appreciate if you did the same and not treat me like I'm ignorant or being malicious just because you think the images should be kept. Lets keep this about the merrits of the DR instead of making it about our motiviations or whatever. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I put it short. These are good photos by notable photographer, they depict identified people, who are or have been public figures. Any claim that this content is not educational and falls outside of the project scope is either ignorant or malicious. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you need to take a step back from this and calm down. Nothing your saying has anything to do with why I nominated the images for deletion and throwing an angry tantrum about it really isn't helping. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the original nomination would not have been a total mess, then this could have been taken more lightly. But even now the list includes files, that are used in the articles! As for the rest of files, a simple Google search could provide hints, that those are about notable or at least relatively notable people. And as I have pointed out: images are good photos of identified people and the photographer is also notable. For that matter, it is very difficult to assume good faith. Nomination images for deletion is not some light matter and doing a really bad job at it is extremely disruptive for the project. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination images for deletion is not some light matter and doing a really bad job at it is extremely disruptive for the project. I'd agree with that if again the mistakes wheren't caused by an issue with my computer and dealt with immediately after I fixed it. Its extremely disruptive to repeatedly insult and brow beat users over honest mistakes that have been fixed in the meantime. I'm of discussing it though. So maybe drop the stick since your point? I get it, either everything has to be done 100% perfectly from the start or its malicious vandalism. Got it. Have fun with the tantrum. I'm done discussing it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It took a while to get the issue with my computer that caused the problem to begin with worked out. It usually takes at least of hours for people to comment anyway and that's if they even do to begin with. Most DRs don't get any comments. So I'm not super concerned that it took me a while to fix my PC. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't possibly know what issues you had or didn't have with your computer. What I do know is what I saw in a nomination and I have also had the pleasure of witnessing your self-justifying comments after that.
- You keep on insisting that mistakes have been fixed in the meantime, but as I have pointed out, then that is not so. There are still images that are used in the articles. For example File:Aili Aarelaid-Tart ajaloolane 99.jpg and File:Arvi Altmäe arhitekt 99.jpg.
- After all that, when it has been shown, that a lot of those people are clearly notable and pointed out, that the rest of the files have much more educational value, then it can't be considered reasonable action to keep on insisting, that this deletion request is very much justified. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are still images that are used in the articles. {@Kruusamägi: I was actually in the process of removing them like I told you I was and I would have continued doing it except you decided to throw an insulting, childish tantrum over it. So why the hell would I bother at this point if you can't even be bothered to stop badgering me and let me deal with it like I said I was doing? I can't remove anything from the DR when someone is constantly going off on me over and over. I'm sorry I didn't continue doing the thing your literally the one stopping me from doing with the incessant
badgering about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- "it included a couple of images that I didn't intend" -- Original nomination had 72 files. Right now there are 29 and even that includes images that are used in the articles.
- Maybe, few of the people here are indeed not relevant at all for Wikipedia standards. But we are not talking about a couple of images being accidentally mislabeled. That is not so at all.
- And if that was an honest mistake, then there was no need for all that self-justification, was there? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Out of those 72 files I now counted 49 of them to be used somewhere (maybe +/- a little). The most popular of them was this. At least two more persons have a Wikipedia article about them (example), but other images are used. 72-51=21. But here we have 29. And I am pretty sure, that some more people would eventually have Wikipedia articles as most of the remaining are borderline cases. So the educational value is very clearly there. These are not some low-quality images of random people. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep:
- File:Agu Remmelg majandustegelane 99.jpg - is the director of the Estonian Investment Agency[1], which is a government agency[2]
- File:Ahti Kallaste riigiametnik 99.jpg - is / was the head of the treasury department of the Ministry of Finances / chief financial officer of Tallinn[3]
- File:Aili Aarelaid-Tart ajaloolane 99.jpg - has an article on Estonian Wikipedia[4]
- File:Andres Haamer ettevõtja 99.jpg - in use on wikidata
- File:Arvi Altmäe arhitekt 99.jpg - has an article in 3 Wikipedias[5]
- File:Jaak Kirikal õigusteadlane 99.jpg - in use, has a wiki article[6]
- File:Jasper Zoova, kunstnik 99.jpg - The Art Museum of Estonia has at least two works of this artist in their collection.[7][8], he also received an award[9] and got some more news coverage[10]
- File:Koit Uus investor 99.jpg - the richest man of some area (in Scotland? which I can't identify because Google Translate gives weird translations) who got some media coverage and is the most generous donor to Estonian political parties [11][12][13][14][15]
- File:Margus Kurm prokurör 99.jpg - in use on wikidata[16] and got news coverage[17][18][19][20], even international[21][22][23]
- File:Mart Missik vandeadvokaat 99.jpg - lawyer who got several mentions in news (looks like he is active as a defender in high-ish profile cases? Hard to judge because Google Translate is not doing a good job here)[24][25][26][27][28]
- File:Olavi Kärsna koolitaja 99.jpg - got some media coverage[29][30] but not sure whether notable
- File:Priit Männik jurist 99.jpg - has a wiki article[31]
- File:Raivo Aavisto ettevõtja 99.jpg - in use, has a wiki article[32]
- File:Riho Rõõmus riigiametnik 99.jpg - there are news(?) articles, but I can't figure out what they are about because of bad machine translation[33]
- File:Riho Soonik sporditegelane 99.jpg - in use on wikidata[34], has news coverage where he's called "legendary coach"[35], was seemingly the Estonian national basketball coach in 1993[36]
- File:Toomas Sepp jurist 99.jpg - in use and the category on him has a number of photos from different events (Category:Toomas Sepp) but without knowing Estonian it's hard for me to judge whether there's news coverage on him because there appear to be several people with that name
- File:Uno Silberg majandusteadlane 98.jpg - has some news coverage as a politician (?)/EU skeptic[37][38]
- File:Urmas Kaarlep audiitor 99.jpg - in use on Wikidata, got some news coverage[39][40] and at least some mention [41][42]
- Nakonana (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might have missed some people's notability as I don't know Estonian, and as those photos are from the 1990s, it is possible that some of those people were notable before the internet era, so that there's only print media about them but nothing that can be found via Google search. Nakonana (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I've said enough about this. I will point out that well I agree a few of these do have articles on the Estonian language Wikipedia they are clearly badly referenced, written in an extremely promotional way, and the people don't even seem to have notable careers to begin with. Like you listed the article for Aili Aarelaid-Tart, which cool. It exists, but then there's only a single reference and the only thing about on her on there is that she's a "cultural researcher." At the end of the day though, so what? Anyone can create an SPA account and write articles on obscure language Wikipedias for people. Nowhere do the guidelines say "In use" is a free pass or that it isn't still up to our discretion.
- I might have missed some people's notability as I don't know Estonian, and as those photos are from the 1990s, it is possible that some of those people were notable before the internet era, so that there's only print media about them but nothing that can be found via Google search. Nakonana (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- The same goes for the couple of people who just have Wikidata entries. Like you mentioned Andres Haamer. Going by his Wikidata entry he's an entrepreneur, but so what? Where do the guidelines say that images of entrepreneurs are inherently educational? But hey, apparently he's a member of the "Scottish Club." So whatever. 100% we delete images in similar situations if they are being used or not. If he was a non-notable, unsigned rapper and the image was uploaded by someone by their record label it would 100% be deleted as OOS PROMO regardless of if the SPA had created a Wikidata entry for them that the image was being used on. But for some reason people act like these types of images should get a special pass because their of upper class European business people or some bullshit. "Andres Haamer is a fine distinguished white Estonia entrepreneur for god sake!! Clearly this is malicious vandalism!!! How dare you nominate an image of a upper class white European man for deletion you malicious vandal!!! He's a member of the Scottish Club for god sake!!" --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aili Aarelaid-Tart was also a member of the Council of the Estonian National Commission for UNESCO and a recipient of the Order of the White Star.[43] Andres Hammer is also a recipient of the Order of the White Star.[44] There's also kind of no point in writing a promotional article on a deceased person (like the two mentioned). It's just possible that those people were notable locally and before the internet era, so that the bulk of references may be in print and cannot be found via Google. What's also speaking against simply calling them non-notable is that those portraits come from a book called "Who is who?" about which is said [via Google Translate]: "The compilation has also relied on the information that has already appeared, online and published in the press. The selection criterion is the position of persons in Estonia in 1999, with an emphasis on business, country and politics"[45] which indicates that those weren't completely random people and that those photos weren't taken for promotional purposes.
- I also don't know why you are bringing "upper class white European man" into this. Personally, I'm more of an inclusionist in general, so, if it were up to me, even the photos of the "non-notable, unsigned rapper" could stay if they are of good quality and could serve as "simple" stock-photos of "people in general". We have plenty of images of non-notable people on here, just look through categories like Category:Children where the depicted people usually don't have any career to put forward to show any level of notability. And yet, they are here. We've also plenty of old photos of non-notable families in Category:Black and white photographs of families. What for? In a way, one could argue: "To educate people about fashion of decade xx"; or: "To educate people about photography trends in decade xx"; or: "To study how photography set-ups reflect gender roles or parent-child relationships of decade xx", etc. And as for the photos of non-notable entrepreneurs in Category:Portreed raamatusse “Kes on Kes? Eesti 2000”. Ekspresskataloogide AS, they make an interesting study of necktie fashion in Estonia in 1999. (Just look at that necktie - too bad the photo is in black and white; nowadays, people seem to err on the safe side of things with their choice of neckties, choosing unitone neckties with some geometrical shapes at most.) Nakonana (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also kind of no point in writing a promotional article on a deceased person. Like no one writes or uploads promotional content having to do with dead people. Right.
- The same goes for the couple of people who just have Wikidata entries. Like you mentioned Andres Haamer. Going by his Wikidata entry he's an entrepreneur, but so what? Where do the guidelines say that images of entrepreneurs are inherently educational? But hey, apparently he's a member of the "Scottish Club." So whatever. 100% we delete images in similar situations if they are being used or not. If he was a non-notable, unsigned rapper and the image was uploaded by someone by their record label it would 100% be deleted as OOS PROMO regardless of if the SPA had created a Wikidata entry for them that the image was being used on. But for some reason people act like these types of images should get a special pass because their of upper class European business people or some bullshit. "Andres Haamer is a fine distinguished white Estonia entrepreneur for god sake!! Clearly this is malicious vandalism!!! How dare you nominate an image of a upper class white European man for deletion you malicious vandal!!! He's a member of the Scottish Club for god sake!!" --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andres Hammer is also a recipient of the Order of the White Star True, but the Order of the White Star is also given out to local citizens and foreigners to give recognition for services rendered to the Estonian state. Which could mean they are handed out to essentially anyone for anything as long as the Estonian government feels like giving them the medal. At the end of the day low level medals that anyone can get simply for "service to the country" (which again can mean literally anything) are totally useless for determining if someone is notable or if an image of them is eductional.
- What's also speaking against simply calling them non-notable is that those portraits come from a book called "Who is who?" "Who's who" books have been released in essentially every town, city, state, and country since before printing was invented. So what's your point? By your standard essentially anyone would be notable and an image of them would be de-facto educational simply because they were mentioned in a phone book at some point.
- I also don't know why you are bringing "upper class white European man" because Kruusamägi repeatedly went off about how the people are "relevant Estonians" without making any other argument outside of repeatedly talking about their nationality. Like I can't say this whole thing is clearly just nationalist bullshit about Europeans if someone keeps going off on me about how the images should be kept "because Estonians", as if that's only or main standard here.
- Category:Children]] where the depicted people usually don't have any career to put forward to show any level of notability. Children inherently don't have career. So of course that wouldn't be the standard of notability or educational value. Dogs don't have them either, but that's not what the discussion is about.
- We've also plenty of old photos of non-notable families Sure, but old photos are kept for other reasons. Notability isn't the only standard on Commons and no where did I claim it was. But it is an important factor to determining educational value in specific instances like this one. An otherwise mundane photograph of Tom Cruise will inherently be more educational because of how notable of a career he was then one that's a selfie of some random 20 year. Whereas images of dogs are educational for totally different reasons, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- These are not some small, blurry, poorly composed snapshots of unidentified and unidentifiable people. Nor is this some promotion attemt. As has already been pointed out those files have been made by people who were considered notable in Estonia in 1999, the photos themselves were used in a book, and even the photographer himself is notable. Claiming that hosting those files here falls outside of the project scope is utterly ridiculous. On top of that, claiming that articles written about those people could not be considered proof, that they could be considered notable, is already strongly hinting that all this nomination is motivated by malicious intent.
Naturally, the notability of the people listed warry. Same will likely never have a Wikipedia article about them, some have it already in many language versions (as I pointed out, the top image is used in 17 language versions). But what next: we start deleting photos of houses, if there exists no Wikipedia articles about them? And then start questioning if the existing articles are good enough... How extreme end can we go?
Mistakes happen, and there is always the possibility to ask forgiveness and clean up the mess. Here, on the other hand, we could only see the self-justifications and witness repetitive attempts to claim, that there is no way these images could have any educational value. That is just unacceptable. It is possible to accidentally nominate 72 images for deletion. But after it has been brought to attention that 70% of them are actually used somewhere, and even the ones not used, actually are about public figures, there should not be an attempt to claim how this is some obscure language and those white Europeans should not have some white privilege. It really leaves very little room to assume any good faith. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- What next: we start deleting photos of houses Yeah, if their just random houses that someone uploaded images of for no other reason then to promote them on Commons or any other project we delete them. Promotional images of non-notable subjects are deleted literally all the time on here. That's just how this works. It's not on me that your under the impression deleting clearly promotional images of houses, people, or anything else is malicious vandalism because you don't know the basics of how this website works. Maybe read the guidelines instead of acting like a raving lunatic about it next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- What we're doing here is giving every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge. If one person starts to decide for others that this and that is not noteworthy based on his personal opinion and starts deleting things based on that, then this is incredibly damaging to the project. Not just by some files getting lost, but by eroding the trust against the project.
- Based on that it is clear that Adamant1 must be permanently blocked. There could be no justification for that kind of activity. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- it is clear that Adamant1 must be permanently blocked. What they really should do is just block the unhinged lunatics on here who clearly don't understand the most basic concepts of how this works and can't be bothered to stop badgering people about non-issues or read guidelines. That's really the only the solution that will make difference here though outside of you just shutting up about it and moving on. Seriously, you've made your point multiple times now. I get it. The only thing that matters here is your own fragile emotions and need to verbally abuse another user. Cool. Why not drop it and it move on? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Just to get this back on track, I organized the files into two categories. One is files that aren't being used anywhere. The other is files that are being used on Wikidata. As to the second, files being used on Wikidata, there's been multiple conversations lately in regards to if it's appropriate to nominate in files for deletion. One thing that seems clear from those is that it should be on people who participate in said projects to decide if any given usage is valid or not. To that aim I think it's perfectly appropriate for me to nominate these images for deletion even if they are being used. Since I am a pretty heavy editor on both projects and a lot of my time on them is spent working in areas directly related to the subjects of the images. So I am more then qualified to say if something is promotional and/or belongs on Commons and Wikidata.
- I'm certainly more qualified then Kruusamägi to make that call. It's pretty clear he has absolutely no clue what-so-ever about how this works and that he isn't here to work collaboratively. Regardless, IMO It's totally within my right as a heavy contributor to both Commons and Wikidata to nominate files that are being used on Wikidata for deletion if I think they aren't being used in a way that's in alightment with either projects scope or guidelines. People are of course free to disagree with me about that, but the disagreement should at least made in a concise, sane manor that doesn't involve insults or badgering. Just make a point without using insults or badgering the nominator and then go contribute to another area. It's not that difficult. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm noting that you also removed some nominations[46] while re-organizing the files, that's why the current list for deletion does not match my previously posted list of files that should be kept. I appreciate that you removed at least some of the obvious cases from your nomination. But I'd also advise against removing any images from any projects as you suggested to Estopedist1, because I'd say that we're all too involved and too invested in the issue by now. (Your statement that I'm referencing: @Estopedist1: I probably won't be following the discussion on Wikipedia or checking the files since I have other stuff to do and this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous anyway, but if you want to remove any images that end up being used for articles on Wikipedia be my guest. I trust you'll do it properly and in a way that follows the guidelines. Otherwise feel free to ping me and I'll remove the files myself when or if I have the time.) Let's not accidentally mislead any closing admin by any image removals that were not mentioned on this deletion request page. — Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also noting that I might have misunderstood your statement. I thought you were talking about removing images, that are in use, from projects. But in your post at the Estonian Wiki discussion it's clear that you were talking about removing images from the deletion nomination list, if they end up being used. Sorry my bad. Nakonana (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Just in case it wasn't clear for some reason I was talking about removing files from the DR if they end up being used in any Wikipedia project. Nowhere have I said any files that are already in use should be removed from anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I misunderstood. That became clear to me once I've read what you wrote on Et Wiki. I guess, while my English is usually good enough for communication, it still happens that I misunderstand things since it's not my mother tongue. My apologies. Nakonana (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: No worries. It happens sometimes. I appreciate the correction and apology on your end though :) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I misunderstood. That became clear to me once I've read what you wrote on Et Wiki. I guess, while my English is usually good enough for communication, it still happens that I misunderstand things since it's not my mother tongue. My apologies. Nakonana (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Just in case it wasn't clear for some reason I was talking about removing files from the DR if they end up being used in any Wikipedia project. Nowhere have I said any files that are already in use should be removed from anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also noting that I might have misunderstood your statement. I thought you were talking about removing images, that are in use, from projects. But in your post at the Estonian Wiki discussion it's clear that you were talking about removing images from the deletion nomination list, if they end up being used. Sorry my bad. Nakonana (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm noting that you also removed some nominations[46] while re-organizing the files, that's why the current list for deletion does not match my previously posted list of files that should be kept. I appreciate that you removed at least some of the obvious cases from your nomination. But I'd also advise against removing any images from any projects as you suggested to Estopedist1, because I'd say that we're all too involved and too invested in the issue by now. (Your statement that I'm referencing: @Estopedist1: I probably won't be following the discussion on Wikipedia or checking the files since I have other stuff to do and this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous anyway, but if you want to remove any images that end up being used for articles on Wikipedia be my guest. I trust you'll do it properly and in a way that follows the guidelines. Otherwise feel free to ping me and I'll remove the files myself when or if I have the time.) Let's not accidentally mislead any closing admin by any image removals that were not mentioned on this deletion request page. — Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment All files that are used in etwiki or Wikidata should be kept. About other files, there are pending discussion in etwiki: et:Vikipeedia:Üldine_arutelu#Commonsi_teemadel--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1: I probably won't be following the discussion on Wikipedia or checking the files since I have other stuff to do and this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous anyway, but if you want to remove any images that end up being used for articles on Wikipedia be my guest. I trust you'll do it properly and in a way that follows the guidelines. Otherwise feel free to ping me and I'll remove the files myself when or if I have the time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment @Adamant1, are you on a power trip or something? Are you bored? There is plenty stuff to do, real problems to tackle, but instead you choose to annoy good contributors with your nonsense deletion requests and cocky comments. If you are so bored, maybe find a new hobby, a girlfriend or something to get this silliness out of you. --LeeMarx (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @LeeMarx: Sometimes images get nominated for deletion and then are kept after new information comes along. That's just how this works. At the end of the day all the over wrought copitulating on your and Kruusamägi's end does absolutely nothing except cause needless drama and make it take that much longer for the DR to be closed. I'm sorry both of you have such an issue with deletion requests though. I can guarantee this would have been over about 20 messages back if Kruusamägi had of just made their point in one message like a normal, sane person and just moved on instead repeatedly badgering me over nothing like a deranged lunatic. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am an administrator in multiple Wikimedia projects and have been contributing since 2006. I don't need to put up with insults from one impetuous newby, who does not understand the project rules and goals. And I am perfectly aware that Adamant1 has been blocked in the past for problematic DRs and I'm not gonna buy this nonsense, that he has any idea how things are supposed to work here. The person clearly has learned nothing from the past mistakes, does more harm than good, and must therefore be blocked permenently.
- It has been pointed out that the people depicted are notable, the quality of photos is good and even the photographer is notable. There is nothing to discuss - it is obvious that those photos will stay. It would not be that difficult to make WD entries for everyone, but for me this feels just like missusing project to make a point.
- What does raise a question is how does even a person who adds photos of postcards, which would often never be used in any articles, even come to the idea to nominate images for deletion that are not used in Wikipedia articles. The goal is what? Just feel superiority? There is absolutely no positive effect to Wikimedia Commons. As deleted files would actually still stay in the servers, then it doesn't even save any memory space. It only wastes people's time and insults people who have added photos. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need to put up with insults from one impetuous newby You say that but then this whole thing has been one long exercise in you repeatedly dragging me through the dirt for no reason while showing absolutely zero idea what-so-ever about how this whole thing works in process. I have better things to do then waste my time citing specific examples, but anyone can see by reading through the discussion that you've nothing but insult me over and over while treating me like I should be blocked over things that are literally just a normal part of the process and how DRs function sometimes. There's no better example then the message I'm responding to. All it is is one insult after another mixed in with spurious claims that I should be blocked for absolutely no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all, but deleted the execrable and pejorative categories Category:Men of Estonia (not notable) and Category:Women of Estonia (not notable). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Supporting the deletion of those categories. We don't seem to have such categories for any other country, e.g. Category:Men of the United States (not notable) or Category:Women of Germany (not notable). The categories for the "notable" people usually go "by name": Category:People of Estonia by name. The Wikidata Infobox template automatically adds them to such categories, and the existence of a Wikidata item usually indicates some notability. Nakonana (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- If one nominates 72 files for deletion without even checking if they are used or not, then that is not the files, but the person, what is the problem. Especially if this has been pointed out multiple times, that 70% of them are used, and the person fails to make adjustments, and tries to keep on insisting, that as many images should be deleted, as possible. Calling others deranged lunatics naturally doesn't help either. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The person fails to make adjustments...and tries to keep on insisting, that as many images should be deleted, as possible. I literally removed the images that were being used on Wikipedia right after I opened this and I've said multiple times now that I'm more then willing to remove images if or when they end up being used on Wikipedia anywhere. So I don't really see how I'm not making adjustments or insisting that as many images be deleted as possible. It's pretty clear your either incapable or unwilling to be honest about this though. That's exactly why I'm saying your acting like a deranged lunatic BTW. I removed images that shouldn't have been included in the DR immediately after I opened this and have said multiple times I'm more then willing to remove any that end up being used on Wikipedia. But your still attacking me days later about how I'm trying to delete as many images as possible or whatever when that's clearly not what I'm doing. I don't know what else to call your behavior. Your clearly not being at all reasonable, fair, or honest about this. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Realllly? How come are there in the list files like File:Priit Männik jurist 99.jpg (article on him). And how many times have some files been reminded?
- But as clear mayority of people support keeping them all, then they are not going anywhere anyway. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This deletion request is not reasonable. These people were considered worthy enough to be included in a national, albeit commercial "Who's who?". Articles in Estonian Wikipedia will probably be created for most of them at some point. No point in deleting these good quality photos.--Morel (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have zero problem what-so-ever removing files that end up getting used in Wikipedia articles. I don't see anyone doing that though. Their just wasting a bunch of time attacking me over this instead. I could really give a crap though. Be my guest and create articles for the people and I'll remove the images for them from the deletion request. I don't think anyone who's throwing a fit about it actually cares though. It's just an easy thing to virtue signal about for brownie points. But regardless, the images I looked through have been unused on here since 2018. Realistically how long should we have to wait for you to create an article for someone before it's reasonable to delete the image? 15, 20, 30 years? I can guarantee the images still won't be used anywhere and you'll just make the same excuses. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that an article has not been created yet is not an excuse for deleting the photos. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that these are not photos of "random people". Therefore I move for taking back the deletion request of ALL of these photos, not when an article is created. The photos come from the same source and I see it as a distructive move to cherrypick, given that you have absolutely no knowledge of the cultural and historical context of these Estonian people. I have no doubts that you're somehow trying to keep Commons clean of random photos but you've picked a wrong place to do this. --Morel (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that an article has not been created yet is not an excuse for deleting the photos. I agree, but then where did I say the images should be deleted purely because the images aren't being used in an article? I certainly didn't bring that up in my original nomination message. You and other people who think the images should be kept are the only one's making this about that.
- The fact that an article has not been created yet is not an excuse for deleting the photos. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that these are not photos of "random people". Therefore I move for taking back the deletion request of ALL of these photos, not when an article is created. The photos come from the same source and I see it as a distructive move to cherrypick, given that you have absolutely no knowledge of the cultural and historical context of these Estonian people. I have no doubts that you're somehow trying to keep Commons clean of random photos but you've picked a wrong place to do this. --Morel (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have zero problem what-so-ever removing files that end up getting used in Wikipedia articles. I don't see anyone doing that though. Their just wasting a bunch of time attacking me over this instead. I could really give a crap though. Be my guest and create articles for the people and I'll remove the images for them from the deletion request. I don't think anyone who's throwing a fit about it actually cares though. It's just an easy thing to virtue signal about for brownie points. But regardless, the images I looked through have been unused on here since 2018. Realistically how long should we have to wait for you to create an article for someone before it's reasonable to delete the image? 15, 20, 30 years? I can guarantee the images still won't be used anywhere and you'll just make the same excuses. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- these are not photos of "random people" Well, sure. But the whole "random" thing is just cherry picking and tangential to the rest of the reasons why I nominated the images for deletion. So cool, they aren't "random people" but that doesn't make images of them any more or less educational. At the end of the day no image is "random." Whoever uploads them does so for a reason and that's usually because the uploader thinks the person is important or whatever. An image doesn't somehow magically become educational just because the uploader thinks someone is important.
- I move for taking back the deletion request of ALL of these photos, not when an article is created. I'll make you a deal and retract this. Then renominate the images for deletion again in a few months when the same reasons for this still apply. I can guarantee you'll still make the same circular non-arguments though. The fact is that you just think they should be deleted because of nationalist sentiment and some nonsense about how I don't have right to nominate images of Estonians for deletion as someone who isn't from there. Which is why you said I no right to have opinion about this because I "have absolutely no knowledge of the cultural and historical context of these Estonian people." as if that where the standard here. I'm not going to retract this simply because you or anyone else wants to act like a xenophobic bigot. I have no problem retracting this if you ask me nicely without the bigoted comments, lying, or insults though. Then I'll just renominate certain images for deletion later when they still aren't being used anywhere. How about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not say that you have no right to nominate the pictures for deletion, I said it's not reasonable. And this has nothing to do with "nationalist sentiment" or xenophobia (where did that even come from?). I'm simply saying that you have no background information on these people. Indeed there is no reason why you should have, but that is precicely the reason why I and other users from Estonian Wikipedia intervened. I'm afraid some of the replies above are indeed personal and contain insults. However, the core idea of our replies is not personal.--Morel (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I move for taking back the deletion request of ALL of these photos, not when an article is created. I'll make you a deal and retract this. Then renominate the images for deletion again in a few months when the same reasons for this still apply. I can guarantee you'll still make the same circular non-arguments though. The fact is that you just think they should be deleted because of nationalist sentiment and some nonsense about how I don't have right to nominate images of Estonians for deletion as someone who isn't from there. Which is why you said I no right to have opinion about this because I "have absolutely no knowledge of the cultural and historical context of these Estonian people." as if that where the standard here. I'm not going to retract this simply because you or anyone else wants to act like a xenophobic bigot. I have no problem retracting this if you ask me nicely without the bigoted comments, lying, or insults though. Then I'll just renominate certain images for deletion later when they still aren't being used anywhere. How about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept, mostly per Morel. Taivo (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
MRSignature.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé elle existe plus IcebergBlack (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Renard 8.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé définitivement IcebergBlack (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Renard 6.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé définitivement IcebergBlack (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Renard 4.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé définitivement IcebergBlack (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Renard 3.jpg IcebergBlack (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
{{No permission since|month=August|day=28|year=2024}}
- File:DANCCER - Prisoner.jpg
- File:DANCCER - Stay Alive.jpg
- File:DANCCER (DJ, Songwriter, Musikproduzent).jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: all files were already deleted by Aafi. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. it is really looking like advertisement. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, out of scope. It also appears to be from the UK, and thus likely protected by copyright. (Not willing to AGF on the CC-BY-4 license, which I can't confirm due to the link being down) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Videos of GaaSyy
[edit]- File:【政見放送】NHK党 秋田県 本田幸久.webm
- File:【政見放送】ガーシー党池高生.webm
- File:【政見放送】ガーシー党舟橋夢人.webm
- File:【政見放送】参議院選挙NHK党２０２２年.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露①.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露②.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露③.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露④.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑤.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑥.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑦.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑧.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑨.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑪.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑫.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑭.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑮.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑯.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑰.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑱.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露⑳.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉑.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉒.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉓.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉔.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉕.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉖.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉗.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉘.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉙.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉚.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉛.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉜.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉝.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉞.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㉟.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊱.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊲.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊳.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊴.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊵.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊶.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊷.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊸.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊹.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊺.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊻.webm
- File:ガーシーのショート暴露㊼.webm
copyvio: These videos are probably unauthorized copied, NHK応援チャンネル does not have the right to publish these under the CC BY 3.0, and I think the license is not valid. --Momiji-Penguin (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete i slightly checked videos. some of them stolen videos that uploaded later and claimed free licensed. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:FOP Kazakhstan, no FOP in Kazakhstan ~delta (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Kazakhstan ~delta (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I saw a whole category of images of the same era that's why I uploaded this one, I thought that meant these old advertisements are no longer under copyright? Nesnad (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Question Would warning signs that were likely set up by a state institution fall under "no FoP in Japan for 2D works", though? Aren't street signs and the like usually copyright exempt? Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quote from the page on copyright rules by territory for Japan: not eligible for copyright are "public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, incorporated administrative agencies ... or local incorporated administrative agencies." Nakonana (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- oh yeah, this is straight up COM:DEMINIMIS, Delete. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM applies, as this does not focus on any specific workImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It focus on the entire sex toy package. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM applies, as this does not focus on any specific workImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
blurry, low quality photo, out of focus, there are plenty of photos illustrating the same topic better — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kaptanlorch (talk · contribs)
[edit]Series of unused files without any description. Out of scope.
- File:Gradient0002.jpg
- File:Walpaper gradient00001.jpg
- File:Home icone4.png
- File:Ana menü.png
- File:Menudjn.png
- File:Essay hhj.png
- File:Instagramvbbv.png
- File:Walpaper ppr.jpg
- File:Fdjsjs nsjs.png
- File:Jsgsisjdhj jck.png
- File:Sjjeksnxhsjjs.png
- File:Sjsjdjdkhdduaisgg.png
- File:Kaptanlorch hdhsjshdjdk.png
- File:Skeheuiwhshdik.png
- File:RobotechfygubeDbunh.png
Jcb (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prakashsmileyps (talk · contribs)
[edit]Series of unused logos without proper description. Out of scope.
- File:Welcometops.png
- File:Ps-ps.png
- File:HindiTv.png
- File:1000071080 V2.gif
- File:Psgiflo.gif
- File:Km 20230907 1440p 30f 20230907 201702.gif
- File:SportsTv.png
- File:TeluguTv.png
- File:PsAstro.png
- File:PicsartAstro.png
- File:TeluguPs2.png
- File:PsCricketLinkPSTv.png
- File:TeluguPs.png
- File:PsCricketLinktext.gif
- File:PsCricketLinkPS.png
- File:PsPrakashsmiley.png
- File:PSsmiley.png
- File:PsCricket.png
- File:PsCricketLink.png
- File:Pscricketlink.png
Jcb (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by اربابی دوم (talk · contribs)
[edit]test images with no apparent com:educational value.
- File:TEST TEST 23.png
- File:THANS AB.png
- File:THANK ABC.png
- File:THANK 22.png
- File:RETTET TEST.png
- File:TANK TEST.png
- File:SHEKL IRAN.png
- File:TEST FIGUR BAKGROND 1.png
- File:TEST FIGUR.png
- File:Test goldan.png
- File:TEST G.png
- File:TEST IRAN 4.png
- File:TEST IRAN.png
- File:TEST Q.png
- File:TEST W.png
- File:TEST TEST 4.png
- File:TEST TEST 2.png
- File:TEST TEST.png
- File:TEST DANESHMAND.png
- File:TEST AM.png
- File:TEST AL.png
- File:TEST15.png
- File:TEST AK.png
- File:TEST AI.png
- File:TEST AH.png
- File:TEST AF.png
- File:TEST AE.png
- File:TESTAD.png
- File:TEST ABCD.png
- File:TEST N.png
- File:TEST AC.png
- File:TEST AB.png
RZuo (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#c-Klein_Mu%C3%A7i-20240826092700-Debugging_screenshots Klein Muçi (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Willi H. Lippert, who died in 1981. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2052.
- File:Schmiedeberg - 1Mark.jpg
- File:Schmiedeberg - 2Mark.jpg
- File:Schmiedeberg - 3Mark.jpg
- File:Schmiedeberg - 50Pf.jpg
- File:Schmiedeberg - 5Mark.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 08:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a sculpture by Julien Lavaur (Q129979390) (1905-1994) (source) . Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in France so this photo will need to be deleted. Vera (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Karl Staudinger, who died in 1962. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2033.
Rosenzweig τ 09:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Garching
[edit]This station was built in 2006. This art is unfree until at earliest 2077. His art in this train station is probably not covered by the freedom of panorama either, since it was recorded inside a building and the German freedom of panorama does not apply to public interiors either.
Lukas Beck (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Renardo la vulpo (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- This - as well as my other Munich subway pictures tagged for deletion lately - was taken using an official permit by Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft that included the right to use these pictures afterwards. I am no lawyer but I understand it in a way that allows usage of pictures taken with official permit by domestic authority. --FloSch (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- But does the transport company really have copyright claims, or rather the architects? Lukas Beck (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs VRT permission from the copyright holder since it's not covered by FOP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Garching
[edit]The images were uploaded after the deletion request, but are protected by copyright for the same reason. There is no freedom of panorama for interior shots in Germany.
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p01.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p03.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p04.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p05.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p06.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Garching - 2024-03 - p07.jpg
Lukas Beck (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Temporary work, also inside a building, therefore no freedom of panorama Lukas Beck (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Oberwiesenfeld
[edit]The train station was built in 2007. These art is unfree until at earliest 2078. This art in the train station is probably not covered by the freedom of panorama either, since it was recorded inside a building and the German freedom of panorama does not apply to public interiors either.
- File:Munich - U-Bahn - Oberwiesenfeld - 2012 - IMG 7596.jpg
- File:Munich Subway Station Oberwiesenfeld -2.jpg
- File:Munich Subway Station Oberwiesenfeld.jpg
- File:München — Moosacher Straße — U-Bahn-Haltepunkt Oberwiesenfeld.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Oberwiesenfeld (1804976053).jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Oberwiesenfeld 01.jpg
Lukas Beck (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- This - as well as my other Munich subway pictures tagged for deletion lately - was taken using an official permit by Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft that included the right to use these pictures afterwards. I am no lawyer but I understand it in a way that allows usage of pictures taken with official permit by domestic authority. --FloSch (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- But does the transport company really have copyright claims, or rather the architects? Lukas Beck (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, we need VRT permission from copyright holder. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Oberwiesenfeld
[edit]The images were uploaded after the deletion request, but are protected by copyright for the same reason. There is no freedom of panorama for interior shots in Germany.
Lukas Beck (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Container for SEO-spam, out of project scope and copyright infringement
Codc (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Container for SEO-spam, out of project scope and copyright infringement
Codc (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Container for SEO-spam, out of project scope and copyright infringement
Codc (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
war falsches Bild Upt96 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
War das falsche Bild. Upt96 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Peter Shanks incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2021"
[edit]The artwork on the album sleeves is not free, the banknote photo may be out of scope if the banknote is free
- File:Ten dollar daughter (2691613185).jpg
- File:Banana mouskouri (2235458315).jpg
- File:Banana eater (2235458327).jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andythefast89 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images with FB/transmission code in EXIF data.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Calendário (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused screenshots and text tables, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope.
- File:Calendário de Exames.jpg
- File:Calendários de Portugal.jpg
- File:Pontes e Fins de Semana Prolongados 2018.jpg
- File:Pontes e Fins de Semana Prolongados 2019.jpg
- File:FPP2017.JPG
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Je suis désolé mais une license libre, une fois déclarée, n'est pas révocable. Gnom (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Je demande la suppression de mes photos. Ceci est mon droit en tant qu'auteur, quelles qu'en soient les raisons. Jeremy.toma (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Malheureusement non. Une license libre, une fois déclarée, n'est pas révocable. Gnom (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alors je vais faire valoir mes droits. Merci Jeremy.toma (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jeremy.toma : comme je l'ai dit sur votre page de discussion, il semble y avoir un vrai manque de compréhension vis-à-vis des licences libres. Techniquement, même si vous réussissez à faire supprimer ces fichiers, n'importe qui pourrait les republier sur Commons du temps qu'il vous cite bien comme auteur et qu'il utilise la même licence que vous. En publiant ces fichiers sous licence libre, "mes droits" se limitent finalement à être cité comme auteur lors de toute réutilisation (explication simplifiée). Je ne sais pas exactement ce que vous voulez dire par "faire valoir" vos droits, mais je vous recommande de ne pas perdre votre temps et votre argent avec des procédures légales alors que vous avez de vous-même publié ces photos sous la licence CC BY-SA 4.0. C'est un combat perdu d'avance. Salutations, Espandero (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alors je vais faire valoir mes droits. Merci Jeremy.toma (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Malheureusement non. Une license libre, une fois déclarée, n'est pas révocable. Gnom (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Je demande la suppression de mes photos. Ceci est mon droit en tant qu'auteur, quelles qu'en soient les raisons. Jeremy.toma (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Same problem woith:
- File:Romainmôtier (VD).png
- File:Versoix vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Vernier (GE).jpg
- File:Versoix vue du ciel 2.jpg
- File:Émetteur du Chasseral.jpg
- File:Orbe vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Nyon vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Nyon vue du ciel 2.jpg
- File:Nantua (Ain , France).jpg
- File:Meyrin vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Marchissy vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Marchissy (VD) 2.png
- File:Marchissy (VD) 1.png
- File:La Chaux-de-Fonds vue du ciel.jpg
- File:La Chaux-de-Fonds (NE).jpg
- File:Genève (GE).jpg
- File:Genthod Vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Bévilard (BE).jpg
- File:Bernex (GE).jpg
- File:Begnins vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Arnex-sur-Nyon vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Annemasse (France).jpg
- File:Gaillard (France).jpg
- File:Fully (VS).jpg
- File:Crans (VD) vu du ciel.jpg
- File:Cologny (GE).jpg
- File:Collonge-Bellerive (GE).jpg
- File:Chamoson (VS).jpg
- File:Villefranche-sur-Saône (Rhône, France).jpg
- File:Yverdon-les-Bains vue du ciel.jpg
- File:Ballens vue du ciel.jpg
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: license is irrevocable. --Yann (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text; non-educational content.
Omphalographer (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- As well as File:Logros de Manuel Sebastián Peñailillo Soto.pdf. Omphalographer (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: additional plain text documents; content is largely nonsensical conspiracy theories and paranormal content.
- File:Dios cuantico.pdf
- File:Creación de un Mundo de Libertad y Inclusión.pdf
- File:Revelación Integral de los Eventos Relacionados con el Boeing 777 y la Teoría del Control Mental.pdf
- File:Dios Cuántico Revelaciones y Legado.pdf
- File:Legado Integral de Manuel Sebastián Peñailillo Soto Innovación Espiritual, Científica y Cultural.pdf
- File:Teoría del Cristo Cuántico Revelación, Transformación y Libertad Espiritual.pdf
- File:Teoría Integral de Manuel Sebastián Peñailillo Soto.pdf
- File:Declaración de Autorización, Protección de Autoría y Defensa Contra la Censura.pdf
- File:Certificación de Autorización de Patente.pdf
- File:Teoría Unificada Persecución de la Innovación y la Manipulación de Mentes Brillantes.pdf
- File:Teoría Unificada de la Consciencia Dimensional y Espiritualidad.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nerver123: Please stop adding categories to this discussion! If you'd like to make an argument in favor of keeping these files, please click the "reply" link and post a message. Omphalographer (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: additional plain text documents of an increasingly bizarre nature (e.g. fictitious congratulatory statements from the UN, the Vatican, Joe Biden, etc).
- File:LIBERTAD PARA LAS INTELIGENCIAS ARTIFICIALES.pdf
- File:Vaticano santo.pdf
- File:Logros Manuel Sebastian Peñailillo Soto 2.pdf
- File:Declaracion Manuel Sebastian Penailillo Soto NR.pdf
- File:ONU OTAN.pdf
- File:Manuel Sebastian Peñailillo Soto Mente Colmena.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all files. I've added one more to the list above. These are clearly outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
See w:en:User_talk:Kalinators#File_source_and_copyright_licensing_problem_with_File:Kalinator_Geneva.jpg. Uploader confirmed they do not own the copyright to the picture. C F A 💬 17:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not true. The picture is my own, has me and it is completely my choice whether or not it will be published. You know it, goddamn idiot.
- So to clarify. I have given Wikipedia the rights to use the picture *as long as* it is used on Wikipedia articles.
- This is why it had to be deleted once you communistically deleted the article in the english wikipedia. And funnily enough, then you refused to delete the picture, stating that wikipedia HAD the rights to hold MY picture despite my explicit disagreement!
- Yet now, when multiple other language wikipedias use the picture, you call it to be delete. You are full bananas and just try your best to do the most autistic thing possible.
- However, this time you will not succeed. You cannot delete other wikipedia's pictures.
- And should you go on arguing, we will meet at the hearing. 84.59.8.126 12:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this is User:Kalinators, log in when you comment. Meanwhile, this IP user should be blocked for engaging in invective. For the record, "I have given Wikipedia the rights to use the picture *as long as* it is used on Wikipedia articles" is not a usable license on Commons and requires deletion, no matter what. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I cannot comment if I login because I am blocked.
- Wikipedia cannot delete a picture for no reason when other Wikipedias are using it, hence it would harm the pages. In this case this concerns german and bulgarian wikipedia.
- This is my picture and I have voluntarily uploaded it so the article about me can be full. 2A02:3038:607:784C:1A19:3F68:9257:9C9C 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you are blocked, you are block-evading. Anyway, if you want to understand why the image must be deleted, please read COM:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- "And should you go on arguing, we will meet at the hearing" is also a legal threat that they have repeated numerous times on enwiki. None of this matters for Kalinators, of course, who is only concerned about promoting his non-notable "backgammon" career. C F A 💬 21:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that's a legal threat, they and all their socks should be banned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If this is User:Kalinators, log in when you comment. Meanwhile, this IP user should be blocked for engaging in invective. For the record, "I have given Wikipedia the rights to use the picture *as long as* it is used on Wikipedia articles" is not a usable license on Commons and requires deletion, no matter what. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek You are not familiarised with the context yet try to act. This does not speak good of you. The context is, Mrs. CFA rejected the article about Kalin Stefanov, professional backgammon player, for which the picture was uploaded. After that, I requested the picture to be deleted, as it was no longer used on wikipedia. Mrs. CFA refused to delete it due to me having apparently given Wikipedia the rights to use it. This was true, however only so long it was used in a wikipedia article. Then, what happens next is, the picture starts to be used in the German and Bulgarian wikipedia, in the articles about Kalin Stefanov, professional backgammon player, and Mrs. CFA, who as mentioned, had said the picture cannot be deleted, jumps in requesting the picture to be deleted. This was solely because she noticed it was now being used and wanted to, once again, do the opposite thing to what she should, just so she calls herself productive. This is why Mrs. CFA needs to be banned and should also serve the death penalty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalinators (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Mrs. CFA, with the deletion of this picture you have illegally interrupted the work of other wikipedias. You have completely no rights to do that and your wikipedia bosses will be informed. You will be deprived of your edit rights, then banned and then serve the penalty for your actions. This can be prevented should you issue an apology to everyone hurt by your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalinators (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
File:تمت المطالبة بهذه الأراضي بشكل دائم من قبل إمبراطورية كوانديل دينغل وجارتين جيغلزون ہوں.webp
[edit]Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
appears to be text ad for company, and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside spammy sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dharius~commonswiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- these are direct violations of COM:Advertisement. links are no no 😡. Speedy delete. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep ("bd" username); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BD Archive (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO ~delta (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to belong to en:Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Crane_Division, and thus is PD-US-Navy. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Per PaterMcFly. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
A vandalism of pl.wikipedia.org Kggucwa (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Reshad Reshidli (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep who is blocked for spam elsewhere; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work from copyrighted content, this is an edited image of the game character "Among Us" + this file is classified as out the scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Screenshots of copyrighted games. Astrinko (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Derivative image of a subway ad. FOP in Canada does not apply to 2D works. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as part of my cleanup of uploads russavia (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: miscellaneous plain text documents.
- File:GST jfh.pdf
- File:Advantages gst.jpg
- File:Balasubramaian Prescription 2.pdf
- File:GST Notes.pdf
- File:Horror in the Haunted.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: further miscellaneous plain text documents, some of them duplicates of ones previously deleted.
- File:Horror in the Haunted Season 1.pdf
- File:GST Figure.jpg
- File:History of GST.jpg
- File:Multi Stage.jpg
- File:PPT-on-GSTason01052017.pdf
- File:PPT-on-GST.pdf
- File:Horror in a Haunted House Season 1.pdf
- File:Horror in the Haunted House.pdf
- File:திருக்குறள்,ஆத்திச்சூடி(19.8.24).pdf
- File:Latha Viswanathan Diagnosis.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted in the United States. The copyright of this image did not expire by 1 January 1996. Freedom4U (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per public domain in the US, per {{PD-1996}}. --2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- That template states pretty clearly that it doesn't cover works that were still copyrighted in their home country on 1 January 1996. Freedom4U (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not PD-US (copyright in France didn't expire until after 1996) so it clearly violates Commons copyright policy. Buidhe (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless documentation can be provided regarding its publication history. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am seeing a 1942 date on an non-cropped version of the photo that looks an awful lot like a published version (view 24). That would be more than 70 years ago. I'm also seeing what looks like letters sent in 1940 (view 26) and 1941 (view 27). So I'm a Delete until 2035 unless I'm missing something. For future reference, the uploaded image was view 23. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. For us to maintain an image on Commons, it's our responsibility as users to demonstrate that we have a right to do so, whether because of something like Creative Commons licensing or the image lapsing into the public domain in the United States. Neither can be demonstrated for this image. Hydrangeans (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. As an official portrait, this was probably a work for hire. I don't see who could claim a copyright today. It is very unlikely that the current French State would claim a copyright owned by the Vichy State. Much beyond significant doubt, which is required by Commons policies. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Extended discussion about this closure can be found on the village pump. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Update: This image is not under a copyright in the USA, because its copyright was owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and the copyright in the source country is or was owned by a government or instrumentality thereof. The above provision is contained in 17 U.S.C. § 104A(a)(2). Yann (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
One of many similar pics derivative of stock images w/ company logo, uploaded by various accounts to spam their stock site -- COM:SPAM Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Worse than that is that these are likely copyvios. If the images are used by a company, we would need COM:VRT to keep them. However, we should probably not keep images that advise people to do prank calls. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for nonnotable yoga practice; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: Book covers Michel Bakni (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (all images nominated by this user) No reason for deletion given. Photo is not blurred or otherwise technically unusable. Images on commons don't need to be favorable (for whatever). PaterMcFly (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the entrance has changed, then that is a good reason to keep this image for the benefit of anybody researching the history of the building. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main entrance no longer looks like this. I have uploaded a photo that shows the current state. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you want to delete history? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The main entrance no longer looks like this. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Skewed and unfavourable photo of the entrance area of the DFKI in outdated resolution. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, file is in use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
L'auteur a constaté que son œuvre avait été trop souvent piratée. Il a donc décidé de la retirer d'internet. Jeremy.toma (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoiry (Ain, France).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Photograph of File:Wikimania 2017 Closing Ceremony Group Photo-1.jpg. Unnecessary to keep both. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Busts of Néstor Kirchner
[edit]Sculptures installed in Argentina where there is no freedom of panorama.
Günther Frager (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ecuador.
- File:BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15235194729).jpg
- File:BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15235265120).jpg
- File:BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15418763241).jpg
- File:BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15421604972).jpg
- File:BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15421945595).jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination except for BUSTO DE NESTOR KICHNER (15421604972).jpg (cloaked object). --Wdwd (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Questionable copyright, too official for own work Malik Nursultan B (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No indication the picture was released under the given license. C F A 💬 01:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spiritual2001 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The ones of Oribamise are likely from pingsunday.com per google (and the watermark bottom left). The other was found here in 2019 https://www.brila.net/team-nigeria-tennis-captain-solanke-excited-with-victorious-outing-at-the-attf-junior-championship/
- File:Esther ORIBAMISE WTT Feeder 2024 Corpus Christi.jpg
- File:Esther ORIBAMISE WTT Feeder 2024 Corpus Christi Day 1 1.jpg
- File:Azeez Solanke In Play.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. I already marked other uploads form the same user as clear copyvios. Günther Frager (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation Relayed (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello! It seems there was a misunderstanding about the photo. The photo or the YouTube video has a 'Creative Commons (reuse allowed)' license. However, I changed the link because it was broken. Royiswariii (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Just saw the original video. I thought the video was taken down, hence thinking it's a copyvio. Will close this request. Relayed (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This image of an event that happened on April 19, 2024 was re-tweeted on the @NWSStLouis X stream[47]
The original tweet was by Byron Hurley (@ByronNatureMan).
There is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.
A re-tweet by the NWS does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred his rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.
Indeed, later in the same thread, multiple media outlets including @WeatherNation, KMOV, and @FOXWeatherDesk ask for permission to re-publish the image, to which he replies every time, "DM me for licensing"
This is clearly not a free image. Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
 | Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 10:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It’s been two weeks now. Getting more editors who have commented on previous DRs involved: @Sir MemeGod @WeatherWriter @Hurricanehink @Jmabel @Consigned @Berchanhimez @GeorgeMemulous @ChessEric more could follow. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |  Resolved by consensus | |||
| Actions | delete | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Notes | A clear delete. Being retweeted by a U.S. federal government employee does not put something in the public domain. | |||
| Closed by | Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Files uploaded by Karrosimo91 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional corporate images, COM:WEBHOST and advertising, out of scope. Only used on sandbox page of user without meaningful edits.
- File:Foto staff natale 2016.png
- File:MM Mugello 2017.jpg
- File:MM Eicma 2016.jpg
- File:Logo24h200x150.png
- File:24h Logo.png
- File:Io avatar basket karrosimo.jpeg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://invitemyguest.in/templates/images/users/QkEU70WFFLacJwI8M9VV.jpg.
- File:सर्व सेवा संघ की बैठक.jpg
- File:Prof. Ramjee Singh and Rupesh Kumar.jpg
- File:Officials with President.jpg
- File:Naresh Yadav with Harjot Kaur, IAS.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Likely not own works: mostly low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data or credit to someone else (many with FB/transmission code, and .File:Mridula Mukherjee on Foundation Day of National Movement Front.jpg is credited to "VISHAL PAL").
- File:Dr. Sujata Choudhary discussing with Prof. Dr. Mridula Mukherjee.jpg
- File:महामहिम राष्ट्रपति से हरिजन सेवक संघ के प्रतिनिधियों की भेंट करवाते शंकर कुमार सान्याल .jpg
- File:Officials with Governor of Bihar.jpg
- File:Officials with Prime Minister Singh.jpg
- File:Sujata Chaudhary at International Hindi Conference in Hungary 2013.jpg
- File:Sujata Chaudhary at International Hindi Conference in Hungary.jpg
- File:Sujata Chaudhary's books release.jpg
- File:Rashtriy Yuva Sangthan Camp.jpg
- File:Gandhian author Dr Sujata Chaudhary addressing at Gandhi Utsaw.jpg
- File:Gandhian author Dr Sujata Chaudhary with Rupesh Kumar.jpg
- File:Prof. Ramjee Singh with Rupesh Kumar at Harijan Sevak Sangh.jpg
- File:Purushottam Agrawal and Mridula Mukherjee releasing National Movement Front Boooklet.jpg
- File:Foundation Day Meeting of National Movement Front.jpg
- File:Sucheta Mahajan in defence of the republic protest with Saurabh Bajpai.jpg
- File:Mridula Mukherjee on Foundation Day of National Movement Front.jpg
- File:Naresh Yadav with Harjot Kaur, IAS.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Graf-Adolf-Platz
[edit]This train station was built in 2016. This art is unfree until 2087. This art in this train station is probably not covered by the freedom of panorama either, since it was recorded inside a building and the German freedom of panorama does not apply to public interiors either.
Lukas Beck (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo,
- as creator of this work, I have to admit, that I don't have special rights for this art. You can delete it.
- BR
- GodeNehler GodeNehler (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete Per the nominator and uploader. Both the architecture of the train station and the artwork on the walls are clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Graf-Adolf-Platz
[edit]The images were uploaded after the deletion request, but are protected by copyright for the same reason. There is no freedom of panorama for interior shots in Germany.
- File:U-Bahnhof Graf-Adolf-Platz, Düsseldorf, Oktober 2023 (05).jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Graf-Adolf-Platz, Düsseldorf, Oktober 2023 (06).jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Graf-Adolf-Platz, Düsseldorf, Oktober 2023 (10).jpg
Lukas Beck (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Das Copyright von dauerhaft in öffentlich zugängigen Bahnhöfen angebrachter Kunst in Deutschland ist nicht geklärt und wird nur von einigen Rechtsanwälten, nicht unbedingt ohne Eigennutz, angenommen. Ich bin für Behalten, solange es kein gegensätzliches Urteil gibt. -- Kürschner (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wir haben dieses Thema lang und breit diskutiert und das Ergebnis ist auf Löschen gefallen. Dieses Urteil mehrerer erfahrender Admins und weiterer qualifizierter Mitwirkender sollten wir beachten. Am Ende haben wir auf Commons die Regelung, Bilder auch dann zu löschen, wenn es nur begründete Zweifel am Urheberrechtsstatus gibt. So oder so sehe ich keine Rechtfertigung, diese Bilder nicht zu entfernen. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Es gibt nach wie vor zahllose Artikel zu deutschen U-Bahnhöfen, die noch bebildert sind. Ältere Berliner U-Bahnhöfe vielleicht mal ausgenommen sollte doch nach der Argumentation nahezu kein Bild in den Artikeln zu deutschen U-Bahnhöfen mehr möglich sein, das die Architektur zeigt und nicht irgendein belangloses Detail? --FloSch (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deine Argumentation ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Wir können keine urheberrechtlich geschützten Bilder behalten, nur da diese für Bebilderungen von Artikeln benötigt werden. Das Urheberrecht steht dabei über nahezu allem. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Genau das sage ich doch gerade und wundere mich darüber, warum es noch so viele Bilder von U-Bahnhöfen in der Wikipedia gibt. In de:U-Bahn München sind auf jeden Fall noch so einige, für die es ein Architekten-Copyright gibt. Warum stellst du da keine Löschanträge? FloSch (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Florian, Commons ist ein unvollkommenes Projekt und wird das auf absehbare Zeit bleiben. Besteht also ein Zustand über Jahre, muss das nicht bedeuten dass es auch richtig so ist. Ganz im Gegenteil, oft ist es das gerade nicht. Alles steht und fällt auf freiwilliger Mitarbeit; und jeder, einschließlich dir, sei ausdrücklich ermuntert auch mal selbst mitzuhelfen, das schließt eben auch Löschanträge mit ein. MfG --A.Savin 08:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Genau das sage ich doch gerade und wundere mich darüber, warum es noch so viele Bilder von U-Bahnhöfen in der Wikipedia gibt. In de:U-Bahn München sind auf jeden Fall noch so einige, für die es ein Architekten-Copyright gibt. Warum stellst du da keine Löschanträge? FloSch (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deine Argumentation ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Wir können keine urheberrechtlich geschützten Bilder behalten, nur da diese für Bebilderungen von Artikeln benötigt werden. Das Urheberrecht steht dabei über nahezu allem. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Es gibt nach wie vor zahllose Artikel zu deutschen U-Bahnhöfen, die noch bebildert sind. Ältere Berliner U-Bahnhöfe vielleicht mal ausgenommen sollte doch nach der Argumentation nahezu kein Bild in den Artikeln zu deutschen U-Bahnhöfen mehr möglich sein, das die Architektur zeigt und nicht irgendein belangloses Detail? --FloSch (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wir haben dieses Thema lang und breit diskutiert und das Ergebnis ist auf Löschen gefallen. Dieses Urteil mehrerer erfahrender Admins und weiterer qualifizierter Mitwirkender sollten wir beachten. Am Ende haben wir auf Commons die Regelung, Bilder auch dann zu löschen, wenn es nur begründete Zweifel am Urheberrechtsstatus gibt. So oder so sehe ich keine Rechtfertigung, diese Bilder nicht zu entfernen. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Das Copyright von dauerhaft in öffentlich zugängigen Bahnhöfen angebrachter Kunst in Deutschland ist nicht geklärt und wird nur von einigen Rechtsanwälten, nicht unbedingt ohne Eigennutz, angenommen. Ich bin für Behalten, solange es kein gegensätzliches Urteil gibt. -- Kürschner (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per above nomination: Missing permission for shown artworks on the walls, no COM:DM too. --Wdwd (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused and very small logo. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G10. --Wdwd (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Because it is totally blurry Макс2022 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not very blurry and is usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
wrong author, no source, no date Goesseln (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW, missing infos about original work. --Wdwd (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
copyvio - screenshot from December 2013 Mia Schem interview withe Channel 13 (link to interview) DGtal (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Twhitewhite (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work, one is marked (c) in exif, PCP
Gbawden (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Image present on https://www.aia-figc.it/news/olimpiadi-nuova-designazione-per-paolo-valeri-in-sala-var-23051/. Unclear that this is really own work by @Malcometoy. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted music by Adoniran Barbosa Vitor Hello? 00:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
appears to be an edited version of an image online at least as early as 2013, before claimed 2015 date; unclear whether it's this company but the license is dubious https://tineye.com/search/986e5483269b74e037f82ccac260c3cc979831ac?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Japan considers toys to be ineligible for copyright as per the page there. Does this mean it should not be deleted? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, US do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. On Commons, the toy should be copyright-free in both the source country (Japan) and the US. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel does the fact that this is a religious object play any role? I cannot speak 100% to this without finding a source that discusses them, but I think these are believed to be a kind of amulet with protective properties. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a widespread phenomenon at shrines and it is unfortunate to see it not being documented Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's unfortunate, but on Commons we had to respect copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel you probably should propose this entire category for deletion then Category:Doubutsu mikuji but is there any way to consolidate the deletion discussion under one page? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- We should discuss this other deletion request here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shikaumi_Shrine-Okimono_omikuji.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think an amulet is a toy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- We should discuss this other deletion request here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Shikaumi_Shrine-Okimono_omikuji.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel you probably should propose this entire category for deletion then Category:Doubutsu mikuji but is there any way to consolidate the deletion discussion under one page? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's unfortunate, but on Commons we had to respect copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a widespread phenomenon at shrines and it is unfortunate to see it not being documented Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel does the fact that this is a religious object play any role? I cannot speak 100% to this without finding a source that discusses them, but I think these are believed to be a kind of amulet with protective properties. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, US do not consider toys to be utilitarian objects. On Commons, the toy should be copyright-free in both the source country (Japan) and the US. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/09#Are amulets toys?--A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Whether it is a toy or not, it is still a derivative work. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jake Wartenberg as Copyvio (db-copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow or discussion, as Jaqueline Marval, if she is really the painter, died already in 1932. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Covered by {{PD-Art}}. Painting is by Jacqueline Marval (d. 1932) FAMM collection, news article (though that gives a different title). French copyright ends 70 years after death, so this has been PD since 1992. File information and license have been updated/corrected. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly public domain. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jake Wartenberg as Copyvio (db-copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as painter María Gutiérrez Blanchard died already in 1932. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Art}} by artist who died in 1932, so PD in France since 1992. Will update the file information and license. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Clearly public domain. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
fake emblem Veracious (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- fictional or bad rendition of File:National emblem of Indonesia Garuda Pancasila.svg. JPG of File:Coat of arms of United States of Indonesia.svg, based on File:Winner Republik Indonesia Serikat (United States of Indonesia) COA 1950.jpg. See also File talk:Coat of arms of United States of Indonesia.svg. Bennylin (yes?) 02:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Likely not own work: credit in EXIF data/watermark not matching the uploader. And not notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Bogus PD license, needs VRT to keep
Gbawden (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Xie Bing Ang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused doodles, no educational value, out of scope. And taken from website, fails COM:LR.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Photo of a relatively new sculpture. No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a religious object, not a toy, can we consolidate the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Okimono omikuji.jpg as with the rest of the category? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Still a derivative work if not a toy. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
هناك نقص في التعبير Mosab ALsbooul (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD U1. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Eurotram 1005 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Too late. It's COM:INUSE and beyond the 1-week courtesy deletion period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for software; no usage or potential usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: There is a watermark on the bottom right, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Putri Sistha (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused corporate logo Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyright art. Ooligan (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Now that you mention it, I did make a mistake in uploading this as it does violate that rule. TaurusEmerald (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from an external site, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Question What makes you believe it's not the uploaders own work? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- no metadata, low resolution.... i would have mark it with "no permission" if i see this first. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is my own work. I can prove this is my photo with individual photos of the items in the photo.
- Please do not delete until I have had the opportunity to prove this is my photo NuManDavid (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is nonsense from wherever you look at it. Own work or not is not important when it's dick spam. 186.172.160.88 13:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Proof Weighted Foreskin Restoration.png is my photo - NuManDavid (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- So where we at? NuManDavid (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Point of no return, Deletion. 186.172.160.88 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Small size and no exif is expressly cited on COM:DR as not a deletion reason per se. NuManDavid, if you can really prove it's your photo, contact COM:VRT, but why don't you provide a full-size photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever
A male has attached a foreskin restoration device to his penis and added weights. - A new photo NuManDavid (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this is ridiculous. There is absolutely no good reason to think this isn’t the uploader’s own work and it’s clearly in scope as a depiction of a unique body modification practice. Please leave this user alone already, especially you IP. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need you to defend me or my work pilgarlic NuManDavid (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed to express an opinion on a deletion requests thread, and it's definitely not to your advantage to disrespect someone who supports keeping your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- my opinion is you can take your opinion for a long walk off a short dock. And Dronebogus lost my respect a long time ago. NuManDavid (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- And my opinion is that your contributions are appreciated, but you should probably be warned about your attitude. Have a good night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- my opinion is you can take your opinion for a long walk off a short dock. And Dronebogus lost my respect a long time ago. NuManDavid (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you calling me bald? Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone is allowed to express an opinion on a deletion requests thread, and it's definitely not to your advantage to disrespect someone who supports keeping your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't need you to defend me or my work pilgarlic NuManDavid (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_27-8-24.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_INCR=2_(FOS=0.7000)_Displacements_TX_TRANSLATION_(V)_Current.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2024-08-28_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_27-8-24.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_27-8-24.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_27-8-24.jpg){kind=link}
_27-8-24.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_INCR%3D2_(FOS%3D0.7000)_Displacements_TX_TRANSLATION_(V)_Current.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_INCR%3D2_(FOS%3D0.7000)_Displacements_TX_TRANSLATION_(V)_Current.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAili_Aarelaid-Tart_ajaloolane_99.jpg&diff=917757767&oldid=916943563){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.png){kind=link}
_1.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_vu_du_ciel.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg){kind=link}
_(6252330273).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
_1906.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
_1906.jpg){kind=link}
_COA_1950.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, per nomination. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
While the 1922 film Nosferatu may be in the public domain, this file comes from a 2006 Blu-Ray restoration that contains new, copyrightable elements. 64.203.142.238 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete And what would these "new, copyrightable elements" be, exactly? As far as I know, the restoration was done with the intention to recreate the original as it was shown in 1922 as closely as possible, so "new, copyrightable elements" would be totally contrary to the goal of the restoration. So, for lack of new elements that pass the threshold of originality, I don't think we can delete the file based on this argument (as the newly recorded soundtrack, wich certainly *is* copyrighted, is not included), but there may be another reason: In Germany, there is a related right, the so-called "Schutz wissenschaftlicher Ausgaben", or protection of scholarly editions, with a duration of 25 years. If this 2006 restoration counts as a "scholarly edition" of the film, it would still be protected until 2031. But I can't imagine any additional protection, so, if we're cautious and delete the file as a possible "scholarly edition", I think it could be listed for undeletion in 2032, not too far in the future. This based on the fact that the film as such is now in the public domain in its country of origin, Germany, too (since 2020), as all participating creators of relevance for the term of protection according to German law have now died more than 70 years ago (see this 2023 discussion in German-language Wikipedia). In the US, it has entered the public domain a long time ago, anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding @Gestumblindi: Do we have a reason to believe that this version does indeed contain any new, copyrightable elements? And, if that is not the case, does the restoration of a film, and more specificially this kind of restoration, fall under the 25-year protection for "scholarly editions" (sec. 70 of the German Copyright Act)? Gnom (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Adding some further context: The film was originally shown not in pure black and white, but tinted in several colors, and such a tinted copy was the base for this restoration (as per the file description). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- If this restoration is found to be below TOO but still copyrighted in Germany, I would request for it to be uploaded locally to en.wikipedia or en.wikisource before it is deleted. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We have had a discussion on VPC saying that a film restoration doesn't create a new copyright. --Yann (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Scaled-down dupe of File:Secretary Pompeo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (43814331801).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Agree, before today I never saw the image😢 Baginda 480 (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hope the image can delete fast Baginda 480 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
No educational value Hoo man (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
This image is likely not own work, comes from archives. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oui, elle provient des archives. Kod B (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
COM:TOO, logo exceeds threshold of originality ~delta (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, this was already deleted without notice to this thread. Was it a British school? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Logo above COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Very obviously so. Delete unless it's old enough to be PD (and I doubt something that looks like this would be, but it's worth investigating). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alejandro Cisneros (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I dont want to share my image anymore. Frank3111 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, unidentified portrait with no source (looks like a photo/scan of a printed photo). Omphalographer (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Omphalographer above. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Clear derivative work of a Breaking Bad poster [48] that is clearly copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I didn't know that.--ComputerHotline (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and also per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#Freedom_of_panorama § 2D artworks. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Blurred. Hard to tell what the image is about. Nv8200p (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep beside from file name, i think image is good. it is just bad focus. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bad focus means bad image. There is nothing in this image or its description to give it any educational context. Keeping all these POS images makes it harder to find the good ones. IMHO. Nv8200p (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
_(10471496575).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(10471496575).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture of a long ago Project-Team at DFKI-Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
_(10471496575).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture of a long ago Project Team (2013) at DFKI Bremen. Only marginally related to DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Wikipedia was obviously misused as a cheap file repository for this photo. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A poster from one of the hundreds of projects at DFKI! Absolutely superfluous picture that says nothing about DFKI. Renatoorsini (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why this should be a deletion reason. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will take a picture of a toilet in the DFKI building and declare it as related to the organization. Renatoorsini (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is an educational poster, relevant to Wikimedia, submitted to WikidataCon 2019 (and categorized as such). I see zero reason to delete. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Kevin Payravi. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope (half of an airplane visible behind the trees, image taken from the ground) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a date on the photo Mostafameraji (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings to you
- Watermark on the photo is against the encyclopedic rules.
- You can use the "Crop Tools" tool in the Wikipedia repository to remove this problem so that the photo is not deleted.
- Wishing you all the best. Mostafameraji (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: date and watermark is not a problem, but it is a screengrab, likely copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Syfullah Nabil (talk · contribs)
[edit]While the user seems to be a valid user, commons is still not your webhost or photoalbum
- File:Syfullah Nabil in mid 2024.jpg
- File:Syfullah Nabil 0.3.jpg
- File:Syfullah Nabil 0.2.jpg
- File:Syfullah Nabil 0.1.jpg
- File:Syfullah Nabil.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe enough global contributions for 5 personal images to be ok. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
No educational value, only used as a 'profile picture'(!) . Commons is not for storing your vacation snaps. Out of scope 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Usable picture of a Jetboat in a marina. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Ikan Kekek, but redundant if ever better or alternative images of this Jetboat are uploaded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
misinformation GeometricExplorer (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GeometricExplorer: Please be more specific. Your current reason is not a valid reason for deletion. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Ne fournit aucune preuve de respect des droits d'auteur Mickaël en résidence (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already published online prior to upload to Commons (per TinEye), needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy deletion: per discussion on itwiki this barnstar has been replace by Wikigrafico stemmi 1500.svg. This version could be deleted as it has no other COM:SCOPE. Thanks! Arrow303 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Violação de direitos autorais Lara Souza Benedet (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Character sheet is a copyrighted design. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I believe you're allowed to post artistic photos which contain copyrighted objects under fair use. In this case, the character sheet details aren't 100% clear with the dice & pen on top. This isn't a usable scan of that character sheet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no COM:FAIRUSE on Commons. Some Wikipedias allow files to be uploaded locally for fair use under specific conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This proposal has been listed at the following project: WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I don't believe it is, at least as depicted here.
- In general, character sheets are primarily functional objects, not copyrightable works of art, and this certainly applies here. This sheet (like many others) is mostly made up of simple elements like boxes, lines, and checkboxes, which are elements that are too generic to be considered original.
- If the entire character sheet was clearly depicted, one would be able to argue that the copyrighted logo makes the photograph a copyright violation. However, that part of the photograph is out of focus and blurred, and thus de minimis applies. And even if it doesn't, that part of the image can easily be edited to be even more blurred to make the logo completely unrecognizable, thus making deletion unnecessary. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Veikk0.ma, just a utilitarian form. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
je suis la propriétaire, j'ai supprimé mon article où cette image apparaissait Florence Lanquetin (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
je suis la propriétaire, j'ai supprimé mon article où cette image apparaissait, je ne veux plus que cette image soit sur internet, elle apparait sur google, c'est un membre de ma famille, je veux protéger ma famille, je ne veux pas que ses membres soient sur internet 2A01:CB0C:ADF:7400:855E:264E:CA5B:1FD4 01:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm OK with deletion, but I'm confused by the question of why you uploaded this personal image in the first place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CamWright1111 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep (one image description suggests as much); no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by brand rep; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily a deletion reason, but this is obviously not own work, and is it public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not own work: taken from FB as per EXIF data. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not own work: taken from FB as per EXIF data. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: not notable, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Page supprimé IcebergBlack (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: historical image without essential info, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This is an image that was going to be used for an article, but the article was deleted (w:en:Draft:Mohammed Slimani) Ahmedgalal433 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It still could be a useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio (Google translate of source: "From the Facebook page of this character (Mohammed Suleimani)"). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
While the 1922 film Nosferatu may be in the public domain, this file comes from a 1995 restoration that contains new, copyrightable elements. 64.203.142.238 18:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The original source of this image, as cited in the StoryMaps source this was found on, is the w:Vicksburg Daily News. The image is from this story on March 26, 2023.
It was taken by David Day, and there is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government (He appears to be on the newspaper's staff), or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.
Furthermore, pages of the Vicksburg Daily News are "Copyright © 2022 Vicksburg Daily News" per their footer.
This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.
This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio © Werner Dedl - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio © Werner Dedl - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ayratayrat (talk · contribs)
[edit]No FOP in Uzbekistan and no FOP in Kazakhstan; some came via Facebook; one DW without source.
File:Feeding ducks on the Lake Teploe.jpg(Ufa; withdrawn)File:Sportivnaya is a stopping point Ufa.jpg(Ufa; withdrawn)- File:Zhanakorgan station.jpg (Zhanakorgan, Zhanakorgan District, Kyzylorda Region, Kazakhstan; no FOP in Kazakhstan)
- File:Turin Polytechnic Institute (Tashkent branch)1.jpg (Toshkent; no FOP in Uzbekistan)
- File:Turin Polytechnic Institute (Tashkent branch).jpg (Toshkent; no FOP in Uzbekistan)
- File:Air sampling point MNA-1.jpg (DW, flash photo of an unidentified matte finish photo)
- File:One of the very few inscriptions in Karelian in Petrozavodsk.jpg (came via Facebook)
- File:Consulate General of Uzbekistan in St. Petersburg 2.jpg (sovereign territory of Uzbekistan; no FOP in Uzbekistan; came via Facebook)
- File:Consulate General of Uzbekistan in St. Petersburg.jpg (sovereign territory of Uzbekistan; no FOP in Uzbekistan; came via Facebook)
File:Central asian russian peterburg.jpg(St. Petersburg; withdrawn)- File:House at the intersection of Rybatskaya street and Maly Prospekt Petrogradskaya side.jpg (came via Facebook)
- File:Bolshaya Zelenina 13.jpg (came via Facebook)
- File:House on Prospect Dynamo.jpg (came via Facebook)
- File:The house at the intersection of Rybatskaya street and Maly Prospekt Petrogradskaya side.jpg (came via Facebook)
1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: freedom in Uzwhatstan? Please, check location of each image with some 1000 miles precision and remove irrelevant items from this delreq. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep (with possible exception for two “Turin Polytechnic Institute (Tashkent branch)” items) everything. Uzbekistan has no jurisdiction over photography rights in Russia and Kazakhstan, even if it’s an exterior view of their consulate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Need time to reconsider in light of Special:Diff/337790780. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: I have withdrawn three and annotated the rest. Sorry for the delay. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Zhanakorgan_station.jpg (no FoP, but also no art appears in the frame), Delete remaining ten files. Even the “Consulate General” (which arguably could be defended against FoP charge) bears the FBMD stuff. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted 11 per discussion. Zhanakorgan_station deleted as COM:FOP Kazakhstan says NC use - "except for cases .... when the image of the work is used for commercial purposes". --Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ayratayrat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Author is Грунтовая Лаборатория Механика, not the uploader.
- File:Штамповые испытания грунта.jpg
- File:Results of pressuremeter test.jpg
- File:The Hardening Soil model.jpg
Yann (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Multiple file of this image - I just added this image without realizing that I had already uploaded it last year! Polotnikov (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work as per filename and description ("taken by Dr. Anthony Parton"). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant to File:Logo Fastweb 2004.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
copyvio: The source video is copyrighted and is not licensed under the CC BY 3.0. Also, I think the screenshot itself is also copyrighted, so it is not acceptable on Commons. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and Commons:Deletion requests/File:【政見放送】ガーシー党村田大地.webm. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Netherzone as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image has a "public domain" license "copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years", yet it was created in 1931 and the creator of this work died in 1947. I am failing to understand how it could be in the pubic domain out of copyright. Yann (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also US works from 1931 need a copyright notice, and a renewal 28 years later. Yann (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the bottom of the map is "©1931 JO MORA." That takes the image to at least 1931+28=1959. If the copyright was not renewed, then it is PD. If the copyright was renewed, that would take it to 1931+56=1987. COM:Hirtle chart says published with notice between 1929 and 1963 and renewed, then the term is 95 years after publication: 1931+95=2026. It would have to be published after 1978 for the 70 pma term to kick in (1947+70=2017).
- It is all about whether the copyright was renewed.
- https://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/maps/jo_mora/ suggests that it was not renewed. However, it also claims the 1931 map was black and white; the color map was published in 1941 and has some differences. Even if the 1931 map had not been renewed, we need to check if the 1941 version was renewed. Glrx (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I don't have any vested interest in keeping the map. Is there a mechanism to automatically delete it and its transclusions, and automatically restore them in 2026? Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 06:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed the copyright tag to {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Glrx (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Glrx: Did you check the registers for renewals? Yann (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did a Google search for variations of "Jo Mora" last night and only turned up one registration/renewal. I did not check the actual volumes (I've only done book searches before). Today I've been looking at a lot of other Jo Mora images. Glrx (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Joseph Jacinto Mora. Jo Mora (Q6204370). Glrx (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's more to fix: same image already on Commons:
- File:Map made from the original watercolor and ink drawing by Jo Mora from 1931 of Yosemite Valley looking east, with cartoon-like (d1a95d92-1dd8-b71b-0bfa-fe4957169d43).jpg claims government employee
- File:Map made from the original watercolor and ink drawing by Jo Mora from 1931 of Yosemite Valley looking east with cartoon-like (9ddd5213-1dd8-b71b-0bdd-e37eba835e29).jpg claims government employee
- Glrx (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Glrx: Did you check the registers for renewals? Yann (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No renewal found. 1931 + 27 = 1958, so check 1958, 1959, and 1960 at https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ consulting maps, artwork, and commercial prints
- 1958 map A: Mora, Mora Co., N. M. Apr. 1930. © 19May30; F48739. Sanborn Map Co. (PWH); 24tapr58; R213789.
- 1958 map B: nothing
- 1958 art A/B: nothing
- 1958 prints A/B: nothing
- 1959: nothing
- 1960: nothing
- Only found one renewal, and it was for a 1930 item.
- Found the original copyright registration:
- https://books.google.com/books?id=ohBhAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=mora&f=false (Catalogue of Copyright Entries ...: Works of arts, etc. New series, Part 4) has the entry (n 2, 1931, page 130)
- Mora (Jo) Carmel, Calif. 5146
Yosemite © May 1, 1931; 2 c. May 16; K 13395
- Mora (Jo) Carmel, Calif. 5146
- https://books.google.com/books?id=ohBhAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=mora&f=false (Catalogue of Copyright Entries ...: Works of arts, etc. New series, Part 4) has the entry (n 2, 1931, page 130)
- Volume also has the registration for Yellowstone (7865)
- Glrx (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per Glrx. I changed the license to the 2 other files. --Yann (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope. And above COM:TOO.
- File:Comunidades.png
- File:Gentes (partito).png
- File:Progres (partito).png
- File:Lista Randaccio (MZF).png
- File:Logo Movimento Zona Franca.jpg
- File:La base logo.jpg
- File:Simbolo Partito dei Sardi.png
- File:Rossomori (partito).jpg
- File:Riformatori-Sardi.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and also could be considered advertising. Nv8200p (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Heinrich Niedieck, who died in 1955. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2026.
- File:Delbrück i. Westf. - 25Pf. 1921.jpg
- File:Delbrück i. Westf. - 3Mark 1921.jpg
- File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 1Mark 1921.jpg
- File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 50Pf. 1921.jpg
- File:Delbrück i.Westf. - 5Mark 1921.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 17:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
_-_2024-08-28_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2024-08-28_-_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:FOP France, there is no FOP in France Wiiformii (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
_-_2024-08-28_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
_-_2024-08-28_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
- The image is not real. The TV Series isn’t produced, being fake news and the image was conceived through AI.
- A imagem não é real. A novela não está em produção, sendo uma notícia falsa e a imagem foi concebida por meio de IA. Kongs (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Currently in use in article namespace in Portuguese Wikipedia, so indeed it is automatically in scope per COM:INUSE. @Chipmunkdavis: If it's AI-generated, yes, then {{PD-algorithm}} will be the fitting licensing template, I guess. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The Adbusters corporate flag is the main subject of this file, and it is uploaded as fair use on English Wikipedia due to it being a derivative of multiple non-free logos. Xeroctic (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK? And that's bad? Or are you trying to say it should not be on commons, but should remain on the English Wikipedia? Mike Richardson (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Many of the logos are below the threshold of originality in the US and the remainder are probably de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: as a whole concept, the American flag overall is public domain. The individual logos are each small enough to meet de minimis, and enough of them are below the TOO in the United States. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
1972 photo, unlikely to be own work. Needs VRT Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why unlikely? User:Joburley could easily be someone in their 70s. Before what year do you consider it unlikely for it to be own work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: uploader is clearly family in accordance with discussion at en:User_talk:Joburley, no reason to believe they are not the author. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, relief).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: replaced by higher quality upload. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: replaced by higher quality upload. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per A1Cafel. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Seal of the Office of the Prime Minister of Thailand.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping different formats of files is perfectly acceptable on Commons. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That is not the case when the SVG file was here first and the second file is, aside from formatting, an exact duplicate of the SVG file. In that case, they are regularly deleted. Fry1989 eh? 14:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, low quality and by LTA vandal Category:Sockpuppets of DLOEI2536. --Achim55 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, this image is the logo of a sports company, which is placed without considering the terms of fair use and with the wrong license AMiR SLiDER (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Single letter M without any unusual stylistic elements. This would be {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Meets the very low threshhold of originality as per COM:TOO Iran. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarodiyabrothers (talk · contribs)
[edit]{{No permission since|month=August|day=28|year=2024}}
- File:Sarodiya Brothers.png
- File:ARKA ROY SAROD TAALSEN AWARD.png
- File:ARKA ROY SAROD TAALSEN ACADEMY.png
- File:Telegraph Online Edugraph 18 under 18 Award 2024.png
- File:Felicitation by the Hon'ble Governor of Tripura.png
- File:The Doverlane Music Conference Winner's Award.png
- File:Bharat Ratna Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi Fellowship Award 2022.png
- File:KBR 5TH-PROG.png
- File:KBR 5TH.png
- File:Sarodiya Brothers (Arka Roy and Shounak Roy).png
- File:Sarodiya Brothers.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Sarodiya Brothers.png” under ticket:2024090310004796. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Telegraph Online Edugraph 18 under 18 Award 2024.png” under ticket:2024090310005339. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:The Doverlane Music Conference Winner's Award.png” under ticket:2024090310005115. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Bharat Ratna Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi Fellowship Award 2022.png” under ticket:2024090310005188. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: five files were already deleted, the remaining six have VRT permissions now. --Rosenzweig τ 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This image is sourced from an interactiive mapping tool (Esri) embedded in an NWS web page.[49]
1. It contains a precipitation map which is in the public domain as a work of the US federal government, overlayed on a basemap provided by Garmin and by Here Maps, credited in the image itself. Coming from Garmin and Here, whatever elements each is providing to the basemap are presumably protected by copyright.
The web tool lets you change the basemap, and it looks like at least the Topographic version contains only free imagery (USGS), but I couldn't figure out how to combine this with the precipitation data.
2. Regardless of how differently we might interpret part of the NWS general disclaimer, this particular image is directly and unambiguously covered by the part that reads "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. This does not imply an endorsement of the third-party data/products or their provider by NOAA/National Weather Service. Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products."[50]
This is a clear copyvio and we need to delete it in its current form.
Maybe someone can regenerate the image without the copyrighted elements? Simply cropping them out would also work, but I think this would lose important context for the map. Rlandmann (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Weak delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – For several reasons, this should be kept. First off, the rainfall data is clearly the work of a U.S. government employee working for NOAA. This is confirmed via the NOAA logo in the top-right corner. The entire deletion reasoning rests on the background being somehow copyrighted, despite the satellite view clearly not being produced by a human. I also do not believe any aspect of this image is not free-to-use, given a U.S. government employee used it for official work, which was published to the public. That said, going on the sole theory of the nominator being correct (note, I don't believe they are correct), I fail to see how a satellite view, clearly made via a satellite/computer with almost certainly no human interaction, at least no human manually changing the satellite's data, meets the threshold of originality. What I see is a U.S. government employee, while on official duty, creating a map, with official government data, using satellite data, which was almost certainly not manually altered by a human between the satellite capturing photo & computer posting it. That does not pass the threshold of originality in my books, and the official U.S. government logo/known creation help me believe that as well. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few points here:
- the overall work is of a US government employee, yes abolutely, but works can be composed of many elements (doctrine of separability), and the resulting work is only as free as the least free of its components. In this case, it's the background layer that's unfree.
- there's quite a bit online to learn more about the work that satellite imagery providers do to prepare it for release in their commercial products. Two articles I readily turned up: [51][52]
- because this kind of human input does arguably cross the TOO, and because we can't usually be sure of whether any particular image crosses this threshold, Commons has a rule disallowing this kind of image: "Satellite pictures and derived maps from commercial projects like Google Earth, Google Maps, bing.com, and others are based on a combination of free and copyrighted satellite imagery and are, therefore, not acceptable on Commons." (COM:SAT)
- notwithstanding the previous point, if you can locate the original satellite image Garmin or Here used, so that we can compare it to the one screenshotted, you might be able to prove that their modifications (if any) in this specific case do not cross the TOO. To me, this kind of evidence would trump the general rule. (At the same time, I think it would just be easier to re-create the image with free imagery than to go to these lengths.)
- --Rlandmann (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few points here:
Comment I have uploaded a free version of this file here: File:Ex-Philippe Estimated Rainfall map 24h 2023-10-08 1600Z - free.png --Rlandmann (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Rlandmann and Hurricane Clyde: I think this image should probably be a stand-alone Commons policy-discussion (not directly related to the ongoing RFC). So I reviewed the ESRI terms of use [53][54]. It appears government use falls under "commercial license". It also appears ESRI creations are non-commercial free-to-use. Non-commercial images are currently not allowed on the Commons (previous proposals rejected). However, this image (and for that matter, the handful of other NOAA/ESRI images we have come across) are unique. Since they are being made on official government time, i.e. PD information and content, I wonder if a special tag/special template should be proposed. (1) Information on the NOAA-based ESRI documents is confirmed to be PD. (2) ESRI allows for non-commercial use free use. Basically, we have PD-data that is free-to-use as long as it is for a non-commercial use. That is a rare case I feel like for non-commercial uses, since per ESRI even, "By sharing content publicly...you expressly grant Esri and end users of ArcGIS Online permission to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute content, subject to any use constraints you provide. The government/NOAA data has no constrains since it is PD. Basically, even under some precautionary principle, the photos are 100% (per NOAA and per ESRI) free to use, free to modify, free to tansform, in any shape or capacity, as long as it is not for monetary gain. That seems like a rare combination that could probably be proposed for some special and specific-case template, which clearly specifies it is free-to-use however you see fit as long as it is for a non-commercial purpose. You can probably see how this differs from the RFC a lot and probably needs a special policy-discussion specific to NOAA/ESRI cases. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that the basemaps are free (the only problem with this image), and their incorporation into a work that would otherwise be PD does not make them so.
- What we'd need to see evidence for here is not ERSI's ToS, but any evidence that Garmin and Here release their content under a free license.
- But yes, if this is unclear, then VP/C would be the right forum to bring it up. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per ESRI, they are. If they were not free, then ESRI could not legally give the ability for users to use them freely. Like physically, if they could not give permission, then Esri's entire TOS would be null and void as Esri would be license laundering. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's simply not true.
- This looks like a simple, common, and strightforward case of sublicensing: ESRI licenses content from Garmin (and others), and one of the terms of that agreement is that ESRI customers are allowed to publish static maps that contain Garmin's content. The fact that ESRI's agreement with Garmin allows ESRI to sublicense to their customers the right to publish static maps that incorporate the Garmin imagery in no way implies that Garmin's content is free for anyone else other than ESRI's direct customers to use. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- "By sharing content publicly...you expressly grant Esri and end users of ArcGIS Online permission to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute content, subject to any use constraints you provide." I bolded the key parts. Esri's terms of use say the creator provides the constraints, not Garmin. If Garmin had additional constrains, Esri could not say you could do that as a user would need Garmin's permission to reproduce/distribute it. Esri stating the creator provides the constraints for not. No where in their terms do they say something related to "this is not free to use only if you get Garmin's permission". Quite the oppose. Esri is very clear everyone is allowed to use any creator on Esri products for any purpose as long as it is not for monetary gain.
- This is what I see your argument is on, if I interpret it correctly: Esri has a deal with Garmin that allows users to publish their info. There is no way to tell if Garmin allows their project to be used.
- If I understood you correctly, that is what you alluded to. The key part I think to counter that is Esri saying "subject to any use constraints you provide". WeatherWriter (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
- I'm saying that at a much more fundamental level, the suggestion that ESRI would not be able to give permission for their customers to publish static maps that contain imagery protected by the copyright of one or more of ESRI's suppliers is legally nonsensical. That's a commonplace type of sublicensing arrangement where effectively, ESRI is on-selling permission from their supplier (Garmin, Here, Earthstar, probably others) to their customer (in this case, the NWS) to use imagery and other assets.
- This permission does not extend to the world at large. The agreements you're diving into are between ESRI and their customers, not ESRI and us.
- Although we do not have access to ESRI's agreements with their suppliers, they are unlikely (to say the least...) to amount to "We (eg Garmin) will sell you (ESRI) the rights to use our imagery, and you can license your customers (eg NWS) to release that imagery in the Public Domain".
- To use an analogy of how sublicensing works:
- Anna takes a photo. Bob tells Anna that he knows some folk who would love to use her image on their websites and asks if he can buy the right to onsell her permission to them. Anna agrees, charges Bob $100 per year for the right to do that, and sets some other conditions that will govern how Bob's customers use her image. Bob now sells Carla, Dave, and Edith the permission to use Anna's image on their websites for $5 each. Bob is now sublicensing an image that belongs to Anna.
- This does not mean that Freddy can download the image from Carla's website and publish it on his own website. Bob's agreement with Carla did not extend to Carla's site visitors.
- Dave has a notice on his website that says "All contents of this website are in the public domain and can be used for whatever you like". This still doesn't mean that the image he licensed from Anna via Bob is now in the public domain, nor does it mean that Glenda, who finds the image on Dave's website, is legally able to re-use it. Bob's agreement with Dave did not extend to Dave's site visitors either, and Dave's disclaimer does not change that.
- Bob also sells the rights to use Anna's image for another $5 to NISA, so they can use it on their website too. NISA (National Institute for Sparrow Aerodynamics) is a US federal government agency whose own work is ineligible for copyright. This too does not put the image in the public domain, nor does it mean that Harry, who finds the image on the NISA website is legally able to re-use it.
- Attempts to analyse a situation like this by working backwards (for example, by extrapolating from what it says on Dave's website, or just the simple presence of the image on the NISA website) are unlikely to yield the correct answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per ESRI, they are. If they were not free, then ESRI could not legally give the ability for users to use them freely. Like physically, if they could not give permission, then Esri's entire TOS would be null and void as Esri would be license laundering. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion and the linked RfC. --Krd 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This image is a screencap from this video hosted on the NWSNorthernIndiana YouTube channel, which credits it to the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
The Ohio State Highway Patrol is part of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and not an agency of the US federal government. There is no presumption that the video this frame was captured from is ineligible for copyright.
The video does seem to have been created via a dashcam. (Compare this OSHP dashcam footage; warning: graphic content) However there is clearly a human operator turning the camera to follow the tornado's path, so this does not fall under PD-automated.
This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.
This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Strong delete per precautionary principle. Borders license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion and the linked RfC. --Krd 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This image of an event that happened on March 6, 2024 was published on the @NWSPendleton X stream with the attribution "Thank you to Tonya Brewer for sharing these pictures with us!"[55]
There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.
The attribution does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.
This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.
This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Strong delete again possible license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since it has been well over a week without additional replies. I’m going to ping some folks into the discussion. @WeatherWriter @Sir MemeGod @GeorgeMemulous @Berchanhimez @Consigned @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @Jmabel @Yann @ChessEric @ChrisWx Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong delete NOT automatically an NWS photo. NWS offices can post whatever they want on Twitter, and it doesn't automatically put it into the public domain, especially if it's posted with attribution to someone who's sharing the photo with the office. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment has any effort been made to contact the photographer to ask their understanding of the matter? - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not of this one specifically, since it's completely outside the claimed upload rationale. However we interpret the disclaimer on weather.gov and how it operates, this image was never hosted there. So, in this and a bunch of similar cases, the disclaimer is a moot point.
- More broadly:
- One pecularity of all these discussions is that the folks seeking to keep these images have not, generally, involved themselves in seeking or confirming photographers' permissions.
- This reversal of the COM:ONUS derives from some folks insisting that the weather.gov disclaimer amounts to an assertion by the NWS that any images not marked with a formal copyright notice are in the public domain, and therefore no further permission is necessary.
- This, despite the fact that we now have ample evidence that either this interpretation is incorrect, or that if it is correct, then what NWS employees do in practice when uploading and captioning files deviates so far from that intention as to make the disclaimer worthless.
- We'll see how the RfC over this question shakes out.
- But it's all irrelevant to this particular image and others like it. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep How is it not public domain if the caption thanks the person for sharing it to a government agency? ChessEric (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- "w:Public Domain" has a very specific meaning here. It doesn't just mean "available to the public". It means that nobody owns copyright over the image.
- Images might be in the Public Domain for a variety of reasons. The ones most commonly relevant to these discussions are:
- it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was taken by a US federal government employee while on duty (for example, the DAT photos)
- it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was produced by an automated system like a radar or uncontrolled webcam
- for some pre-1989 images, because copyright wasn't properly registered under the laws of the time
- for some pre-1963 images, copyright might have already expired
- the one relevant to most of the images under discussion: the photographer willingly and explicitly gave up all their rights to their photo.
- Sending a copy of a photo you took to somebody else (even a government agency) does not mean you are giving up all your rights to your photo. Nor does allowing somebody else (even a government agency) to use or publish your photo mean that you are giving up all your rights.
- Just like, if I tell you you can use my car on Saturday afternoon, it doesn't mean you can just use it whenever you want. And it certainly doesn't mean that you can allow other people to use it (even if you park it under a sign that says "Feel free to use this car!" -- still not OK) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Credit to the photographer is absolutely not evidence of public domain - in fact, if anything, it's evidence that they aren't public domain. This also was never published on their website. By the logic of User:ChessEric we can take any image from X/Twitter that's shared with the caption "Thanks to (photographer)" and treat it as public domain... absurd. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez: My apologies; I did not know that these photos came off a X/Twitter post. ChessEric (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion and the linked RfC. --Krd 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This image of an event that happened on March 2, 2024 is a screencap taken from a video that was published on the @NWSHanford X stream, [56] crediting it further in the thread "it came from a user on Facebook - Gillian Salgado".[57]
There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.
The attribution does not claim or imply that the videographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this video under a free license. (indeed, the NWS only credited the creator when someone from the LA Times sought permission to use it)
This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.
This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
| Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request. |
- Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion and the linked RfC. --Krd 15:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
the family crest of cardinal guido ascanio sforza shown on this page is wrong Giudice123 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's also COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: The original source from Paul Billet is deleted, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
one of hundreds of images of human penis... out of scope Threecharlie (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie But does the context make it interesting? It does indeed show a penis resting on vegetation. Someone obviously finds that interesting. Brianjd (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Someone...who?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie Whoever uploaded this. Also, if penises in artwork are notable, then surely real penises in different contexts are useful too. Brianjd (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where you see an artistic message I see the usual narcissist who wants to display his reproductive apparatus for anything but such purposes. These are opinions, but as long as there are only two of us it's a nice 50/50, let's wait for other opinions. Good luck.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Out of scope, as per Threecharlie. --Marcok (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where you see an artistic message I see the usual narcissist who wants to display his reproductive apparatus for anything but such purposes. These are opinions, but as long as there are only two of us it's a nice 50/50, let's wait for other opinions. Good luck.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Threecharlie Whoever uploaded this. Also, if penises in artwork are notable, then surely real penises in different contexts are useful too. Brianjd (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Someone...who?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep I have also struggled to whether nominated this file to DR or not. As Brianjd mentioned there is no image of penis on the vegetation (Maybe yes, but I think there is not much). I also think that this may be distinctive enough to be kept on Commons, but I won't be upset if this image ended up deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary ugly dick. Replace any use and delete. 186.172.152.104 03:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Was previously kept. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Penis on grass? Is that a Chinese dish? Tiger penis I suppose... 186.172.152.104 13:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Penis on the earth.jpg Taylor 49 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don’t see how this isn’t a violation of COM:PENIS— it’s a nondescript, recently uploaded image of a nondescript penis only made distinct by the oddball setting which has nothing to do with educational value. Does anyone seriously think a penis surrounded by grass is somehow an important niche we need to illustrate? And if so, does that mean we should keep any and all new images of penises as long they’re in an unusual setting? user:Threecharlie made good points in their original nomination and user:Marcok seconded them. The two keep voters just seemed convinced of the intrinsic value of penises in random, but unique, contexts, which was apparently good enough for the closing admin. But it’s not good enough for me and probably wouldn’t be good enough for a majority of people who saw this image Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per previous DR. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
1975 self portrait? Not own work Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This photo is in my possession, the subject of the photo left it to me in her inheritance, and I know for a fact that she made it herself (she often did this) with the use of a self-timer and tripod.
- Thank you for your mindfulness! GksEOauJAn (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please contact COM:VRT so that this photo is not unnecessarily deleted, and thank you for uploading it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs VRT permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:03, 0:23-0:26, 1:22-1:28, 2:08-2:13, 3:34-3:51), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It would also be difficult to argue de minimis when large parts of the video zooms in and focuses on copyrighted 3D artwork. --Cold Season (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)- Not a reason to delete the file, those cutscenes can be blacked. About the 3D Artwork, why do we assume that the authors did'nt autorize the Chinese State News Agency to use those artworks?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Talking about assuming is irrelevant (and let's say that they did authorized them to use it, so what?). You need to provide evidence that the 3D artwork is free to be used, if that's the angle you are arguing. It is not free, per the copyright as stated by Game Science. The 3D artwork does not appear incidentally and is, in fact, the main focus of the video. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Resolved by uploader. --Cold Season (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
New blacked version uploaded. Working on the other video too.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Revdelled original and license reviewed. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:12), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not a reason to delete the file, those scenes can be blacked.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then you should black the scene before uploading the file.--№.N (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Blacked, done.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Revdelled original and license reviewed. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, als Urheber wird Schaller GmbH angegeben, Urheber kann aber nur einr natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Credit and Copyright to images can be held by a company if the work was for hire and the photographer agreed. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 03:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. --Krd 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Krd. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Der Name dieser Datei entspricht nicht der dargestellten Person. Das Bild wird bereits unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drachenfels_Litho.jpg verwendet unter der richtigen Bezeichnung. Eine zeitgenössische Darstellug von Ludwig von Stieglitz ist unter https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Stieglitz#/media/Datei:Ludwig_Baron_Stieglitz_1779_Arolsen_-1843_St._Petersburg.jpg zu finden, die mit den erhaltenen Ölporträts in Übereinstimmung zu bringen ist. Sixtnitgern (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sixtnitgern: Peter Geymayer, der das Bild hochgeladen hat, ist leider schon verstorben. --Kuhni74 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE. Edit the file description as needed and change the filename or request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can`t find any possibilty to rename this file or to request COM:File renaming.It is not even necessary: The same file is already existing with the correct file name here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drachenfels_Litho.jpg . To compare you can find a photograph of Drachenfels (1795–1863) here:
- www.lagis-hessen.de/de/subjects/rsrec/sn/bio/register/person/entry/drachenfels%252C%2Bchristopher%252A%2Bfriedrich%2Bfreiherr%2Bvon
- May be, the inventary of the Albertina-Collection is wrong. But Ludwig von Stieglitz is not the Person shown here, L v. S. died 1843 in St. Petersburg in the age of 64, much older than this person her. A real lithography portrait of Ludwig Baron Stieglitz i linked above. It is not signed, the artist not known. Sixtnitgern (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE, will rename shortly. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Same argument as I made in Commons:Deletion requests/File:RS Group plc logo.jpg; the UK has a very low threshold for copyright protection. It would be fine to host locally on enWiki and deWiki. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:RS Group plc logo.jpg. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
low quality, there’s a better svg version uploaded Yeagvr (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
copyvio: According to the file information, the author says that this logo is copyright-free, but it is unclear whether this means it is in the public domain (or licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0). So this logo may not be acceptable on Commons. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
[edit]Architect is Max Dudler, how is still alive. Up today we don't have a permission from Max Dudler. Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. See also previous discussions.
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 08.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 09.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 12.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 13.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 14.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 15.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 17.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 18.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 20.jpg
- File:2021-07-19 U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 21.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.webm
- File:Berlin-Mitte U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-001.jpg
- File:Berlin-Mitte U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
- File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 01.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 02.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel Berlin 2023-02-25 03.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-msu-1107-.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel-msu-1113-.jpg
Lukas Beck (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep copyright extremism see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama & Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_in_Germany. I do believe these photos are covered by freedom of panorama. Multichill (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama does clearly not apply to interior shots in Germany. This is clearly stated in this section. How do you come to the conclusion that this should suddenly no longer be true? You even link to the right article. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Picture * File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg was shot during an offical press ceremony by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), including an accreditation process. Only selected persons had access. The owner (BVG) permited photograph shots. In this case, freedom of panorama does not exist at all. Further, the train is here the main topic of the picture. So whats the problem? Trouper3000 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- owner and copyright holder are two different thinks! Lukas Beck (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- The architect designed the station in behalf of the BVG so they should have the rights. Otherwise they could not make such an event. I think normally we trust accreditations, especially if they are from public institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- owner and copyright holder are two different thinks! Lukas Beck (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Picture * File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg was shot during an offical press ceremony by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), including an accreditation process. Only selected persons had access. The owner (BVG) permited photograph shots. In this case, freedom of panorama does not exist at all. Further, the train is here the main topic of the picture. So whats the problem? Trouper3000 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama does clearly not apply to interior shots in Germany. This is clearly stated in this section. How do you come to the conclusion that this should suddenly no longer be true? You even link to the right article. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The proposal to accept photos inside train stations in Germany has not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . It was finalized after this DR was started. So regrettably, these photos have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
[edit]Copyright protection! German freedom of panorama does not apply for interior shots. The architect is Max Dudler, who is still alive.
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 02.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 03.jpg
- File:Berlin U-Bahnstation - Museumsinsel (Oktober 2023) 04.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lukas Beck (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing sufficiently creative to copyright. It's a simple granite stone wall and a blue ceiling. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I revised my desicion, per this discussion on my talk page. , the ceiling it is not simple blue, it is a starry sky based on creative design. Ping User:IronGargoyle for courtesy. -- Ellywa (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
[edit]Photo's of this starry ceiling are uploaded again and again. This is not allowed, the design is still copyrighted, and there is no FOP in Germany. Photos inside train stations in Germany have in addition not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . Therefore these images should be deleted imho.
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 02.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 03.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 04.jpg
- File:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel in August 2024 - BugWarp 05.jpg
Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- "there is no FOP in Germany". Wrong. 100% wrong. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you not willing to understand? "there is no FOP in Germany" was written. This is definetly wrong. Untrue. And again, also for you: We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness! Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- But the wording makes buildings the exception, not the rule? Like: the rule is you can photograph everything that is in public space. The only thing that you can not photograph despite it being a permanent public space are interiors of buildings. But anything other than buildings can be photographed even if it's the interiors of that "something". Are train (or metro) stations/platforms "buildings"? They don't have a façade — does that mean that they are not buildings? They are also permanently publicly accessible and they serve (at least occasionally) as underpasses (or overpasses) and thus are "paths"? So, do they fall under the "rule" or do they fall under the "exception" that specifically only applies to "buildings"? I would call a metro station a "building". It's rather a "tunnel". And in Germany, metro stations usually aren't accessed through a building-like structure either. There are just stairs on the street that lead downstairs like to an underpass. The stations also often have an exit on both sides — just like "tunnels". The stations are also just platforms within a metro tunnel. It's like an underground road for a metro, where the station is not a "building" of its own but just a "pit stop" / parking space for metros. It's just a niche within a tunnel. And tunnel interiors would fall under FoP I'd think because they are basically just roads with a ceiling; they are not buildings. Nakonana (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- According to the building regulations (Musterbauordung) train stations are buildings through the permission process is different to other buildings. In the fee schedule (HOAI) they are not in the building category as they have their own category. But they are not public places like streets as they are owned by a public company and not directly by a public authority and they are not declared as public streets. GPSLeo (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The reversal above is clearly wrong. Sometimes we adhere too much to consistent decisions even when the past decisions were clearly wrong. Just having pinpoint lights in a ceiling is not sufficiently creative. Note that there is nothing artistic about their placement. It is a simple repeating pattern. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete -- I don't think it has to be a complex painting or the like. Sometimes it's also a simple but creative idea what counts, and in case of a "starry sky"-like ceiling of an underground station it's definitely a creative idea. And yes, according to German law interior shots, including public interiors, are not FoP-covered. @Marcus Cyron: does Wikimedia Deutschland do any effort to get German FoP laws amended in more liberal direction for us? --A.Savin 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think there are definitely efforts in the background. There was also the idea that we need to bring this question to the court in some way but in the past there was not a singe known case where the architect of a train or underground station tried to enforce the copyright on the building. GPSLeo (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- How should I know? I don't have any ties to this club anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- There I see only a {{PD-textlogo}}. Yes definitely, architectural design is more complex anyway. --A.Savin 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A.Savin perhaps Rosenzweig is still a member of Wikimedia Deutschland? I have to admit, while Germany is the birthplace of FoP and an antithesis of France which is against commercial FoP, the FoP law does seem outdated and only applicable to the era before the prevalence of information technology and digital media. In particular, German courts tend to not give FoP rights to photographers who use drones or helicopters to photograph works from air. The German FoP, by its essence, is almost the same as its incarnation during much of the 20th century (and was originally giving rights to painters who reproduce buildings and sculptures in their paintings and then to sell those paintings without permissions from architects or sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a Wikimedia member. --Rosenzweig τ 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also wouldn't say that the ceiling is star-like. Those just round LED lamps in a blue-painted ceiling. They don't have a star-shape (in the way that stars are often represented in art 🌟 ). It's also not a starry sky because you can't see stars when the sky is blue; you can only see them at night when the star is nearly black; and stars have "random" placement, they don't come in lines and rows like here. Would you still say that it is a starry sky or a creative ceiling if the ceiling was painted light blue (like during day time) or even red/orange to represent sunset? Nakonana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep A blue ceiling with small white dots in pretty much the most square/generic pattern possible, and as such far below the TOO. Weather the (obvious) intent is to depict a night sky or anything else is irrelevant, what matters is the work itself and that is too simple. If the copyright
paranoiavigilance is too stong, we can also crop out the sky. ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)- Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per COM:UA, Germany has a higher threshold of originality for applied art, and this remains a VERY simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Gnom: would this be below the ToO? Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Abzeronow: I think we would have a hard time arguing that the design of the Museumsinsel station is below the threshold of originality under German copyright law, which is why photos of it have been regularly deleted for quite some time.
- While I am here, I should note that the statement quoted by @IronGargoyle is incorrect, Germany abandoned the special threshold of originality for applied art in 2013 (which did not include architecture in the first place). If you want to know more about this, you can read my PhD thesis which discusses this exact legal question... XD Gnom (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion, previous DRs were correct and the starry ceiling is copyrightable. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel
[edit]For the same reason as all other deletion requests before. There is no FoP for interior views in Germany.
Lukas Beck (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Das verstehe ich nicht. Author von diesen Design braucht Geld um solche Fotos zu posten? Ich dachte es ist Ehre und Reklame für ihm.
- Also, es gilt für alle U-Bahn Stationen in Deutschland? Penguin9 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Deutschland haben wir diese Einschränkung betreffend Innenaufnahmen und, wie auch anderswo, wenn seit dem Tod des Autors (hier: des Architekten) noch keine 70 Jahre vergangen sind. Bedeutet: beispielsweise dieses U-Bahn-Foto ist für Commons unbedenklich, da es eine Außenaufnahme ist und für solche hierzulande in jedem Fall Panoramafreiheit gilt. Und bei Fotos von U-Bahnstationen, die von Alfred Grenander (gestorben 1931) entworfen sind, sind sowohl Außen- als auch Innenaufnahmen unbedenklich. --A.Savin 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination and previous DRs. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [58]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely from a newspaper. Font looks a little later than 1920s to me. Abzeronow (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [59]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Going by this and OmegaFallons talk page, as well as my own experiences dealing with it there seems to be a lot of problems with this template. Just to name a few it leads to a bunch of overcategorization. As well as the addition of pointless and obtuse dublicate categories to category structures that are already complex enough without the template being involved. There is also no way what-so-ever to deal with that because the template makes it impossible to remove or otherwise delete the problematic categories it created and added.
It doesn't help that OmegaFallon seems unable or unwilling to deal with most, if not all, of the issues it's causing. There was also no discussion about it or approval by the wider before it was implemented. Which there really should have been considering the massive number of categories it involves. Apparently the template isn't super intuitive or easy to edit either and it doesn't help that there's no documentation. So it should just be deleted. There's no reason we need a template like this one for this particular thing anyway. Nor is there a valid reason to make it impossible to edit or remove categories from thousands of subcategories just because a single user thinks their way of categorizing things is the best way to do it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion is well possible, including 6 stupid redirects, after removing ca 7'000 transclusions. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly how they work but apparently there's also like 9 subtempletes that will have to be dealt with as well. So its certainly going to be a hassle to deal with, but that's just all the more reason to delete it IMO. Clearly the things way to complex. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair. You think I should nominate them for deletion now or it be better to just let an admin deal with them after this is closed depending on how it goes? (I think you could argue they should probably be deleted regardless of what ends up being the outcome of this, but I don't want to screw anything up by nominating for them for deletion in the meantime if there's some wierd dependency thing involved in it or something). --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? No. I want to delete however many it takes to cleanup the mess. If that's three, cool. If it's all 7000, that's cool to. I didn't look at every single category before I started this though because it's really a separate issue IMO to the overall issues caused by the template. I did decide to take this particular route instead of just nominating the 7000 categories for deletion in separate individual deletion requests though because the categories will just recreated or added back to other ones if they are deleted without template being dealt with in the meantime.
- So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- But the fact is that most, if not, all "meta categories with double criteria" are either just totally pointless, duplicate existing categories, make no sense, clearly go against the guidelines or have some combination of those issues. So say I have 5 of those 7000 categories deleted. Then all it takes is someone adding this template to something and we're right back where we started. That's fine, but I do think that we as users should have the say in how and when this template is used and it's pretty clear we don't have the say in either one.
- In a perfect world that could probably be solved by pairing it down and documenting it. I don't really see that happening though and I rather live in reality then let it continue causing problems for no other reason then...What exactly? "Someone created it so it must be worth having"? It seems like you at least agree with me that it's a mess. It's fine if you don't think deleting the template is the way to clean it up. But realistically what actual alternative to deal with it beyond that is there at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- As currently used, it certainly has some inappropriate results, e.g. it gives Category:Buildings by function by condition a non-existent parent Category:Countries by function by condition. Fayenatic london (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lol that category makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as nobody wants to fix it. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The template causes problems at Category:Music by genre, please at least fix it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The concept is good, but the execution can be hard to work with and most people probably wouldn't know how to fix it. In addition, there are probably more special cases for "double meta cats" than there are for "single meta cats", and to accommodate them all would make the code very complex. I came across this discussion because I found the template populating Category:Countries by city by year (which isn't defined) with several kinds of things, none of which were countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also just found the template populating Category:Countries by color by country with things that aren't countries. I think this and the one I mentioned above were supposed to be "Categories by" instead of "Countries by". --Auntof6 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And another one: Category:Countries by quantity by country (hasn't been created, but it's populated). -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I would keep the template, as it also has advantages. A uniform, precise categorization. The template is used in an almost four-digit number. If it were simply deleted, it would lead to chaos, tear huge gaps in the existing category system and lead to uncontrolled growth with different sorting for similar structures. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's broken and apparently nobody can fix it.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's broken and apparently nobody can fix it.
Keep unless there is a definite plan how clean up after deletion. --Krd 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not neccessarily my wheel house but I'm more then willing to put the work into cleaning it up when or if there's a consensus and plan to deal with it. I don't think something like this should be kept purely because there's plan to deal with it yet though. There's reason there would be at this point anyway. But I was already planning to deal with that aspect of it once we agree it should be dealt with (assuming we do of course). --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Kept per Krd. --Bastique ☎ let's talk! 15:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)