Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 11th, 2013
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 16:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

another low-quality penis image Polarlys (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Low quality, COM:PENIS. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality, small penis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, small penis, besides: COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Added to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cenkbora -mattbuck (Talk) 16:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

another low-quality penis image Polarlys (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Low quality, COM:PENIS Jean-Fred (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Badly censored version of another commons image. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is no censored,(Is so good) but doesnt mean visitors must watch naked people when is no necessary.--EEIM (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Agreed with EEIM, but File:Sharka Blue crop.jpg already serves this purpose. In any case, I think this could be useful as an example of how nudity is sometimes censored. The article en:Pixelization says that "Footage of nudity (including genitals, buttocks, nipples or areolae) is likewise obscured in some media". I added this image to that article. Handcuffed (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Now in use ergo in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

screenshot of a software and/or a web page whose license and copyright status are unclear. Mys 721tx (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file contains personal information in this history file.The link to this page was correctly maintained for deletion.This file was replace with /File:木の葉石化石園m.jpg. 地理仙人 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

個人情報を含むため。Because t his file 地理仙人 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this file contains privacy information to be protected and the disignated link has been properly maintained.This file was replaced by File:木の葉化石園m.jpg which does not contain the privacy information. 地理仙人 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have move comments above given by 地理仙人, to better structure this papge. --whym (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete for possible copyright violation. Independently from the above request claiming privacy protextion, the text depicted seems copyrightable. --whym (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No licence covering the copyright in the text MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

at my request Cezarika1 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 04:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

At my request. Cezarika1 (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Original source seems to be defensa.com with is "Copyright © 2013 Defensa.com. Todos los derechos reservados". -- Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 21:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No license info provided, not free. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiv8dICRo42Pgf9V5r_1XDcUFbB2AiFJZIoA_18HE-VTm1F4Pmxn1xMm2h3g3WMEgUiC-zTT6aCDWWh72iffUCN65yVsUCbIUSL5MXLuRXvj_1gvjIOmyW9saZbJmim4Or54EJaZKhPmHY6_1G_1vlrmnHLRrfxMCxuuHgskcuKl5V19SUr3LJE0qHLMXIsFlXlG2clvuX5Nv71C-kKnG2tGpJsXNF-XrVsKW3YZASWTbFudeDnxMO7IIElFF62KNRPPJhOkUsJi0rwVblhwRpGheq7mrQfrejU7vB5-LBHfMxDC8m-VMB-76vwv1f3r_1hT2dNUccB7FzdNKKZj6VOLQLw3dWUaWq27u5KrvU0UlikRTzWvgPUhCzs89N9KqPdkDqWbi205L-B6dMVC9vTbyvUuNHSEyYIU129yvJD3JWRc-qctjArjNuquHSch0E7CAF-9CWeMbPYACzeptncGUgJU8FZRNG5k4ue5SnKtGPHAYlxcO7NIp0mk8MFTFdHPGQA5PhQ0PWlj08-Ybyv6ipBOeBIROwkM6QIDP1OC341Z9mx9PsuggY0tblabU7FXS7rXrneTw-W-HkuYApYdgw4MJ1KrdpBRTz32QIEQP6gu1fwIdij2khhz0g2hoKpk56HYQEF9wJqvtEwnToF2xFDf2-xcWcDndxvE-UZe9GkZwyxhFykeNnDGKl4-fb4a1gag2uPa5Zfv5jzCex5NaUMmAY_17FOUyiNev0xcGGXXRlxBOydr0Vb820tPwYIPqhFOpK7c4hrdSgc9DhQwGw87YMmRjgeEF6lDdDPViOCbpZOiAmv6ty9WkQGPLjVWH4-7BUmZydcNYhjossVdm06lEyrXptoawGJi9BLxNsfGCoPFoVP2Z86B0qgETL9dpP9xUfzL59GDZ3QSoIvL-FRWAdiQgh0JHBtwkRfkOg_1xXG7FThPUaDqTNfTi0ohg6MPHF_1yor3twjdP96EnQxogPMT3LivMrMKS8vURG1DqIWq35_1b0Bb6-PWCaZzCa22l2AhzNyvQQTwmERBD9FJWmCMhMI4k7bWbsN8lqEw4rsROjPVryGEp00NrQvz4EtTzF0V1aPt9ddLONlLRUR5VQVfJSnx2qtaFqQWCDqSg_1hrQ0lNPrPRndbLTBL7Q5WMcU1rWl_1ZovADoxKtwINxE5HaNSlE4bBpjsRc_13TdFVH_1ZuLpjidE2mmtvDv12tc6_1gH80x6USZ00c56pl68LsRJIwK7xH2TrrC644Weg97HoEhxzea3j9xEoA8Xn2FPhwf3c1YKCSNd_1-hfZAx_1dpFCxzJInSMWSzdoQ06vLAPwL_139rAR6eY&safe=off&bih=787&biw=1407 Nick Moreau (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Blatant and obvious copyvio, or at the very least, image uploaded without attempt at permission, or simply missing permission documentation. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Poor quality - B&W and cropped. I have uploaded somebetter quality images of myself. Sut Jhally Sutjhally (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: In use. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: please replace usage first McZusatz (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is an image of me and is of poor quality - B&W and cropped. I have uploaded some higher quality images. Sutjhally (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: In use. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Please replace usage first. McZusatz (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope, unused, patent nonsense/vandalism, uncertain copyright status. This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no license (no license) Ricordisamoa 23:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no license at all JuTa 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence that photographer Torgeir Haugaard did release this image under a free license. It's rather unlikely that the forum poster is the image creator. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

On Flickr under a CC-NC-ND license Nick Moreau (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: clear case. JuTa 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low-resolution map, superseded by Moose_distribution.png. Furthermore its accuracy is disputed: see the newer image’s talk page. Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

en:Cytosine not en:Cysteine is what forms a en:base pair with Guanine. Structure is okay but in-image caption is incorrect. And the quality is terrible too (have File:GC base pair jypx3.png) DMacks (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete In addition to the incorrect label, both chemical structures are incorrect. Guanine is missing a nitrogen atom. Cytosine is missing a double bond. Ed (Edgar181) 19:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused and extremely low quality. Have File:AT base pair jypx3.png for example as replacement. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to falsely suggest that the O is sp3-like (the two lone-pairs are not actually like the diagram...see cited commentary at en:Molecular orbital diagram#Water MO diagram) and the ~104.3° angle is the H–O–H not H–O–lp DMacks (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation. Note that in this en.wik edit the original uploader explicitly says its copyrighted...but obviously this person did not take a 19th century photograph Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not own work: source/author says "Yunlin County Government". Even if we presume this is actually a local government work rather than something licensed by them for their website, Taiwanese copyright law does not appear to exempt local government works from copyright. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not own work: source/author says "Yunlin County Government". Even if we presume this is actually a local government work rather than something licensed by them for their website, Taiwanese copyright law does not appear to exempt local government works from copyright. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Probably taken from http://www.southdreamz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tamil-actor-vadivelu.jpg. The file is missing evidence of permission. Vensatry (Ping me) 05:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is not an image taken by the uploader as he is in the image. Therefore, claims of own work not true. Image use is not restricted to user page (in which case, it might have been allowed) but is being used on article pages. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, which means that the image is not 'own work' as claimed. We need to delete this unless the uploader can provide permission via OTRS.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a cpvio of the food-wrapper design which is not simple text and a 2D-work. But, the image can perhaps be kept after cropping. However, I cannot comprehend whether the photograph intends to exhibit the wrapper itself or the food? What food is it and do we have other free images of that? Image is also previously published on the net here. Should perhaps be deleted as per COM:PRP IMO. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite right. The drawing is too prominent to be de minimis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, which means that the image is not 'own work' as claimed. We need to delete this unless the uploader can provide permission via OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, which means that the image is not 'own work' as claimed. We need to delete this unless the uploader can provide permission via OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The photo was taken by someone other than the uploader, which means that the image is not 'own work' as claimed. We need to delete this unless the uploader can provide permission via OTRS. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Seems to have been taken in the 1950s by someone who was born in 1910, so it isn't even 70 years old yet. Stefan4 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Who is this? Delete as photo of non-notable person. Also suspicious copyrightwise, used on Facebook. Rosenzweig τ 11:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes File:José Moya Martin.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 19:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: Vandalism only image on ru:wiki High Contrast (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Clearly not own work; between Russian law and the URAA, the real copyright status of this file is unclear to me. Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP does not apply in Norway. This will be PD in Norway in January 2014. Themightyquill (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FOP does not apply in Norway. This will be PD in Norway in January 2014. Themightyquill (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No known Freedom of Panorama exception for Ethiopia. Artwork is dated 1993. Themightyquill (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Description states "for educational purposes only", which conflicts with the "any use" aspect of CC licence. Given the username, I am somewhat dubious as to the provenance. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Failuploading Laketown (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does not cover works inside buildings. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete I'm sure he's awesome but he's out of scope! Sarah (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Likely a Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. Per FOP-exemption of Germany this would only be legitimate if the shot was taken from public ground (position of the photographer). Photographer needs to comment. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does cover only photographies that were created from public ground (position of the photographer). -- Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

was supposed to have transparent background but hasnt worked →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: unused file, small resolution Hystrix (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, only 225×225 pixels, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image does not meet my standards of quality — it never did, I thought at least someone could use it, but this is obviously not the case Manuela (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Identical to this image; clearly not taken by the claimed author Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image comes from the actor's website (http://www.edwinmorrow.com/). The uploader purports to be the actor. Even if true, there's no evidence that the picture was taken by him or that he owns the rights to it. Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It says that this is in the public domain because it was published at least 50 years ago, but it doesn't say when or where it was published, so the claim can't be verified. Stefan4 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused logo, outside scope. –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence that it was published before 1923. Stefan4 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The flickr source says "Photos courtesy of Christian Care Communities. Used with permission." So, Christian Care Communities is the actual copyright holder, not the USDA unfortunately. Leoboudv (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image can be found on this page, which has a displayed copyright notice. (not CC-BY). Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 February 14#File:Mazuranic2.jpg. The original upload log suggests that it is the same image. Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

uploader claimed as his own work when in actuality it was copied from school's website http://mhchs.ccs.k12.nc.us/ Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I can't find the author's date of death, but I can find that he worked until at least 1944, meaning he didn't die 70 years ago; the uploader is lying. See hr:Stjepan Srkulj. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: he died in 1951.[1] That means the work is not PD in Croatia until 2022 (per Template:PD-Croatia)), and is PD in the US until 2033. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

image used only in an attack page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to be a copy from http://www.sinarharian.com.my/politik/beri-peluang-kedua-kata-perwakilan-umno-kedah-1.108358 Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy from http://www.kualalumpurpost.net/saya-bawa-duit-2-juta-dalam-tong-ikan-ke-rumah-menteri-besar-mahdzir-khalid-untung-jual-udang/ Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Author information is contradictorily to the author information in the EXIF. Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does not cover works inside buildings. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does not cover works inside buildings. -- H. Helmlechner (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does not cover works inside buildings. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)7[reply]

Derivative of the copyrighted original work by artist Hundertwasser, who died only in year 2000. FOP-exemption of Germany does not cover works inside buildings. -- H. Helmlechner (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I transferred this to Commons years ago and forgot to take care of it. This is a sculpture created in/resides in the United States which does not have a freedom of panorama. For those wondering, this is a sculpture consisting of a piece of steel and a piece of the World Trade Center post-9/11. -Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that in order to use a photograph of the sculpture, Wikipedia would need permission from the artist? Mgreason (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would work too. Whoever creates works of art like sculptures and statues own the copyright to it, so if they do release the work into the public domain, then sure. The creator of the work is former Bartram Trail High School teacher Robert Kirk. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked Bob down. He is now teaching at Episcopal High School in Jax, so I sent him this email-

My name is Mark Greason, and one of my hobbies is contributing to Wikipedia. I live in Jacksonville and work at Gate Petroleum. Soon after your "Victory V" statue at Bartram Trail High School was dedicated, I took a picture of the sculpture that I included in the article I wrote about the school in 2008. Last week, a Wikipedia administrator noticed that the picture of the sculpture did not have permission of the artist, so the picture was tagged for deletion unless Wikipedia receives permission from you.

This was his response-

Hey Mark, I would be glad to give Wikipedia permission to use that and any other picture of the Victory sculpture or any other images of myself or my work. Thanks, Bob Kirk

What's next? Mgreason (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for doing that. Have the evidence he is willing to submit it under a free license to COM:OTRS. The instructions for sending evidence Mr. Kirk is releasing it under is at the top of the page I linked. It should just be a matter of e-mailing OTRS the evidence and waiting for their response. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Closed as kept pending OTRS. I have tagged the image as missing permission. Commons needs verification from the artist that they are willing to share this under a free license; send or forward to Commons:OTRS. If not permission is documented within the next week or so, image will be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I would like to modify the fie completely with latest information. And as a user i don't want this text available online for the users and readers. Amarnageshkumar (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Orphan uncategorized file, uploader request, no evidence of in scope usefulness. Uploader: Please do not upload a new version unless some usefulness can be shown per Commons:Project scope, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Samuel Ting has photos, so this user created drawing would probably now be outo of scope russavia (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, in use. Amitie 10g (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as kept per Amitie 10g. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The statue is an artwork made by Masatomo Nakagawa in 1990. see ja::Honda-Tadakatsu statue Kuwana.jpg [2] No FOP in source country.

Nightingale (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The statue of en:Honda Tadakatsu (ja:本多忠勝) at Kyuka Park (ja:九華公園) in Kuwana City was created by Masatomo Nakagawa (ja:中川正知) in 1990. [3] No FoP in Japan for 3D works.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The statue of en:Honda Tadakatsu (ja:本多忠勝) at Okazaki park (ja:岡崎公園 (岡崎市)) was created by Motohiro Suzuki (ja:鈴木基弘) in 1982. [4] The year of his death is 2007. [5] No FoP in Japan for 3D works.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Binumaruthoor

[edit]

Private family photographs, out of project scope --Ies (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Bettyscheer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per OTRS ticket 2013051910000663 - Jcb (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Blkbarrister (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Private pictures of user, out of project scope.

Martin H. (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Colbarre (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Herrera.lina (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Hooolis (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Paintings with no author information. I have had no luck finding out who painted these and when, which is necessary to determine their copyright status. The photos seem to be taken in Luxembourg, so no freedom of panorama is given.

–⁠moogsi (blah) 23:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to contact the uploader on his local Wikipedia, but he didn't answer. I would delete the files. --Nefronus (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jaapounet (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. Photo doesn't seem to be own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Lo Gat (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mitramind (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mitramind (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely authorship claims based on the uploader's history and the nature of the content.

LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This of course also applies to File:Glob-umsoi.png, a different version of File:Glob umsoi.jpg uploaded after the initial nomination. LX (talk, contribs) 11:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mitramind (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mitramind (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Text only files which could be replaced with wiki-mark-up.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Naqsh75 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Private pictures of user, out of project scope.

Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Princetonnature (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No evidence of permission.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eugene,

These permissions have all been emailed to WikiCommons and will be given permission under the ticket #2013042210010844 . Please research that ticket to see the story behind me (A Princeton University Press employee) uploading Richard Crossley's images with his permission.

Thanks,

John

As the OTRS agent handling the ticket, I can confirm the above. I'm tagging the images now. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 03:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per OTRS received -- all files will be dealt with with OTRS, licencing, removal of DR in coming hours russavia (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by TheSoemthingsOfficial (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Private picturea of user, out of project scope.

Martin H. (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

PD-textlogo? I think this logo isn't simple art and basic letter Alan (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion? That's a simple art logo. Example:
From the template description: This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain.
--Rezonansowy (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Untuk menjaga keamanan file dari penyalahgunaan. 180.251.173.215 08:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I do not understand Indonesian, but the file is used. Taivo (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Google Translate says “To maintain the security file from abuse.”—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Untuk menjaga keamanan file dari penyalahgunaan. 180.251.175.89 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: wat FASTILY 06:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use; unclear what the deal with the last deletion request was Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Nbound as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Appears to be a photograph a screenshot or printout (you may need to zoom in), but author does not explain why copyright does not apply to their derivative image.MarcoAurelio (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Obviously a scan. Unused file. Lupo 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not own work, probably not Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i've photographed it in the city, but i don't sure that i can published it Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Can u telll me which template is suitable for this poster. Thanks. Urek Meniashvili (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Urek, in general, a poster has been designed by someone, so someone owns copyright. Just taking a picture does not mean you own the copyright. It is up to you to find out whether you can publish this image wordwilde. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've understood. Thanks. Urek Meniashvili (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: photo of copyrighted poster. Lupo 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Firebowl2.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Firebowl3.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Firebowl4.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Firebowl01.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Firebowl5.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong  Keep! This is the only picture of Georg Danzer we have in a high resolution. And its also a very good one! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there are no other pictures with a reasonable resolution. I checked out some time ago, and I thought there were, does my memory play tricks on me? Or have those pics been deleted in the meantime? Anyway, danke für das Lob. I have some more of that kind, same concert, do you think the could be useful? --Manuela (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. I did not realize the resolution of the picturs of G.D. in commons, Manuela (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo! Ich denke, dass solche Bilder eine wichtige Ergänzung wären, sie sind ja leider nicht wiederholbar. Hier kann man grundsätzlich alles gebrauchen, das halbwegs mit den Projektzielen vereinbar ist, auch wenn es derzeit gerade keine Verwendung dafür gibt. Das betrifft natürlich auch alle deine anderen Aufnahmen hier. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, danke für die Rückmeldung. Du bist bis jetzt der einzige, der überhaupt irgendeine Meldung zu meinen Löschanträgen abgegeben hat. Ist es zulässig, einen zweiten Account bei wikimedia einzurichten, wo ich solche Bilder online stellen könnte? Wenn ja, kann man die Bilder von einem Account zu einem anderen verschieben? Viele Grüße, Manuela (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grundsätzlich kann jeder soviele Accounts anmelden, wie er will, da ja kein Identitätsnachweis erforderlich ist. Bei "heiklen Motiven" durchaus sinnvoll. Ein Missbrauch ist natürlich unerwünscht und führt bei Auffliegen zur Sperre. Gehe ich Recht mit meiner kleinen Spekulation, dass Du bloß nicht möchtest, das deine Kunden beim googeln nach deinem Namen auf deine fotografischen, noch nicht so professionell anmutenden "Jugendsünden" stoßen?. ;-) Man kann in diesem Fall entweder einfach dazu stehen oder aber bei Commons:Changing_username nach professioneller Hilfe suchen. Das kann zwar etwas dauern, ist aber einfacher, als einen neuen Account anlegen und dann händisch alles neu hochladen. Falls du noch Fragen hast, bitte alles weitere auf meiner Diskussionsseite. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same picture now uploaded under new username File:GeorgDanzer'06.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence of the alleged permission. Also no author named, since an author must be a person in Germany, not an institution like the one that is named as author. Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much, but isn't institutional ownership possible for images created before 1966, per section 5 of de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only in very narrow circumstances which would have to be proven. Namely that institution would have to be a Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts, it would have to be named in the work (a book normally) as Herausgeber, and no author (a person) must be named. Or in the words of said law: „Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechts, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.“ --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per above. If anonymous publication, copyrighted until the end of 2021. Lupo 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:SteinböckHerbert.JPG please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate. Lupo 12:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Fake. See ru:Википедия:К оценке источников#Оскорбительная карта со страницы Гетманщина for details. vlsergey (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but change If I remember correctly I (only) transfered this card from English Wikipedia to Wikipedia Commons (so I did not make it); I am not an historian so I assumed that because nobody (ever) questioned this card at English Wikipedia its content was historically correct.... and according to this map in a book published by Cambridge University Press the size and borders of the Cossack Hetmanate on this map are correctly displayed. I don't speak Russian and I never actually discovered that "Muscovy" is called "Moskali" on this map... (if I understand correctly these namings ("Moskali", "Busurmanov" etc.) is vlsergey main reason for this delete request) I agree this should not be so and I apologise if my lack of paying attention to it caused any harm or bad feelings. But instead of just deleting the card it is better to change it... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about replacing "Location of Cossack Hetmanate.png" with this map? I all else fails... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't have the right equipment to change the map...Another map someone can use to change "Location of Cossack Hetmanate.png"Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are unfortunately both png, which is very difficult to change. May be contacting the creator of the second map could help.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for advice; and already did so (Alex Tora and Alex K are the same editor). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an under-sourced and controversial deletion request. A word currently considered a "slur" in some countries or languages may be perfectly neutral and relevant in historical articles. Editors who label well-established ethnonyms as "insults" should prepare for long politicized discussion, probably an edit war. Anyone itching to start one must come with full-size English arguments for starters. Instead of simply typing "fake".Ukrained2012 07:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
To start with, would you please explain what is meant by the city of "Kodak" on the map?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an under-sourced and controversial deletion request. As I understood the plot here on wikipedia, it's the prorussians here trying to delete or distort everything of Ukrainian origin or about Ukraine. I mean that Wikipedia should be the source of correct information, not some russian gameyard with their version of everything. I've already had a discussion with this Ymblanter, prorussian, and I saw it clearly that he is not here on Wikipedia to contribute, but to gather with other prorussians and write their version of everything. As for the matters of this map, it should be keept. Lifeglider (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure where you had discussion with me, and why did you come to the conclusion that I am not on Wikipedia to contribute. Anyway, on English Wikipedia the community does not seem to agree with you, since they recently gave me the administrator flag. I also hope that personal attacks will be removed from this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see, we have a SPA here, only one contribution which is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. It was not meant to be a personal attack, I'm really sorry if you see it that way. My intention was to clearify why some edits or deletes on wikipedia is taking place. I repeat, Wikipedia should be the place of correct information. Lifeglider (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly my point. The map currently provides incorrect information, in particular, by listing a city with the name "Kodak", calling Russians "Moskals" and calling Turks and Tatars "Basurmans". It could be easy to correct, the problem is that we do not have a svg version. Until such version is found, or until a new image is made with correct names, this one should go. It is clearly a bad joke of someone, not really a historical map.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to history books and articles, these historical terms (Basurmans, Moskals) were used by Ukrainian Cossacks in 16/17th century and until 20th century by natives in the country, and btw also by russians. And this map is used actually in articles about that time period (17th century) and native people called Ukrainian Cossacks, the use of the map hereby is correct. That's why this is a controversial deletion request. Thank you for your attention. Lifeglider (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? In the first half of the 20th century, it was common to address African Americans as "niggers". It does not mean that Wikipedia articles about this period should denote them as "niggers" (or articles about Ukrainians should denote them as "khokhols"). Now these words are derogatory, and using them is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And you failed to address the city of Kodak, please. Should we add Minolta as well?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So what?" you say. That is history, which nobody should rewrite, that's my point. And as I understand, the term "khokhol" is a suppressant word used by russians regarding Ukrainian natives, therefore I dont see how this term relate to the term "Moskal" in this discussion, which is a historical term used for describing a population in earlier centuries. There is only one explanaition to your hard agrumentation on this, which is that you are trying to distort history, unfortunately. And this is really very dissapointing, because this argumentation comes from a wikipedian bureaucrat and administrator. The wikipedian administrators and bureaucrats, who seeks to distort the information, they should resign. My relatives and colleagues search wikipedia every single day for information and my hope is that they dont have to read some fabricated stories here on wikipedia. Lifeglider (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid discussing with you further is pointless, since you are a single purpose account and you do not listen to what I say. Let the closing administrator decide whether derogatory statements are allowed on Commons even if 400 years ago they allegedly were no derogatory.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're totally right, this term 400 years ago was used as a term to describe a population, it was not used derogatory. Exactly, it's pointless to discuss when your arguments are emotionally charged. That's why this is an under-sourced and controversial deletion request and should be ignored. Thank you for understanding that. Lifeglider (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe time to cool down a little and try to understand the map. As far as I can see the person who made it wrote the names of nations instead of the names of the states, thus Moskali (=Muscovites) instead of Muscovy, Liakhy instead of Poland and Lytvyny instead of Lithuania. I would personally had prefered Muscovy, Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (or the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth) for example. And in English and not Ukrainian of course. I haven't heard of any Minolta Fortress but indeed Kodak Fortress [6]. Why are you so upset by that? Are you afraid the American company will sue Wikipedia for infringement? And as far as I can see the borders are more or less correct for the period 1648–1657. Are there any other problems? And the nominator still hasn't come with any other reason for deletion except for calling it a fake without any other explanations. Narking (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about Kodak, I remove my objection. My only objection remains then that the names used allegedly for nations sound now as derogatory. If they can be replaced with the names of the countries (Muscovy, Poland, and Grand Duchy of Lithuania), it would be certainly fine with me. Making another version with names translated into English would be even better; if there is a vector file available I could even do it myself. Note that I am not the nominator and I do not know what the nominator has in mind (I even happen to be not on speaking terms with him, but this is irrelevant for the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus above. Lupo 12:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Untuk menghindari penyalahgunaan 180.251.173.215 09:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the trademark-template to the image; this should prevent misuse issues. --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused file, and frankly said, I don't see why this company logo should not be copyrightable. For me, this passes the threshold of originality. Lupo 12:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar picture (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

low quality double of Mm 2 Firedrop (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

double of the same in .tif Firedrop (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File is unused on any Wikimedia project having been replaced by use of the Location map template. The template uses an accurate map of Wales, unlike the one in this image which has numerous issues. Note for example the difference in shape between the highlighted section and it's representation on the right hand map, in particular how the inlet to the right of the red dot on the left hand map is missing from the map on the right. The map is also split into three sections (two small ones in the south-east and then the rest) which don't seem to correspond to or represent anything and are misleading. Romabram1 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar (clearer) picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar to this. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Extremely low resolution, no EXIF data, possibly taken in 2011, would usually indicate a copyright violation of image taken elsewhere on the net. COM:PRP might need to apply here. russavia (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This file is certainly the work of User Alto in my opinion. And COM:PRP said, a flagrant copyright violation problems. But in this case, such an opinion isn't appropriate because his owns the copyright for this file. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This work worked by me. I think, there is no copyright problem.--Altostratus (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the copyright infomation needs supplementary explanation. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm not sure why the uploader thinks that this is in the public domain.

According to http://www.defap-bibliotheque.fr/catalogue/notice-simple.php?mfn=FRDEFAPSME000000011450 the photographer is "non identifié", but the uploader lists the photographer as "Bergeret Charles, Yvette". What is that information based on and where does it come from?

Cameroon appears to have a copyright term of life+50 years and the URAA date is 1 January 1996. Essentially, this means that any photo taken since 1946 still is copyrighted in the United States, as are many photos taken before 1946. One of the children on the photo, fr:Claude Njiké-Bergeret, was born in 1943, and it looks as if she could easily be older than two years and a half when the photo was taken, so there is no guarantee that the photo was taken before 1946. Stefan4 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the tag seems to be wrong. on the picture description : Date de prise de vue : 10/02/22--Score Beethoven (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is obviously also wrong. One of the children on the picture was born in 1943, so this was obviously not taken in 2010 as he would be an adult at that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description on the website doesn't claim that Claude Njiké-Bergeret is on the photograph (MM Quetin, Bergeret, Rey-Lescure - Mme Bornand - Mesdames Bergeret et Rey-Lescure, no first names given). Maybe she isn't. Then the photograph could have been taken on 10/02/22.--Stanzilla (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I assumed that this was the case since Commons has an {{ImageNote}} indicating that the person appears on the image. The French website only lists the people by surname. It looks like an old paper, but maybe you could fake that. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a comment on the website. Maybe they can clarify something.--Stanzilla (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) "Votre commentaire a bien été envoyé. Il sera affiché après validation de l'équipe de la bibliothèque."--Stanzilla (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yet, no wonder, it's Sunday. But I checked today who made the Imagenote. It was the uploader. So I strongly assume, that Claude Njiké-Bergeret is not depicted on the photograph and that it was a mistake. The imagenote should get deleted and the photograph should get either removed from her articles or the description changed to "The family Bergeret in 1922." or something similar.--Stanzilla (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)  Keep and fix.--Stanzilla (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The note is a mistake and I can not remove by myself. The photo is from 1922. There are other pictures from defap bobliotheque on Commons! --Score Beethoven (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the imagenote.--Stanzilla (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fix how? You have to show that this is in the public domain in the United States. Per COM:HIRTLE, anonymous unpublished family photos enter the public domain 120 years after they were taken, and this could easily be an anonymous unpublished family photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't think of COM:HIRTLE. Only possibility how it could be still public domain is its being published before 1923, right? Sadly there's not a description on the website, where the files come from.--Stanzilla (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete To make up for my error, I called the défap on the phone today and spoke with someone who is responsible for their library. He was surprised, that the photographs are on Wikimedia Commons. They gave some photographs to a man recently. That man said he was doing researches on the family Bergeret. But they didn't authorise a publication of said photographs. The défap inherited all the photographs from another association, that was dissolved not long ago. Those photographs had not been published before. I told the librarian of the défap if they would like to cooperate with Wikipédia they could use the Commons:OTRS system. But the librarian would rather give the photographs to relatives or descendants of the depicted persons.--Stanzilla (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed.

The uploader lists the photographer as "Bergeret Charles, Yvette" but http://www.defap-bibliotheque.fr/catalogue/notice-simple.php?mfn=FRDEFAPSME000000011463 lists the photographer as "non identifié". If the photographer indeed is "non identifié", then the photo is in the public domain in Cameroon.

It is not clear if the photo was published anywhere before it appeared on the website of the French library, though, so the source country might be France. If the photographer is "non identifié", then it presumably also is in the public domain in France.

It looks as a private family photo and not as something which would typically be published. If it was first published in recent times on that French website, then the photo is likely still protected by copyright in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some of his uploads now I assume the uploader does either not understand the upload form or gives a damn about filling it out correctly. The source website does not give the name of an author. Auteur : [non identifié] means author: unknown. While the title of the picture is E.Bergeret devant son cabinet de travail. Means it shows E. Bergeret and he's not the author. Thus the photograph is in the public domain.  Keep and fix.--Stanzilla (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would you "fix" this? It looks as if it could easily be an unpublished family photo. In the United States, the copyright to unpublished anonymous family photos lasts for 120 years since the photo was taken (see {{PD-US-unpublished}}). If I had known a way to "fix" it, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion in the first place. I agree that it is presumably in the public domain in both France and Cameroon, but Commons also requires it to be free in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right I forgot about Commons:Hirtle chart. It really depends on if it was published or not. I could try to call the Défap in Paris tomorrow, but I am not very optimistic that their office will know anything more about the pictures than they wrote on the website.--Stanzilla (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Stefan4--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete To make up for my error, I called the défap on the phone today and spoke with someone who is responsible for their library. He was surprised, that the photographs are on Wikimedia Commons. They gave some photographs to a man recently. That man said he was doing researches on the family Bergeret. But they didn't authorise a publication of said photographs. The défap inherited all the photographs from another association, that was dissolved not long ago. Those photographs had not been published before. I told the librarian of the défap if they would like to cooperate with Wikipédia they could use the Commons:OTRS system. But the librarian would rather give the photographs to relatives or descendants of the depicted persons.--Stanzilla (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 08:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: blatantly out of scope FASTILY 09:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:Statue of Saint Sebastian.jpg please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StPetrus of Alcantara.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StFlorian.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StSebastian1.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StJohnBaptist.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StRochus.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is obviously not useful for the community, I have uploaded a similar picture with background Manuela (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:StIgnazius.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The elimination of the background is not very good, and the communitiy does not need this image anyway Manuela (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:BearofMatzen.png please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image does not meet my standards of quality — it never did, but I thought at least someone could use it, but this is obviously not the case Manuela (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Manuela (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:SchretzmayerDoris.jpg please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image does not meet my standards of quality — it never did, I thought at least someone could use it, but this is obviously not the case Manuela (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Manuela (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the same file under CC-0: File:BrigitteJank1.jpg please delete this version now, thank you,

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image does not meet my standards of quality — it never did, I thought at least someone could use it, but this is obviously not the case Manuela (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the same file under CC-0: File:GabrieleHeinischHosek.jpg please delete this version now, thank you, --Manuela (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image does not meet my standards of quality — it never did, I thought at least someone could use it, but this is obviously not the case Manuela (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:FrauenbergerSandra.jpg please delete this version, --Manuela (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is a very good one compared to many other pictures we have. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same picture now uploaded under new username File:DoloresSchmidinger2004-04.JPG please delete this version now, --Manuela (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:DoloresSchmidinger2004-03.JPG please delete this version now, --Manuela (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:DoloresSchmidinger2004-02.JPG please delete this version now, --Manuela (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is of minor quality and obviously not useful for the community Manuela (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture now uploaded under new username File:DoloresSchmidinger2004-01.JPG please delete this version now, --Manuela (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bad-quality, scaled-down raster image; unused; vector alternative exists: Mesopotamia argentina.svg DmitTrix (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

double of the same "the cat" in .tif Firedrop (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Same images in another format are not considered duplicated. Amitie 10g (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Why on earth did I upload this picture? I have published an image of the same subject which has a much better quality and have already changed the page where the picture is used Manuela (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It documents the holes in back of the putto very well. I couldn't find an alternative one doing so. And please keep in mind that pictures not used in Wikipedia articles are not to be deleted. Commons is a repository of freely licensed media for every purpose. There may be someone outside the Wikimedia world who might find your pictures very useful. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It says that this is a derivative work of two images, one of them being File:Þorskmerki.jpg which was deleted in 2008 for lack of essential information. This means that there is some part of this representation of the coat of arms which does not have a source, a licence or some other essential information. Stefan4 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a derivative, it looks like a scan. The arms themselves certainly are PD-old. Fry1989 eh? 00:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 09:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Quite plainly not the uploader's own work, but a composite of images created by others. Perhaps it would be acceptable if all the individual umages were properly sourced and attributed, but it's the uploader's responsibility to provide this essential information when the file is uploaded The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I forgot to do that. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Yerevanci (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 09:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The author is unknown, yet it is claimed that this image is copyrighted free use. Who granted this use, who has the rights to this image? Something is wrong with this 1939 image. Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate licence will be provided by the son of of the author Eduard Hessdörfer and/or the Verein für corpsstudentische Geschichtsforschung.--Mehlauge (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eduard Hessdörfer is named in the file description's source as the person who wrote an article about this Kameradschaft, which apparently used this photo. But is he also the the photographer (= author of this photo)? The file description currently says "author: unknown". And what does said association (Verein) have to do with the copyright to this image? --Rosenzweig τ 21:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 09:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Restored: per OTRS Ticket: 2013052810004937--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

With the gradient, the logo meets threshold of originality. Kyores (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen logos with less originality deleted not meeting the threshold for having a gradient, but seeing that example makes me unsure what to think about this. Kyores (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 08:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gregory 14 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

May be public domain in counties of origin, but proper author/date of creation information is necessary.


EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of people dead before 1923 are obligatory unless copyright.

examples :

and more.

Others pictures shows buildings before 1923.

examples :

and more.

Others pictures are ancients drawings.

examples :

and more.

90% of the pictures are taken before 1923 so unless copyrights, and the others are uncertainness but possible.Gregory 14 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the pictures of writers who are problematics, but most that pictures are upload from Wikipedia in English. Gregory 14 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several errors:

  • The rule is not "taken before 1923" but "published before 1923". The images do not provide any information about whether they have been published or whether these are unpublished images. A lot of the photos look like private photos which likely remained unpublished for a very long time. If it can be shown that an image was published before 1923, then that image is unquestionably in the public domain in the United States.
  • If an image hasn't been published at all until recently, then you need to show that the image satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}. This rule applies without exception to all American, European and Japanese images.
  • Several of the images are from Japan. The rule is that these additionally must be in the public domain in Japan if they either are unpublished or first published in Japan. All photos taken before 1946, as well as all photos published before 1957, are in the public domain in Japan, per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}.
  • Published Japanese photos which satisfy {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} are in the public domain in the United States if they were published without complying with US copyright formalities, which is probably the case with most Japanese images published long ago (see Commons:Subsisting copyright). Problem: The file information pages give no evidence of any prior publication.
  • Japanese photos which don't satisfy {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} are protected by copyright in the United States at least and aren't accepted on Commons.
  • The uploader claims that lots of photos are in the public domain due to failure to comply with copyright formalities. A photo is in the public domain in the United States due to failure to comply with copyright formalities if it was ever published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 or if it was published before 1964 without a copyright renewal after 28 years. However, the uploader provides no evidence that the images have been published at all, so it can't be verified whether any potential publication failed to comply with US copyright formalities or not. Also, a lot of the photos show non-US people, which suggests that they may be non-US photos, and non-US photos normally don't have to comply with US copyright formalities and need to be out of copyright in the source country too in either case.
  • The uploader lists the author of a lot of the files as "unknown" but provides no evidence that the author indeed is unknown. The only source is a link to a page which doesn't tell where the images come from, and that is not enough information to establish that the author indeed is unknown. For example, some of the images might have been published elsewhere before being posted to those websites, and those other publications might have indicated the name of the author. If they haven't been published before being posted to those websites, then they are still protected by copyright in the United States, so they need to be deleted anyway.

Due to the uploader's failure to provide any evidence that any of the photos have been published before being posted to the webpages he lists as a source, most images will have to be deleted due to unclear copyright status. Specific comments about some of the images (and  Delete everything I've not listed below due to insufficient information):

Everything I've not listed above: Delete due to insufficient source information. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les termes en anglais au-dessus sont assez compliqués pour moi. Qu'est-ce qui se passe ? Je dois faire quelque chose ? Merci.

Je pense qu'il y a des photos que tu n'as pas listé et qui doivent tout de meme être conservées, comme File:Charles Garst.jpg (mort en 1898), ou File:Saibara Seito maison.jpg (photo de 1904). Gregory 14 (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les photos publiées avant de 1923 sont dans le domaine publique aux États-Unis, mais tu n'as pas indiqué si les photos ont été publiées ou quand elles furent publiées. Si les photos ont été publiées dans un livre, il faut indiquer le titre du livre. Si les photos ont été publiées dans un journal, il faut indiquer le nom du journal et la date de publication. Si les photos furent publiées pour la première fois hors des États-Unis, il faut aussi vérifier que les photos ne sont plus protégées par droit d'auteur dans le pays où elles furent publiées pour la première fois. Par exemple, en Europe, il faut normalement vérifier que le photographe est mort avant de 1943. Au Japon, il faut normalement vérifier que les photos ont été publiées avant de 1957 ou prises avant de 1946.
Par exemple, tu n'as pas indiqué si cette photo a été publiée avant qu'elle n'apparaît sur le site Find a Grave en 2002. Si la photo fut publiée pour la première fois en 2002, elle est protégé par droit d'auteur aux États-Unis jusqu'au fin de 2047, selon COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mais il est écrit sur Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States que si une photo a été publiée avant 1977 sans notice de droits d'auteurs, elle tombe dans le domaine publique en raison de l'impossibilité à fournir la source. Gregory 14 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Où est-ce que les photos sont publiées avant 1978? Il faut savoir le nom du livre ou numéro du journal et il faut vérifier que le symbole © n'apparaît à aucune page dans ce livre ou journal. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mais pourquoi supprimer de vieilles photos en noir et blanc qui sont sur Wikipedia depuis presqu'un an pour certaines ? Et j'ai pour souvenir que File:Hermann Roesler.jpg avait déjà eut affaire à une demande de suppression qui n'avait pas aboutie. Gregory 14 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Le modèle {{PD-Germany-§134}} est seulement pour les images publiées pour la prèmiere fois en Allemagne avant 1966. Il faut vérifier que la publication satisfait § 5 de de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie: "Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechts, die als Herausgeber eine Werk erscheine lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen." Je ne comprends pas ce loi en allemand, mais on ne sait pas si c'est le cas ici parce que la publication n'est pas identifiée. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 08:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: I restored most of them, and fixed the dates and the licenses. These files should never have been deleted. This was a messy job. Yann (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]