 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
|
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
|
Original uploader on en: is not the author. On the source webpage I only can find a copyright notice. JuTa (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have alterted the uploader, User:DoxTxob to this deletion request. Unless User:DoxTxob is the same person as the "Thomas R Machnitzki" on the linked webpage, the license seems wrong. Infrogmation (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the user's other uploads have the same name so it appears DoxTxob == Thomas R Machnitzki. (Although COM:OTRS would be nice). Wknight94 talk 10:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Yes, I am Thomas R Machnitzki. I usually upload the photos under my real name. The Nutbush photo as well as the other photos of Nutbush were taken by me and can be freely used for all purposes according to the license chosen for the image on Wikimedia. I did not request OTRS since there are about two dozen images of Nutbush that are on my private website as well as on Wikimedia and it was too much paperwork to get all the file names together for the request. doxTxob \ talk 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the question seems favorably resolved. Infrogmation (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from http://www.helgeoveras.com/tina_turner.shtml : © Helge Øverås Must. not be used without permission shizhao (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clash 21051980 12 800.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clash 21051980 12 800.jpg Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon DutchHoratius (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Template redirected to Institution:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy (and a stub) of Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga DutchHoratius (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Template redirected to Institution:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the uploader's history, this is not their own work. If it were, they might know the date it was taken (18 June, not 25 December; the photo was clearly taken at the same event as this). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Porque foi postado por engano. foi eu mesmo que postei por engano. Ele não é real. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Postei 3 vezes repetidamente.. O erro foi meu, queria que eliminasse este arquivo. Ele está duplicado. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has posted numerous other files from random websites claiming "own work"; I cannot pinpoint where he got this file from, but I have enough reason to doubt that this is the only exception. —Andrei S. Talk 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation, for example please see http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jQE3Fyq8uSY/TuEdhr_RI3I/AAAAAAAACSE/BPU7KK-9rC0/s1600/Parineeti-Chopra-Ladies-vs-Ricky-Bahl.jpg Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this uploader seems to have only uploaded copyrighted works, claiming them as their own. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
low quality, out of scope , unused personal photo AtelierMonpli (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, orphan low res photo of unidentified person, title and description clearly meant as vanity insult. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Highly likely not the uploader's own work: typical low web resolution and no EXIF data given High Contrast (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: speedied as copyvio; can be found on the web e.g. here. Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Private image, out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; orphan, uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; orphan; uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope,Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; orphan; uncategorized since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused, seems to be out of scope, dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused, out of scope (company logo spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused, out of scope (company logo spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused, out of scope (spam) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no source for photos used in diagram Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
likely copyvio, logo only used in rejected articles for creation entry about a non-notable organization (out of scope) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work. This user constantly uploads copyrighted files. Apparently here is the original file (http://forosdelecuador.com/f70/aeropuerto-internacional-mariscal-sucre-de-quito-641/index3.html) Felviper (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: INeverCry 23:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Shows the logo of a Polish bank --Michael Metzger (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Michael Metzger (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a random clip art image; no indication the author gave it under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from RMN Radio in Manila hostage crisis，Not PD.法庭呈堂证供可以合理使用
shizhao (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality version of the facebook logo. No educational value and out of the COM:SCOPE|commons project scope]]. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, low quality duplicate of File:Facebooklogo.png. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook logo with heavy JPG compression. Duplicates File:Facebook.svg and File:Facebooklogo.png. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, low quality version of the facebook "f button". Higher quality versions of this image exist. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screencapture of the copyrighted Google website. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or copy back to Wikipedias that allow fair use): All Google material is after 1989, so copyright in the U.S. even without any notice. --Closeapple (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. The uploader is not the copyright holder. I think that the uploader took it from this imageonTelevizyon Dizisi. Takabeg (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a professionally created image, no indication that uploader is the photographer or copyright holder The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image on this site with photographer's name: http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1664564727/Florez-out-of-Lt-Governor-race --Funfood ␌ 10:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nepalese stamps are copyright for 50 years pma per this post Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 34#Stamps of Nepal, also being issued in 1980 the stamp cannot comply with an author life +70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Neither paintings nor stamps are applied arts in the sense the term is used in most copyright laws. Applied arts are the work of artisans, not artists. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this file, because uploader, Artem Tkachenko stated this as his own work, but metadata of file tells us: Yuri Dolgoruky, a new Russian nuclear submarine, is seen in the waters off the Sevmash factory in the northern city of Severodvinsk July 2, 2009. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev visited the factory on Thursday, a well-equipped shipbuilding complex that builds and repairs submarines. REUTERS/Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool (RUSSIA POLITICS MILITARY). --Rave (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Blatant copyvio, like all uploads by this user. Martin H. (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collage containing deleted image File:Yahata from Mt. Sarakura at night.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the author of this file.I guess File:Yahata from Mt. Sarakura at night.jpg was deleted after I created this file. So, please delete this file. Then, I'm going to upload new version of montage of Kitakyusyu.--Fjkelfeimvvn (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
probably copyvio Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
probably copyvio Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superseded by File:04R Dec 2011 track.png (in retrospect I realised I should have renamed this file rather than creating a new one.Sorry.) Keith Edkins (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is spam Cutwind (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork of Compact Disc doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 09:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No license, no (OTRS confirmed-) permission Ciell (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a black square Funfood ␌ 10:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blank white image Funfood ␌ 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising text of an electronics company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 10:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
small image, out of scope, not really in use. marked as copvio on User talk:Mampato, User_talk:Tharischev, uncategorizied on User_talk:Alex_223, as link in User:SqueakBox/images and User:DragonflySixtyseven/Short filenames 38, File:Anthony_Romero_2007.jpg was moved from it. see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Romero.jpg AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Uploader says here it is his own work and that the authors name is Daniel Niazi, but at nn:Diskusjon:Daniel Niazi he repeatedly states he isn't Daniel Niazi. 178.232.185.200 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image that found on search engine might be copyrighted. Octahedron80 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio, original picture here. Licence is "All rights reserved". Snaevar (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
License is PD-Old, but author just died in 2009; copyright will not expire until 2070. We need permission from the author's estate to host on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
License is PD-Old, but artist died in 2009, so the copyright will not expire until 2070. We need this to be licensed freely by the author's estate to keep this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-VietnamGov does not apply for this file; hence it is not in the public domain 79.221.108.162 15:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't delete this image. Have two reasons:
The First reason: through The Vietnam Intellectual Property Law (Law No. 50/2005/QH11, October, 2005) wrote in Article 3: Object of copyright include literary, artistic and scientific works; objects of copyright - related rights include performances, sound recordings, video recordings; broadcasting programs; satellite signals carrying encrypted program.
The Second reason: in Article 25: The form of use of published works without obtaining permission and paying royalties, remuneration are as follow: a) Making of one copy for the purpose of science research and individual teaching.
This image is captured and uploaded by Trong Thiết & dokientrung, therefore this image have applied by PD-VietnamGov permission.dokientrung 18:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear who the author is and when he lived. It is implied that he died before 1942, but nothing is clearly stated about him. —Andrei S. Talk 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User image not in use, user only has two other edits globally. —innotata 16:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The file has the watermark, probably for advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watermarked, meant for advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from here http://sundarvan.org/about.html. Also the file looks like an advertisement. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. RE rillke questions? 17:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bonjour, La photo "Domaine de la brtesche.jpg" s'agit une photo du domaine. Je travaille pour le Domaine de la Bretesche, nous avons tous les droits sur cette photo. Le site que vous avez cité est un site qui emprunte nos photos pour leur article. En revanche, ils n'ont pas de droit sur cette photo. Merci
Hello, The photo "Domaine de la brtesche.jpg" is a photo of our Domaine, we have all the rights on this photo. The site drivermag-golf.com use our photos for their articls but they have no right on thoses photos. Thank you
Copyvio of this image Bzh-99 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused composite image without apparent encyclopedia value and I doubt implied claim that uploader owns copyright to all component images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, related article is deleted, non-notable group and vague sourcing. No indication of copyright ownership by uploader. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal image with no apparent encyclopedic value. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused personal photo, en:WP article has been deleted as non-notable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused self-publicising image for non-notable Ecuadorean band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused self-publicising image for non-notable Ecuadorean band. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope, not in use AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused personal image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused poster (of dubious copyright) for non-notable musician. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal notices, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unused personal notices, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused, possible vanity image but no explanation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising text for a german company, out of scope Funfood ␌ 23:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, no explanation of what it is a logo for, and no way of finding out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, low quality image of the facebook logo. Out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal image not in use on a user page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect please, too generic name and created with personal picture. Amitie 10g (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, and protectedYmblanter (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Postei 3 vezes repetidamente.. O erro foi meu, queria que eliminasse este arquivo. Ele está duplicado. Dsrodrigues (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation, for example please see http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BZ23rytvCJQ/TeTM60RtY2I/AAAAAAAADWE/e1h87PT_iJw/s1600/Aditi_Sharma_Hot_Actress%2B%252817%2529.jpg Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing indicates this was "based" on another source and then created by VOA. So it is not PD US gvt. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a graphic produced by VoA; I interpret the source note on the original as referring to the casualty numbers. Compare this map in the same style. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep - agree with the above poster graphic appears to be produced by VoA; It's a flash image with casualty numbers from the listed source. Cannot find the image on casualty source site. Guest2625 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Its produced by VoA and therefore public domain. As for source it´s SOHR but image itself was created by VoA. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: The VOA site shows the image with "Source:Syrian Observatory of Human Rights", at the bottom. The legend was cropped off the image before it was uploaded here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content - originally a speedy deletion request by Schmelzle with the reason "nonsense" Trijnstel (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, no indication that this is a screenshot of free software. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, no indication that this is a free screenshot. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Website advertisement, related enwp article deleted Funfood ␌ 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Official product photo found on several webpages, unclear rights Funfood ␌ 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, appears to be an unused personal image, subject does not seem to be notable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused personal image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that sources used is free, e.g. WorldWind. "Own work" needs explanation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope, unused, non-notable musical group and no explanation; Goggle is no help on this one. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Probable copyvio, see: http://www.sophieaime.com/Sophie_aime/yebuna.html Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal logo, out of scope Funfood ␌ 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: Unused personal memorial to the 2011 Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and others GrapedApe (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality version of the facebook "f button". Heavy JPG compression. Higher quality versions of this image exist. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File is in use. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted. Leyo 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Related to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Move to et.wiki Trixt (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: After transfers have been performed, now unused template. Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a pre 1923 US work; the source website is linked. What copyright is on the image and what do you state is being violated? -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Kept. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in the USA in 1917; it is {{PD-US}}. Copying and republishing publish domain material does not remove it from the public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep image is of US origin, was published in the US before 1923 thus it's PD-US. Alteration of such an image like recoloring does not generate new copyright. PD-US may only be denied if the image is not of US origin as there's a Commons policy somewhere stating an image should be PD in both the USA and the country of origin. --Denniss (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Kept. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in the USA in 1912, no? {{PD-US}}. Copying and republishing publish domain material does not remove it from the public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Kept. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image scraped from website with copyright information without permission. Rotoflex (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe somebody has the proprietary rights of the negative of this photograph. But the copyright of this image had expired. Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Kept. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the photographer & owner of this image. Its copyright status has been misrepresented on Wikimedia. i reserve all rights to the photograph, and do not grant permission for its use on Wikimedia. Rotoflex (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How has it been misrepresented? (Other users: Please check file edit history.) You uploaded it here [1] under an attribution license. Since you stated it was under an attribution license but did not clearly state that you were the author, I asked for clarification about that and other details on your talk page [2], urging you to add or correct the info on the image page yourself. You gave more info about the image on your talk page [3]; I quoted the portion of your talk page comment relevant to the image there and put it in the info template [4]. Again, if some info is wrong, YOU can edit it to FIX it. I'm puzzled as to your actions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Delete - author apparently never intended to license it under terms acceptable to the Commons community.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Delete Too bad to loose it -- it's a useful photo and no equivalent can be made today since shows interior of a theater before it flooded in the Katrina levee failure disaster of 2005. While usual practice is that free licenses are not revokable, I think an exception should be made here since it seems obvious that Rotoflex had no idea what they were doing. Unlike the scans from 1910s US magazines Rotoflex has also listed for deletion, Rotoflex can legitimately claim copyright of this. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collage containing deleted image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glicoman.JPG. Takabeg (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In principle, excluding those in the outdoors (Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Law). Moreover, Japanese law this sign is part of the building. Building photography does not have a problem. --Aimaimyi (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC) -- edit --Aimaimyi (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment User(s) confuse this DR with the DR of File:Glicoman.JPG. At present, this collage have to be deleted because of its containing deleted image. Your correct address is here. Takabeg (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment Since Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Glicoman.JPG was opened, I think we'd better wait for the closing of that UR. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep File:Japan Osaka.png regardless of File:Glicoman.JPG status per Commons:De minimis. --M5 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Now we have to delete it per this closing. Keeping consistency is important. Takabeg (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: We cannot keep a collage that has a non-free component. You cannot argue that any component of a five component collage is de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User subpage created by commonist without asking me, deletion requested --Kprateek88 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this page here. Commonist created it when I uploaded images. Kprateek88 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts that the uploader is the author. As per some of their other uploads, it would appear that the flickr is being used to wash the licences. russavia (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File is not named correct and there are tons more photo's of this bridge Dqfn13 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: please use {{Rename}} to ask for a rename of the file. PierreSelim (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably copyvio, see http://www.billyprice.com/photos.php Bulwersator (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Not a copyvio, per Sreejith K. PierreSelim (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A previous deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhs prm stone rgb.jpg found that this logo is too complex to be public domain on grounds of lack of originality. I am hence nominating this for review once again, and adding to this nomination similar logos, these being File:Low-res-rhs-logo.png and File:OldRHSSecondaryLogo(to2010).png. CT Cooper · talk 23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Consensus expressed here is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} (it confirms Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rhs prm stone rgb.jpg) PierreSelim (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this with File:Menachem Nachum Friedman, Boyan-Chernowitz.jpg, not being able to upload a newer version with a different file type Chesdovi (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to the jpg version. Sreejith K (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, appears to be the words of a song (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://ameblo.jp/kojiontheroad/entry-11027967658.html&ei=ENz8Ts6PMMjitQbN3-zNDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E6%2597%25A5%25E6%259C%25AC%25E8%25AA%259E:%2B%25E7%25AD%2591%25E7%25B4%25AB%25E4%25B8%2598%25E9%25AB%2598%25E6%25A0%25A1%25E6%25A0%25A1%25E6%25AD%258C%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D629%26prmd%3Dimvns) but no indication of age so as to clarify copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images from government website claimed to be exempt from copyright under Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act. Earlier deletion discussions, however, resulted in deletion of such images as such reasoning was not believed to be valid. (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:PM-Yingluck.jpg.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Deleted: This is not a part of an official report, just government photos. They are copyrighted in Thailand. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reclame voor/Publicity for Youtube Channel Kthoelen (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep I've uploaded a new version with the debatable content removed. --MainFrame (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep I agree with Mainframe, as now it's just a good photo of an ordinary modern laptop, there's nothing to consider innaproppriate Keep The author removed the parts were his youtube account name was shown. it is OK nowKept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copyrighted windows logo background image. Please show a blank screen or something free or a photo shot by you or .... Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete revisions "23:25, 13 October 2010" to "05:10, 12 February 2011", Keep revision "02:04, 13 February 2011". Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Windows logo has been replaced by Google's homepage. Please don't tell me that this is copyright violation too!! Keep the recent version. However I don't like it as it is advertising for google. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Well I dont think my photo will affect in any way the search engine preferences of anyone, so if you agree remove the deletion request! Have a nice day! Georgy90Kept. but only the last revision. Béria Lima msg 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All de minimis, IMHO. Thoroughly discussed twice before. I suggest that before you nominate a file for deletion, if there is a talk page, look at it to see if the file has been previously kept. If so, read the discussions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People should really not replace images like that. New image is not a different version of the same photo, it's a completely different photo which should have been uploaded as a different file, not over another one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After thinking about this some more i think this is a case of a copyvio. The screen image needs to be blurred and then reuploaded with a different file name, the versions with Windows screen should be deleted from this one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies for my incorrect remark about looking at the talk page. However, my opinion that everything on the screen is de minimis stands. There are 35 icons on the screen -- any of them could easily be eliminated with affecting the image, which is the test of de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Are pictures of Windows running on a computer not even allowed? Because of advertisements? Then what about File:Piccadilly Circus Panorama - April 2007.jpg ? CodeCat (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Keep Keep of course. Are you serious? This is almost dictatorship! If a picture of a laptop with a certain operating system is a violation, then a Mercedes car that has the emblem is also a copyvio? Seriously we have taken things too far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs) | “ | In most cases, screenshots of computer software (which include programs, video games, operating systems) cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy | ” |
Anyway, if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok?
In the article it says "unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy (software released under licenses that meet the OSI definition of "Open Source" will meet the requirements"
Can i change the licencing and be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.231.136 (talk • contribs)
Keep Okay. What can I do to repair the photo and make it appropriate? if i write on the description that i do not own this software's copyright is it ok? Please tell meTell me what i should do to repair the pic!! Dont delete it
Ok i blurred the titles of the programs. I hope it's ok now and you remove the deletion request --Georgy90 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody do this for me?? I am not very good with photoshop and i would be grateful if someone did it!! Please dont delete it without warning!!
Please help!!--87.228.231.136 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took another shot, with uncopyrighted firefox. No icons, and blurred start button. Now remove that deletion request ASAP.
Thank you, The owner --Georgy90 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added both the codes you gave me.. Anything else?
PS-per Saibo STOP USING THE BLOODY WATERMARK--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteO'Dea s argument is actually invalid. My age makes no difference to the quality of the photo. The 6 sticks on the laptop are not easy to be seen, firefox and wikipedia are okay to use, since I imported some script at the page of the photo. My other contributions have nothing to do with this conversation. I made great efforts to find a way of taking good shots and I want my picture to stay, its widely used and its removal could cause havoc to 100s of pages on wiki. Please remove the request, i have done anything I could to remove copyrighted material. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a question for Georgy (which seems to be eligible for a rfc on meta for x-wiki spam): why did you replaced dozen of pictures with your ones on so many wikis? --Vituzzu (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Delete Agree that this image is in violation and the quality is really bad. Commons has lots of laptop pics already so we're not short of illustrations for articles, even pics of this one. This file has been nominated since over 3 months ago! Time to shut the yapping on this one. 72.37.249.116 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Georgy, you cannot expect your anonymity to be protected if you expose yourself so much. My comment identifying who you are, your age, and where you live have been deleted from this page because there is a policy, apparently, disallowing Commons editors from putting such information in these conversations – even when already placed in the public domain by the other editor! Comment Note to Vituzzu and Saibo: You left threatening remarks on my talk page. There is another policy in Wikipedia about assuming good faith. I was not previously aware of an anti-outing policy so I do not appreciate hostility being directed against me. If another editor almost writes his name and address in public, how am I to know I cannot show what he revealed himself? If you want to see how to approach someone who has inadvertently violated a rule in ignorance (note: Wikipedia has hundreds of rules), see how respectfully Rillke did it. You two jumped the gun and bristled with too much menace, which made me very uncomfortable and angry. Be respectful. See it from my perspective: As far as I was concerned, five other editors were fucking with my comments so naturally I was outraged (I said four in an edit summary but I forgot Georgy – so five.) You two need to reflect, too, and don't be so heavy-handed. O'Dea (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Vituzzu, you claimed I should be "saved" from my own actions but surely Georgy should be saved from his self-exposing actions too? As a minor, he should not be allowed to upload pictures which allow adults to find out his name, age, and location. This is another reason why this image should be deleted. Children need to be protected against themselves, as they are too young to be fully responsible and aware of consequences because anyone else can replicate what I did very easily – with no hacking skills required, I might add. O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Anon, above, why have administrators allowed this discussion to go unresolved for such a long time? Alpha Quadrant proposed deletion of this picture last year, on 29 December 2011. The uploader has abandoned the discussion for a week now. The proposal should be closed. O'Dea (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]I absolutely agree. The file was nominated 3 months ago for the reason "Image of the copyrighted Windows 7 OS, along with a number of icons that are quite likely under copyright.". The problem was a copyright violation. I fixed that, and replaced it with Firefox, and added a script that allows its use in wikipedia. You have gone off topic several times, without talking about specific violations of these file. As of O'Dea, I see that you call me insencere, because my name can be found easily according to him. I did that only to credit my work in some way that its not even noticable by 99.99% of the viewers, not to be exposed and self promoted. You had simply put a link to my FB account, without any specific reason. Could any admin please remove the nomination? I think that the case is closed. --Georgy90 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe that my picture is of low quality - this is low quality [[5]]. The fact also that I spread my photo in many wikis, does not make it uneducational! I can't see what policy the picture is violating right now! Its meaningless to still have the request keep going after a quarter of a year.--Georgy90 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This picture is used in the collage on the en:Computer article and really fits in nicely there. If the Windows icons are the problem for you change them for a Gnome screen showing a Wikipedia page for all I care (btw: the Puzzle ball is also copyrighted, by the WMF). I don't think it's problematic as otherwise photo's of Mercedes stars or the Rolls Royce en:Spirit of Ecstasy (which is still in copyright as the sculptor died in 1950) would also be problematic, which I don't think they are. SpeakFree (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-That could be easily replaced by a similar one. There are many in category:Laptops and its subcategorys.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy. The nomination runs for more than half a year. Could some admin delete it please?--87.228.231.136 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unknown who the author (Mihai Barbulescu) is and whether or not he died before 1942. —Andrei S. Talk 17:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a history professor, not the author, who seems to be unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: Per nomination, the information that there is a history professor of the same name with a high google ranking is not helpful here. Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this template is unuseful. We have {{Fair use delete}} for these cases with a bot that automatically does the transfer request for all WP with fair use, not only et.wiki. Trixt (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Move_to_et.wiki to a shortcut template: {{Fair use delete|no [[Commons:FOP#Estonia|FOP]] in Estonia}}
The other template Moved_to_et.wiki can be deleted after the images in Category:Images transferred to Estonian Wikipedia are deleted. --WikedKentaur (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: The template is now useful, per Dcoetzee situation update. Dereckson (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky Luke (known as RedKit in Turkey) was published in 1946. And accordin to the article 40 of the Turkish copyright law ([6]), works settled on umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares). However Harikalar Diyarı is neither public road, nor street, square. It's an amusement park. Not only in the United States, but also in Turkey, there is no legal basis for us to make them free content. Takabeg (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takbeg is re-opening multiple instances of group DR's for an already closed DR.See
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know those DRs. Users misunderstood the article. The Article 40 of the Turkish copyright law defines exemptions: umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares).Takabeg (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the same with the Madame Tussaud case and images which were kept. That's also not a public road. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why same ? Your claim is unclear. For example, File:Madame Tussauds London 00793 Nevit.jpg was kept with (this DR. However, File:Hulk Madame Tussauds 02.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00799 Nevit.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00798 Nevit.jpg, File:Madame Tussauds London 00797 Nevit.jpg were deleted with this case|this DR). So we cannot say "" Anyway images on this DR were taken in Ankara (Turkey), not in London (England). Takabeg (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The copyright law is very clear these pictures are ok. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Please read Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Turkey. The Turkish copyright law doesn't permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed outdoors. It permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, (public) avenues or (public) squares. Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: There's FOP in Turkey Cambalachero (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NOLA-State-Palace-2005.jpg&oldid=64490094){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:NOLA-State-Palace-2005.jpg&diff=next&oldid=64505778){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenovoideapad.jpg){kind=link}
