Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Orn_ext.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(Restauration).svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(Restauration).svg){kind=link}
_Duc_d'Otrante.svg){kind=link}
_Duc_de_Bassano_(orn_ext).svg){kind=link}
_(Restauration).svg){kind=link}
_(orn_ext).svg){kind=link}
_Orn_ext.svg){kind=link}
_(Restauration).svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![175 File:Rodrigo "Garrincha" Ramirez.jpg](#File:Rodrigo_"Garrincha"_Ramirez.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
{{speedy|razón}} Sebaschevi (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied per uploader wish "offensive". -- Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
{{speedy|razón}} Sebaschevi (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied per uploader wish "offensive". -- Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Canoe1967 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: request from uploader at help desk Sreejith K (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as out of project scope. This would be a free logo since it is text based ({{PD-textlogo}}) Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Canoe1967 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: request from uploader at help desk Sreejith K (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as out of project scope. This would be a free logo since it is text based ({{PD-textlogo}}) Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Speedy (out of COM:SCOPE; obviously child-porn depiction per USC 18 § 2256) Sreejith K (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep
Delete Took me a while, but it is a copyright violation in two ways:
- Both are characters from Lucky Star (Kagami Hiiragi and Konata Izumi) and this is an adoption without permission.
- The uploader is most likely not the artist. The original (not mirrored) can be found on Pixiv (needs login) attributed to the artist Spidu.
- --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any children. But I am not shure about the copyright issue. --Don-kun (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- How do we even know this is an original work by the uploader, as claimed? Or, to put it another way: Why does it always happen to be brand new accounts with no prior (or post) contributions whatsoever who upload pictures like these to commons? Shouldn't we be kind of slightly suspicious about this? --Conti|✉ 12:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from a single-purpose account Denniss (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
source: google McZusatz (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio from http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,,11861_359702,00.html (since 2011). -- Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. O'Dea (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie poster. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Logo owned by BBC. O'Dea (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Mexican Federal District.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC) same as this image but only rotated/mirrord. This is NOT own work. Edoderoo (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant {{Copyvio}}. Martin H. (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
What possible scope is there for this? Fry1989 eh? 23:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Image was uploaded and used for vandalising Ahmed Shafik article on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DerBorg as Speedy (Out of project scope, self promo) Sreejith K (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
On my en.wiki talk page, I have been asked by the uploader of this image to have it deleted. This image, from what I can gather, is that of his father and he was showing it on his userpage, but, now that he's been indeffed, he feels it's no longer a good idea and would want it removed from Commons too. Since it's not a particularly indispensable image, I hope the community will accept to delete it. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Personality rights. Sreejith K (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Refineria.jpg Barranqueño 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_del_Municipio.jpg Barranqueño 19:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atardecer_Rio_Magdalena_Puente.jpg Barranqueño 19:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Refineria2.jpg Barranqueño 19:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Irrtümlich erstellt - vergleiche; Category:Alter Rhein Schofför (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
While this flag's design is in the public domain, the Flag Institute makes their own drawings and they have a copyright. (©2012 The Flag Institute at the bottom of their page). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is on the main page, not the UK Flag Registry, which contains no claim of copyright. The image in fact was my own work but adapted from the image at that source (which has a .gif file, not a .png file), so it is only in fact the design and not the file which has been copied from the UK Flag Registry. Hogweard (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The design itself is not copyrighted, because that is a requirement for the flag to even be listed. Yet, the design you drew here is an exact copy of http://ukflagregistry.org/wiki/images/7/7f/UNKG7423.gif (same pixel size, same exact design) so it is, at best, a derivative work of something previous drawn by The Flag Institute. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It might be best to hold fire on these FI images while I contact the Flag Institute to see if I can get a permission (either a specific permission for these images or a general permission for reuse of images of registered flags). Would a note on the UK Flag Registry webpage be sufficient?
- I am in contact with the FI (the Westmorland Flag is my work; after the local organisation had determined the flag they should have, I did the drawing work to realise it).
- Hogweard (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- From knowing the owners of the Database personally, and from experience, they allow their images for non-commercial reuse (which is something we cannot allow). As for what you receive for the permission, try and read COM:OTRS on what to do. As for Westmorland, the Database usually draws their flags in a specific size, software and format so it is uniform (based on a lecture provided by Graham Bartram in Yokohama in 2009) and this was especially done for flag contests voted by the people. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The design itself is not copyrighted, because that is a requirement for the flag to even be listed. Yet, the design you drew here is an exact copy of http://ukflagregistry.org/wiki/images/7/7f/UNKG7423.gif (same pixel size, same exact design) so it is, at best, a derivative work of something previous drawn by The Flag Institute. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what can be done. (You're not wrong about formatting. I drew Westmorland originally in PSP format at a scale of 1:1 - 5 feet by 3 feet - but that would not have been fair to upload to the FI or Commons, so after Graham had been over it, adjusted detail etc, it was converted and shrunk to what you see.) Hogweard (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean it would not have been fair to upload to the Commons? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I mean that it would be a huge waste of server space: the file size was enormous. You don't need a five-foot image to go into a 100px box. Hogweard (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Aha: I see that the Flag Institute have now given permission for all the flags: see bottom of the page on UKFR webpage. Hogweard (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- "To be included in the Flag Registry, flag designs must be free from copyright. As such all flag designs and images of regional/county/town flags on this and associated Flag Institute websites and pages are available for public use. We only request that the Flag Institute is mentioned where appropriate or relevant." Ok, just need to find out what specific license they want (public domain, copyrighted free use). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the {{attribution}} tag as that is what the website now has. Attribution is only a request, but I'm happy to include it. The wording does not go as far as making the images public domain, but they are for free use ("available for public use") with no non-commercial restriction. I'll get round to tagging the others in due course, but not at this time of the night after a long day. Hogweard (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing I just need to figure out, and I am sure we will soon, if this only applies to the UK Flag Database or all of the websites hosted by The Flag Institute. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the {{attribution}} tag as that is what the website now has. Attribution is only a request, but I'm happy to include it. The wording does not go as far as making the images public domain, but they are for free use ("available for public use") with no non-commercial restriction. I'll get round to tagging the others in due course, but not at this time of the night after a long day. Hogweard (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Source website is making images free to use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary and badly framed penis shot. Commons has more of these than it can use and is not a private photo album. Out of scope. O'Dea (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Common Good (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Videogame screenshot, copyright CAPCOM Ileana n (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Videogame screenshot, copyright CAPCOM company Ileana n (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Videogame screenshot, copyright CAPCOM company Ileana n (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Videogame screenshot, copyright CAPCOM company Ileana n (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Git-logo.svg - which contains new version as current and old version as older revisions. This seems like a less confusing solution for folks as I'm not sure there's much use of having both versions active. Varnent (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. These files are visual total different, and Commons:Superseded images policy says that the deletion of superseded images has been discontinued.
- In particular since the old logo was used for a long time, i think it’s worth to keep at it’s own. For example, the German article about Git uses both ones (the new logo on top and the old one in the history section). Other logos (of git related tools) are based on the old one. And please also consider that Commons allows reuse of content from Non-Wikimedia internet pages even via Hotlinking, so this image shouldn’t totally change.
- So i just reverted your overwrite of the old logo (but added a Superseded template to avoid the confusion you justifiably fear) and obviously advocate to keep the new one! --Frakturfreund (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- In the German Wikipedia, there’s even a which says one should rename a new logo under a new name and to keep the old one. As far i assumed that Commons’ policy isn’t totally different in this matter … --Frakturfreund (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the old one is the odd-ball here and not the new one - I suggest renaming the old one instead. This one is called by outside wikis, extensions, articles and a number of other places that will need to be updated to use the new logo. None of those, except perhaps the German Wikipedia, will need to be updated to use the old logo - which they won't otherwise want to do. Use of that policy isn't as applicable here - reading that policy's conversation it was almost exclusively about different file versions and not completely new images. Additionally - it's an incorrect use of the template, which states "This template shows a better image that should be used instead of the first image." This is not a better image - it's an update version published by the logo's owner. --Varnent (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: MediaWiki was updated - thank you - but I still think my original statement applies. This filename implies - and should house - the accurate Git-logo - and not an outdated version. If there's historical value to the old version, I think renaming or reposting it with a more accurate name is a better compromise. If it were not a file potentially used by developers and outside wikis - I don't think it would matter, but my understanding is that is not the case here. --Varnent (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- With my edits i only wanted to point out that deleting one image already in use – which it was – isn’t a good idea.
- Besides, there’s also still a duplicate at the English wikipedia. I hope that it’ll be deleted soon.
- Practically. i think that the renaming you suggested may be the best way to solve this. How exactly should we do it? I suggests moving File:Git-logo.svg to File:Git-logo-2007.svg, keeping File:Git-logo-2012.svg and creating a simple redirect from File:Git-logo.svg to File:Git-logo-2012.svg. If File:Git-logo-2017.svg (or whatever) arrives, we could simple change the redirect. What do you think?
- Finnally, i think that there should be a gererally policy what to do if a new logo arrives. We have your approach – keeping the old logo in the version history only – or mine – keep both under seperate filenames (which brings the issue how to name it). Does anyone else reading this? --Frakturfreund (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll touchbase with an admin and see what the easiest way to do this is. :) Generally logos aren't permitted on Commons - in my experience - Git and some open-source software are rare exceptions. I suspect that's why there isn't such a policy on replacing or updating versions of graphics. As I understand it - generally what you did originally is what would be done actually - but I think open-source software used by Wikimedia developers presents a rare conflict with what's generally done. Although the use of redirects and then using year specific titles when new versions of logos begin to emerge (again - for the rare ones in public domain or creative commons) strikes me as a good solution that fits the various needs. --Varnent (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Right after I clicked submit - I remembered that the image redirects don't work outside of Commons - so now I'm back to pondering the best solution... --Varnent (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was wrong - this could work. I'll give it a go and see if anyone freaks... :) --Varnent (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Right after I clicked submit - I remembered that the image redirects don't work outside of Commons - so now I'm back to pondering the best solution... --Varnent (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll touchbase with an admin and see what the easiest way to do this is. :) Generally logos aren't permitted on Commons - in my experience - Git and some open-source software are rare exceptions. I suspect that's why there isn't such a policy on replacing or updating versions of graphics. As I understand it - generally what you did originally is what would be done actually - but I think open-source software used by Wikimedia developers presents a rare conflict with what's generally done. Although the use of redirects and then using year specific titles when new versions of logos begin to emerge (again - for the rare ones in public domain or creative commons) strikes me as a good solution that fits the various needs. --Varnent (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Correction: MediaWiki was updated - thank you - but I still think my original statement applies. This filename implies - and should house - the accurate Git-logo - and not an outdated version. If there's historical value to the old version, I think renaming or reposting it with a more accurate name is a better compromise. If it were not a file potentially used by developers and outside wikis - I don't think it would matter, but my understanding is that is not the case here. --Varnent (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the old one is the odd-ball here and not the new one - I suggest renaming the old one instead. This one is called by outside wikis, extensions, articles and a number of other places that will need to be updated to use the new logo. None of those, except perhaps the German Wikipedia, will need to be updated to use the old logo - which they won't otherwise want to do. Use of that policy isn't as applicable here - reading that policy's conversation it was almost exclusively about different file versions and not completely new images. Additionally - it's an incorrect use of the template, which states "This template shows a better image that should be used instead of the first image." This is not a better image - it's an update version published by the logo's owner. --Varnent (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Stuff has been moved, renamed, switched, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright Nintendo I imagine. The uploader says it's a homebrew cartridge on the talk page Techman224Talk 00:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. It may be tagged copyvio because the uploader didn't take the picture and just downloaded from the net?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- As long as the uploader doesn't provide evidence that the alleged creator of the game cover (said to be: 3DS Homebrew Team) has released the latter under a free license or put into PD, it is without permission - and that in addition to Canoe1967's question about the photographer. As it is currently only used on :en, tagging it with {{Fair use delete}} would like be the best procedure. --Túrelio (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As it clearly says Nintendo etc it looked liked it should be copyright to me but I am very happy to see it as a DR (& probably agree with Túrelio about fair use on en). --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- It says Nintendo because the label is an edited Super Mario 3D Land label. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- The cover looks like it's pd-ineligible if the image licensing is ever cleared up. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As the person who uploaded the image in question, I know that it is free use. The project this game was a part of has been dead for a while, and the game hasn't been updated since forever. The creator used to have a website, but he closed it. The "3DS Homebrew Team" in question is named that because on the website for this hack, the developer called his hacker team "The Unnamed 3DS Homebrew Team". As for copyright, I don't believe Nintendo would have a copyright on this. I can change the copyright to anything you need, but I don't want this deleted. We need some proof this game exists. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This could have been kept if it would have been self-photographed by the uploader. But it is not. It is eligible for copyright (as any photograph of 3d objects) and we do not know who uploaded it where under which license, if any. Hence it has to be deleted. The point of the talk page is moot as that example is self-photographed by the uploader. AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Useless; promotional. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, as requested. AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
violation as it is the logo of the tournament as well as including the bank logo. SocietyBox (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As derived work of a copyrighted logo. AFBorchert (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
violation as it is the logo of the tournament as well as including the bank logo. SocietyBox (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As derived work of the copyrighted logo of the tournament. AFBorchert (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice try Matthew W. Hood, but this file is not useful for teaching people about anything and therefore should be deleted in accordance with Commons:Scope -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as said ... I can't imagine any use in Wikimedia Projects or even for others. --Don-kun (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Advertising (note description). O'Dea (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Tiny low quality image; just a thumbnail. Crude drawing. O'Dea (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 17:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor description provided. Commons not a personal album. O'Dea (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor informative description provided. Commons not a personal album. O'Dea (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope McZusatz (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of focus, out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Neither a rationale nor useful description provided. Part of a series uploaded by this user of himself and friends. Commons is not a personal vacation album. O'Dea (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
out of scope -// Chesdovi (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo with no description of presumably non-notable person or show-off. Ar.wp article ar:أمين العيدروس has been deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Vanity image used in self-promotion article on ar.wp. Abanima (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
advertisement spammed onto Commons; outwith project scope DS (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://vsallaccess.victoriassecret.com/2011/11/30/free-fashion-show-panty/ O'Dea (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/File:RAW_5-30-11_2.jpg O'Dea (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can't see any realistic use of this image. Some may even argument that it is a copyright violation. For me it is way to small and unimportant to be realisitically usefull. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Argument" isn't a verb. There is no copyright on the ribbon itself. The User:Niabot is antagonizing me by wiki-stalking my uploads. Note that just minutes before this nomination, he was trolling my Talk page. "Too", "realistically", and "useful" are spelled wrong. Size and importance are feeble reasons for deletion nominations. This is just an utterly sloppy nomination, and the nominator should be warned. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this image it is out of scope for two reasons:
- I can't imagine any realistic use for any purpose
- The resolution and quality is so bad that I can't think of a possible reuse for other purposes
- PS: If my English sucks, then we can still discuss in German. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Amusing, considering some of the work you do imagine to have purpose, such as this drawing that found zero use in any Wikimedia project, other than to draw attention to itself through the "picture of the day" program. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not seeing any real equivalent in Category:Ribbons, to be honest, other than a thousand useless Wikipe-tans in a subcategory - Alison ❤ 02:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the Wikipetan category - there were no ribbons. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: "No use" is not an argument as long as the pic seems to be in scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I was asked by the subject of the photo to take it down, because she was uncomfortable with her coracobrachialis muscle. Thekohser (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Unlikely, as the person is hardly identifiable (contrary to File:Lila Tretikov - Wikimedia ED - May 2014 01.jpg). More likely somebody here wants to make a POINT.[2] Anyway, this image could be deleted as being of little use due to its low resolution. However, there are a few external re-uses. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral/weak delete: Ignoring the fact that Thekohser is trying to make a point, I think a courtesy deletion (even if it was uploaded just over two years ago and is being used on two other external websites) would be the right thing to do, since it isn't in use on any Wikimedia projects (COM:SCOPE could also apply) but as she isn't identifiable and looks to be in a public place, COM:IDENT doesn't apply but that would've been a different case if she was identifiable in a private place. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I note that on both the two external websites where the image is being used, attribution has not been documented, so the sites are in violation of the licensing terms. Another reason to delete, to help stem the tide of license abuse. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Thekohser: that other sites are using your image in violation of the licence you granted is not an issue for us on Commons. It is up to you, as the copyright holder, to enforce your copyright and seek redress with those are violating it. There are useful resources available on the internet that can help you with that. On the issue here, Keep the image, it wasn't uploaded a "short time" ago, and the deletion request you are pointing to is not relevant here, as that DR was only raised because a WMF staff member used the tools when they shouldn't have. russavia (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: okay, okay. Maybe if someone at the WMF would provide me with the same tools that Florin possesses, then we could re-run the deletion process on this image? (evil grin) -- Thekohser (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Thekohser: no problem. I'll ping User:Eloquence to alert him to your request above, and I'll leave it in his capable hands as to whether he wishes to grant your request for the same tools as Florin. Then we can look at re-running the deletion process here so that you have a useful gauge as to whether others are given special treatment. Good luck. russavia (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Russavia: okay, okay. Maybe if someone at the WMF would provide me with the same tools that Florin possesses, then we could re-run the deletion process on this image? (evil grin) -- Thekohser (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Thekohser: that other sites are using your image in violation of the licence you granted is not an issue for us on Commons. It is up to you, as the copyright holder, to enforce your copyright and seek redress with those are violating it. There are useful resources available on the internet that can help you with that. On the issue here,
- I note that on both the two external websites where the image is being used, attribution has not been documented, so the sites are in violation of the licensing terms. Another reason to delete, to help stem the tide of license abuse. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept The fact that it is in use on two off site projects belies the claim that it is not useful. The reason given in the DR is absurd. The claim that we should delete it because it is used in violation of the license is also absurd -- we would have to delete many good images if we followed that policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Weak description. Image contributes nothing new to this well populated categorty of images. O'Dea (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Fully in the scope of the particular category. Besides, this is the only file which claims to present an Indian woman. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
- Keep Fairly high quality, in scope as per Hindustanilanguage. Handcuffed (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good quality, unique in character, appropriate categorization. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Anonymous uploader, no evidence of model age and consent (cf. [3] and Wikimedia terms of use). --JN466 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Sherinmal (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I see no real reason for deletion here. The uploader is just as anonymous as anyone else, anf if they are as JN suggests then there are no issues of identifiability. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- File:Indian female vagina.jpg (2nd nomination)
change the file Sherinmal (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You would like us to delete the file you uploaded? Why? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It is out of scope. no educational purpose Nothing new that we don't already have. Even a picture of an indian vagina we already have. --Ed. J. 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you believe they all look the same? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that File:Vagina of an Indian woman.jpg is the same woman but from an other angle. --Ed. J. 08:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you believe they all look the same? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, of appropriate photographic quality and scope, unique in character as differentiated from other images along a topic, useful for illustrative and encyclopedic purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- what is unique of this photo? We have thousands of this photos and even one of the vulva of the same woman: File:Vagina of an Indian woman.jpg. See COM:PENlS. --Ed. J. 08:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - useful to illustrate racial differences in vulvas. --Claritas (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- upload new file Sherinmal (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - uploader clearly (and vehemently) wants this deleted, and is uploading probable copyvios over it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information. Kriaki (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded, holds copyright information 208.91.1.14 00:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- See also OTRS 2012053110013342 Ronhjones (Talk) 21:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted by Fastily. Thuresson (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no FOP in US. The fish and lighting is most likely copyrighted like any other sculpture. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The User:Niabot is antagonizing me by wiki-stalking my uploads. Note that shortly before this nomination, he was trolling my Talk page, and nominating another photo for deletion. I note that the nominator has singled out this photo in particular (because he has a vendetta against me alone), while letting pass the numerous other similar photos of the Electrical Light Parade. That fact informs us beyond reasonable doubt that this is not a sincere Deletion request, but rather a petty trolling. The nominator should be warned. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weak keep - lighting shows are 'sculptures'? I think that's stretching things a bit and, TBH, I don't think COM:FOP plays a part here. Also, Niabot as deletionist? interesting ... - Alison ❤ 02:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Especially light shows. A good example is the Eifel Tower which is copyrighted at night time due to it's lighting setup which is protected, while at daytime it isn't. This deletion request should also apply to the other images from Category:Main Street Electrical Parade. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete See the long copyright notice at the top of Category:Eiffel Tower at night. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Question That seems to be the Paris Court of Appeal's take on it. Is there precedence in the US for lighted objects being copyrighted? Killiondude (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unless there is evidence shown to the contrary, COM:FOP does apply here, due to the US FOP only covering buildings. COM:PRP is applying here. russavia (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lemonquake (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
- File:UQuake.jpg
- File:QuakeNxtDoor.jpg
- File:IMQuake.jpg
- File:Blu3Quake.jpg
- File:MiCr0QUakE.jpg
- File:KwekQuake.jpg
- File:LeMONQUakE.jpg
- File:Quake Team Davao Logo2.jpg
- File:Quake Team Logo1.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen no se puede visualizar correctamente, he subido otra que se ve bien Ostiudo (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
esta imagen no se ve correctamente Danividal 69 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ostiudo=Danividal 69. They are the same user! --. HombreDHojalata.talk 07:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope becaue filename is "female uterus" but uterus is not shown (the uterus is an internal organ). Just another genital picture with a weak description that contributes nothing to the encyclopaedia. Three different pictures have been uploaded using one filename (see bottom of page). Timewasting and inconsistent nonsense, since none of the three show a uterus. Misleading. O'Dea (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - could we not just rename it? Maybe upload protect the page. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - But we don't need it. We have lots of nude pictures. This one is similar to, and no better than, existing nudity pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. O'Dea (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
*
Keep I moved it to File:Vulva and anus.jpg; no problem with confusion anymore. It is not the same as other photos; for example, there don't seem to be any other photographs of genitalia of Indian women. Handcuffed (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep current version, Delete older revisions. The other two versions show up on http://www.mobypicture.com/user/TweetMeSomeSkin/view/10344230 and http://noviastraviesas.blogspot.ca/2008/10/novia-universitaria-cachonda.html, leading me to believe that they are copyvios. The current (and first) version shows up on http://www.mobypicture.com/user/kodaikal/view/12339882 with the same username and uploaded on the same day, so it's probably fine. Handcuffed (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, freely licensed image, appropriate release by author, has been renamed to avoid confusion, unique image, serves illustrative purpose, focus with specific depiction of Indian female anatomy in such a fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of own work, likely grabbed from some porn site by some kid that does not know much about female anatomy. /90.237.49.181 14:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Anonymous uploader, no evidence of model age and consent (cf. [4] and Wikimedia terms of use). --JN466 13:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is a poor-quality photo. Anatomical images should be clear (not blurry), and have proper lighting & contrast. This photo lacks those characteristics, and therefore isn't useful in furthering our educational aims. Senator2029║talk 21:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Possible copyvio, delete per COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet another penis shot that adds nothing to Commons. The image is also badly out of focus, so out of scope. Provides no useful descriptive information to justify inclusion. Likely another vanity display. O'Dea (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
upload new file Makka (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, another blurry orphan vanity penis pic. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Image of low technical quality and, in addition, uploader's own image description as "boy penis" may confict with US law 2257. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, same image, same name, uploaded by different account name. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet another penis shot that adds nothing to Commons, so out of scope. Provides no useful descriptive information to justify inclusion. Likely another vanity display. O'Dea (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I believe deleting this image is a good idea. Not only is any descriptive information missing, the file name suggest a possibility of legal issues since the uploader could be a minor. 87.211.75.45 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another penis shot that adds nothing to Commons. The image is also badly lit and lacks contrast and saturation; poor quality, so out of scope. Provides no useful descriptive information to justify inclusion. Likely another vanity display. O'Dea (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, even Commons does not need this one. Poor technical quality is the main factor.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per above; orphan blurry low res own penis snapshot. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted proprietary document Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution for own work, no original exif, doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio McZusatz (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. As well as File:Amber heard1.jpg. --McZusatz (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
photoshopped fake picture, actress face on different picture, copyvio Ziyalistix (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The description "la salope de melanie" means simply "the slut Melanie". O'Dea (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
porno + fake IGREKKESS (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope (promotion) Lucas (msg) 03:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
NOt "own work" but taken from http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Information-services/vet-bib-bibliographic-database.aspx, whihch has a copyright notice at the bottom. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims "own work" but image comes from the Norwegian Academy of Music website (see: http://www.nmh.no/kontakt/employee/29350/95463). O'Dea (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=242946545747810&set=a.224064034302728.54146.223161577726307&type=3. No evidence of permission to use picture. O'Dea (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Rationale for picture not stated. Description is limited to "Fotografia Artiatica" which does not mean anything. Content redundant. O'Dea (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen no se ve bien Ostiudo (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No se ve bien, he subido otra mejor Ostiudo (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen no se ve bien Ostiudo (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No tengo los derechos de esta imagen Ostiudo (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen no se ve bien, he cargado otra que se ve mejor Ostiudo (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen no se puede visualizar, he cargado una corregida Ostiudo (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
He subido otra imagen igual, esta se ve mal. Ostiudo (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen no se visualiza bien, he cargado una mejor, no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubt the uploader is the copyright holder of this FC crest. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Kobac as Speedy (Deleted from Russian Wikipedia as unfree and unused.) Sreejith K (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
there is a similar file, delete this one. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_2_66.svg) C.Nilsson (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce blason est faux car :
- L'écu en accolade était l'usage sous le Premier Empire
- Cette Légion d'honneur est du type République !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy44 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-25T12:25:00 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
L'écu en accolade était lu'usage sous le Premeir Empire Jimmy44 (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type république Jimmy44 (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
COA are totally inaccurate : Ce blason comporte 3 erreurs :
Ce blason comporte 3 erreurs :
- L'écu en accolade était l'usage sous le Premier Empire
- L'insigne de légionnaire était, d'après les lettres patentes (source on ne peut plus officielle) "au premier point en chef"
- L'insigne des chevaliers légionnaires était une croix à cinq branches stylisée mais PAS une croix de la Légion d'honneur type République !!!! : voir fr:Héraldique napoléonienne
La version corrigée est ci-contre Jimmy44 (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Selon l'usage sous le Premier Empire, l'écu devrait être en accolade, d'autre part le type de Légion d'honneur est anachronique Jimmy44 (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Blason faux : Légion d'honneur type République !!! (version correcte ici : fr:Gabriel_Jean_Joseph_Molitor#Armoiries) Jimmy44 (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Blason faux : Légion d'honneur type République !!! (version correcte ici : fr:Louis Gabriel Suchet#Armoiries) Jimmy44 (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tbhotch as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The crown is original enough Sreejith K (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 07:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zhxy 519 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: A logo without authorization Sreejith K (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://rullakiekko.fi/?page_id=44 Copyright © 2012 Rullakiekko.fi Sreejith K (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Composite image with no credible attribution for any of its constituent parts. pablo 08:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused user uploaded self-image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Obsolete by File:Eljib9905.JPG -// Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
89.14.211.45 12:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Account not global. Account will not be used anymore. Account made no edits. 89.14.211.45 12:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm "Eivind" with my global account, but this username was already taken on Commons. I've not actually contributed to commons this far, and if someone else wishes to make use of the name Agrajag, it's fine with me to delete it; I can always register a new username on commons when I do have something to contribute. (edited: I should log in prior to posting that to make it clear that I'm the current account-holder) --Agrajag (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested delete FASTILY (TALK) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader's image description ("in Brazil Program Access Channel (MTV)") suggests this to be not own work, but a capture from TV/video. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image taken from http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3785407488/nm2599773 with no evidence of permission offered. O'Dea (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Copies of image at websites on internet. See: Google image search. O'Dea (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. O'Dea (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copright violation. http://www.facebook.com/diccionariodelsex?filter=2 No evidence of permission. O'Dea (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copright violation. http://www.facebook.com/diccionariodelsex?filter=2 No evidence of permission. O'Dea (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copright violation. http://www.facebook.com/diccionariodelsex?filter=2 No evidence of permission. O'Dea (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copright violation. http://www.facebook.com/diccionariodelsex?filter=2 No evidence of permission. O'Dea (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation; Image shows "Copyright Olivier Fourdan". O'Dea (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restored per UDEL. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. O'Dea (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. O'Dea (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Este mapa es erroneo, he cargado uno corregido Ostiudo (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
He cargado una imagen nueva, esta es erronea Ostiudo (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen no se puede visualizar, ya he subido otra que no esta dañada Ostiudo (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
La imagen no se ve completa, falta parte de la imagen, he subido otra bien Ostiudo (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No se ve bien, he subido una mejor Ostiudo (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No tengo los derechos de esta imagen, que he subido yo Ostiudo (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen es erronea, he subido otra mejor Ostiudo (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado otra corregida Ostiudo (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen no se ve bien, he cargado una carregida Ostiudo (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, no se visualiza bien Ostiudo (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen se ha cargado mal, aparece un cuadro negro en media de la imagen Ostiudo (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he argado otra mejor Ostiudo (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado otra Ostiudo (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cristo_del_Petrolero.png Barranqueño 18:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
ES UN ERROR CHUY LOPEZ 63 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy closed: DR opened by mistake or vandalical. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
aparecen mis datos en google imagenes a poner la palabra dalthack Dalthack 77 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Speedy closed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
maik new phase MAIK GARCIA (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
copyvio McZusatz (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is not in public domain in Germany (only 68 years have passed since Hähle's death so far). Brandmeister (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama for works of art in public spaces in Denmark, where this is the central element, cf. COM:FOP (Regrettably, as it is a very nice photo) Slaunger (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a logo for a karate club. I am thinking that there is no COM:SCOPE on this logo. russavia (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Boseritwik as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: all the pictures of this user are screenshots of videos. check all this users other pictures. I have found the videos from which the pictures were taken for the other files but am not able to find the video for which this screenshot has been taken. but none the less, this is not his 'own work'. →AzaToth 22:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all the other images too were screenshots of videos uploaded by this user. i found the videos for them but cant find the video from which this screenshot is taken. but am sure this too is a screenshot of a video and is a copyright violation.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Edoderoo (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC) own work, but also here and on other places? Edoderoo (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: User has also uploaded an INSEE graphic. He seems to not have red the information about licensing policy. Dereckson (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploader request Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a rationale why you want to have deleted that? Do you want to have the second version deleted which was uploaded over the first one? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept. No reason to delete offered; file is in use. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No evidence it is the work of uploader. Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm... it comes without EXIF data, it is the very only upload of this user, it is of very mediocre quality if you look at it in full resolution. Could this be a crop of the TV broadcast of Good Morning America on May 23, 2012 as described? --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, possible DW problem; orphan, uncat since May. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Within Category:Pubic hair (male) we have many files. This photo is of poor resolution, and given that we have many other great quality photos of the same subject, in 2012 it's purpose on the project is now redundant to files uploaded since 2006. russavia (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - seems reasonable. The source image was deleted in 2006. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- {{Nopenis}} -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously low quality and should be deleted. However, can I request that it be kept as an example of what pictures not to upload? I'm working on improving Commons:Nudity, and I think this could be useful (it would be in a collapsible, hidden box). Handcuffed (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, licensed as free use, under the public domain license. Unique image, displaying dispersal pattern for particular individual. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, and Mattbuck (COM:PRP). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Close as kept; no consensus to delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of explicit subject, Low quality, COM:NOPENIS. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Alan (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. The author of this image Ara Güler is still alive. There is no evidence of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Takabeg (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree that everything points to copyvio. --Stegop (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted' Infrogmation (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by A:-)Brunuś as Speedy (hoax, see en:User:Bacr13/Narod Kokoya (tv program)) Sreejith K (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Bacr13. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to refer to en:Wimbledon, London due to UK web and street addresses and £ prices. Doesn't appear to be covered by COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Stefan4 (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - correct, 2D not 3D. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Это фото Хасухи Магомадова, 1976 год, а не 1913. 213.176.224.11 12:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- И как он снял это фото с газеты 1913 года? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Кто "он"? Это фото не из газеты, это вырезка вот отсюда: . --Kaganer (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- И как он снял это фото с газеты 1913 года? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio, replaced locally to attributed fairuse image. --Kaganer (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
and File:Le studio Espace d'Europe 1..jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC) old design Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand how "old design" is a reasoning for a deletion. Fry1989 eh? 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the visa really covered by {{PD-PRC-exempt}}? I'd say not. Stefan4 (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't a visa a document "of […] administrative […] nature" ? Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. So I guess that my nomination was wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)old version Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)wrong design Union.Uniao.Unio.Iberica (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ces blasons sont faux car :
- Les lettres patentes n'évoquent pas de nuée
- Le signe des barons militaires est une épée haute d'argent (mais pas garnie d'or),
- L'écu en accolade était l'usage sous le Premier Empire
- Cette Légion d'honneur est du type République !!!!
- Historique
Demande de création du blason sur la page : W:fr:Discussion:Antoine_Rigaux
- Pour
- Delete supprimer les 3 versions inexactes et conserver File:Blason Antoine Rigau(x) (1758-1820).svg dont le blasonnement s’appuie sur les lettres patentes (source on ne peut plus officielle)--Jimmy44 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Supprimez :-)! --Zorlot (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Contre
- J'ai personnellement reçu des Archives Nationales la version numérique de la lettre patente signée par l'Empereur en personne; elle est accompagnée d'une annexe ou est peint, en couleurs, le blason attribué :il est de forme MODERNE et la foi est ornée de nuées aux poignets de chaque main. Le seul blason correct est donc bien celui peint dans la lettre patente :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:RIGAU_d%C3%A9finitif.png
Merci de le rétablir (avec la Légion d'Honneur napoléonienne) dans la rubrique d'Antoine et dans celle des barons militaires d'Empire.
Jean Louis J.M.G. RIGAUX.
PS : les documents des Archives Nationales sont disponibles par mail privé.
- Autre
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Les lettres patentes n'évoquent pas de nuée
- Le signe des barons militaires est une épée haute d'argent (mais pas garnie d'or),
- L'écu en accolade était l'usage sous le Premier Empire
- Cette Légion d'honneur est du type République !!!!
- Historique
Demande de création du blason sur la page : W:fr:Discussion:Antoine_Rigaux
- Pour
- Delete supprimer les 3 versions inexactes et conserver File:Blason Antoine Rigau(x) (1758-1820).svg dont le blasonnement s’appuie sur les lettres patentes (source on ne peut plus officielle)--Jimmy44 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Contre
- Autre
- Important
Merci de prendre en compte la proposition de suppression suivante qui parle du même blason : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason Antoine Rigaux (1758 - 1820).svg
J'ai personnellement obtenu un scan des deux documents originaux des Archives Nationales de Paris : la lettre patente signée de la main l'Empereur lui-même et le croquis à la main et en couleurs du blason attribué joint à cette même lettre patente.
Il en ressort que :
- La forme de l'écu (moderne) est conforme au dessin du document précité; et la grande majorité des écus figurant dans l'armorial sont de cette forme également.
- L'épée haute des barons militaires est effectivement d'argent; merci pour la rectification !
- Le dessin officiel joint à la lettre patente comporte bien des nuées; le texte de la lettre patente parlant d'une "Foi d'or en fasce";
- En ce qui concerne la Légion d'Honneur, merci pour cette rectification !
Des contradictions existent bien entre l'usage, les règles et la réalité des documents historiques - Pour la petite histoire, le nom de mon ancêtre Antoine est RIGAUX (cfr généalogie & lettres patentes) et son nom, sur l'Arc de Triomphe est orthographié "RIGAU"; et pourtant, il s'agit bien de la même personne.
Puis-je vous demander de juste rétablir des nuées sur les graphiques corrigés (Légion d'Honneur) par vous de la rubrique personnelle et sur celui de l'armorial de l'Empire.
Merci beaucoup !
Jean Louis J.M.G. RIGAUX.
- J'ai besoin d'une source fiable afin d'ajouter les nuées : il faudrait par exemple charger votre copie des L.P. sur commons le scan afin que je puisse faire état cette variante texte/dessin.--Jimmy44 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Légion d'honneur type République Jimmy44 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC) So there's a mistake on the type of the Legion d'Honneur.. I think it's a minor error, and not a reason to delete this file. We shall imporve the drawing instaed of deleting it. ---Strogoff- (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
From http://www.marcadegol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/FOX_SPORTS.jpg --Mega-buses (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I presume it has to be deleted then. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
- Keep To me this is {{PD-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is not Pd-textlogo.... >.> FASTILY (TALK) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he subido otra Ostiudo (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he subido otra Ostiudo (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Imagen erronea, he cargado una imagen corregida, esta no se usa en ningun articulo Ostiudo (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Ces blasons sont faux car :
- Les lettres patentes n'évoquent pas de nuée
- Le signe des barons militaires est une épée haute d'argent (mais pas garnie d'or),
- L'écu en accolade était l'usage sous le Premier Empire
- Cette Légion d'honneur est du type République !!!!
- Historique
Demande de création du blason sur la page : W:fr:Discussion:Antoine_Rigaux
- Pour
- Delete supprimer les 3 versions inexactes et conserver File:Blason Antoine Rigau(x) (1758-1820).svg dont le blasonnement s’appuie sur les lettres patentes (source on ne peut plus officielle)--Jimmy44 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Contre
- Autre
- Je suis d'avis de mettre à jour le blason. La critique numéro n'est pas fondée, car le dessin ne comporte pas de nuée. Pour la numéro 2, je veux bien changer la garde en argent. Pour la 3, Je passe le blason en accolade. Pour la 4, je remplace par la légion d'honneur adaptée, mais laquelle ? --Binnette (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Les critiques portent sur plusieurs blasons (3 blasons inexacts). Inutile d'ajouter les orn ext (voir fr:Antoine Rigaux#Armoiries)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Imágenes con licencia perdida
[edit]
Imágenes del evento especial de Versailles en tributo a Lareine y TCST en el Rock may kan. Estas imágenes las subí con permiso del autor en su momento, actualmente me notificaron que los derechos de todas las imágenes de esos eventos habían sido vendidos para una revista, como el permiso que tengo es más bien "de palabra" pido el borrado de las imágenes y sus derivados para evitar conflictos, existen otras imágenes para usar en lugares de estas, reemplazo que ya comienzo a realizar en espera de que se atienda esta solicitud. Saludos. Carrousel 05:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
there is a similar category - Category:Food with beer Gveret Tered (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Food with beer is for pictures containing food and Beer. This category is for food made with beer. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- so, we need better names, more conventional in Wikimedia Commons, less confusing, for example: one category should be called "food and beer" or "beer with food" and the other "beer as aliment". Gveret Tered (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Empty category --Sreejith K (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Category not empty now. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. INeverCry 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfree pictures out of DC Comics marked as "own work"
Hoo man (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photos of photos or photos of monitor. Not entirely self-created but derivative works based on someone else not freely licensed work.
- File:Aucklandfc 2012.JPG
- File:Krishna final12.JPG
- File:Waitakere 1011.JPG
- File:Hekari 2010.JPG
- File:Lawson-tama2.JPG
- File:Ofc nations cup trofeo.jpg
- File:Roy-krishna-fiyi.JPG
- File:Lawson-tama 3.JPG
- File:Lawson-tama.JPG
- File:National-stadium-suva.JPG
Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed to delete his files as many of them look like they might be photographs of the user's television with the matches on. Unless proof of original authorship is required, they must be deleted as they clearly breach copyright law. JaumeBG (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Radnicki1923 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I'm not convinced any of these are the uploader's own work. One has EXIF showing Pedja Milosavljevic / STARSPORT as the copyright holder, one has a watermark "fkradnicki.com" and the third is a low-resolution image with no EXIF. Uploader's name matches the related football club but no evidence that they're actually a representative of the club.
January (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Photos from the family archive without any permission and out of project scope certificates.
- File:РАЗРЕШЕНИЕ №059118.png
- File:ОРДЕН ТРУДОВОГО КРАСНОГО ЗНАМЕНИ (Ж № 531796).png
- File:ПРЕМИЯ ИМЕНИ П.О.СУХОГО I СТЕПЕНИ ЗАЖИГИНУ АЛЕКСАНДРУ СЕРГЕЕВИЧУ.png
- File:Диплом (В № 193182).png
- File:МЕДАЛЬ "50 ЛЕТ С НАЧАЛА СЕРИЙНОГО ПРОИЗВОДСТВА САМОЛЕТА СУ-7".png
- File:ДЕПУТАТСКИЙ БИЛЕТ №149.png
- File:ЗНАК ПОЧЕТА (Е № 066357).png
- File:КАНТИДАТ ТЕХНИЧЕСКИХ НАУК (МТН № 069314, МОСКВА 26 НОЯБРЯ 1971 Г.).png
- File:Zazhigina KI.png
- File:Zazhigin AS Friends2.png
- File:Zazhigin AS Friends3.png
- File:Zazhigin AS Friends1.png
- File:Zazhigin AS Family1.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 5.png
- File:Zazhigin AS Family2.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 6.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 7.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 4.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 3.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History12.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History11.png
- File:ЧЕРНОВИК НЕОПУБЛИКОВАННОЙ КНИГИ.pdf
- File:СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО НА ПРОМЫШЛЕННЫЙ ОБРАЗЕЦ №7411 "КОМПЛЕКС ИСКУССТВЕННОГО СЕРДЦА".pdf
- File:СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО НА ПРОМЫШЛЕННЫЙ ОБРАЗЕЦ №11706.pdf
- File:СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО НА ПРОМЫШЛЕННЫЙ ОБРАЗЕЦ №12080 СИСТЕМА УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ИСКУССТВЕННЫМ СЕРДЦЕМ.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №776213.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №1003843.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №915538.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №894388.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №807099.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №858430.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №776214.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №680409.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №765680.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №748158.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №659152.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №650627.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №609573.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №429336.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №440030.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №402717.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №433746.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №428242.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №419086.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №362038.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №365610.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №375908.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №314092.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №300493.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №330183.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №298876.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №278614.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №275504.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №100864.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №272062.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №259633.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №179211.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №247724.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №92943.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №104169.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №79705.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №93006.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №92944.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №91054.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №51690.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №47664.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №53137.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №49995.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №20307.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №49529.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №23360.pdf
- File:АВТОРСКОЕ СВИДЕТЕЛЬСТВО №21355.pdf
- File:ПОЗДРАВЛЕНИЯ ЗАЖИГИНА А.С. ОТ КОЛЛЕКТИВА ФИЛИАЛА ОКБ СУХОГО ПРИ НОВОСИБИРСКОМ ЗАВОДЕ ИМ. ЧКАЛОВА.jpg
- File:Zazhigin AS Fragment1.ogv
- File:Zazhigin AS History15.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History14.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History10.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History4.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History3.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History2.png
- File:Zazhigin AS History1.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 2.png
- File:Zazhigin AS GP.png
- File:Zazhigin AS 1.png
- File:Zazhigin AS.png
Kobac (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- All of these files related not to the family archive. But all of these related to the article А. С. Зажигин. Zazhigin (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- All of these need to continue of the article creation. These materials will be used within the iterational process of the article writing. Zazhigin (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some materials like File:Zazhigin AS History4.png also has relation with an other article ОКБ Сухого] (section "Искусственное сердце"). Means that this documentary-photo binds two wikipedia articles А. С. Зажигин and ОКБ Сухого]. And it might be reasonable add some notes to both of them. Zazhigin (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strategic idea is to make very good article of А. С. Зажигин with all of these contents. The work is going on and all of these materials are prepared for it. Zazhigin (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the author of these photos and where's a permission from him/her? Kobac (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No categories, therefore useless. Suspect copyvio. People I checked were not notable -- no Google hits. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Virtually all uploads by user:Bacr13
[edit]The following images are all pure fantasy / blatant hoax and have no encyclopedic use. Kokoya does not exist. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)